Photo: Reuters

Those of us who long to see the emergence of a ‘third force’ could do worse than to observe the election in Pakistan. The election being held has already proven many analysts wrong. The outcome will have profound ramifications, not only for Pakistan but also for its neighbours and for wider geo-politics. The three main contenders, Pakistan Muslim League -N (PLM-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), pose intriguingly different gambits towards international hegemony with the assumption of power.

Before we get into details, I want to highlight some interesting aspects of this campaign. The use of social media, for example, is said to be successful with urban youth; even more important has been the disclosure that it is very hard for a third force to break into in a first-past-the-post, aka ‘winner takes all’, voting system which generally and over time leads to a two-party competition.

The main criticism and also therefore the main obstacle for a new comer ‘third force’ is that established parties can win majorities of seats without winning majorities of votes, leaving a significant number of votes playing no part in determining the outcome. This happens in any election; for example in UK in 2005 Labour took a majority of seats, 57%, with only 36% of the vote; when the largest two parties took 69% of votes and 88% of seats, the smaller Liberal Democrat party took more than a fifth of the votes but only about a tenth of the seats in Parliament (source: wikipedia).

Photo: Reuters

So from the onset an aspiring ‘third force’ will need to weigh up and choose carefully its method of entry. An obvious and historically proven alternative to avoid the election altogether is to build some sort of revolution but this can only be successful if (and it is a big ’if’) there is overwhelming public and administrative backing for the ‘third force’.

Another factor canvassed as the key for the ‘third force’ is voters’ participation, particularly that of young and first time voters. They are most likely to be attracted to an alternative, even a risky option if they are made to believe in the cause. There is more to it though. Voter turnouts have been low in the last three elections in Pakistan – 44.55% in 2008, 41.80% in 2002 and 35.17% in 1997 (source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) – the apathy perhaps could be articulated as people’s inability to see their vote having any effect on the governance of the country.

However, there could be other explanations such as wrong or inconsistent voter lists with duplicate/multiple entries or ‘ghost votes’ which may have lowered participation percentages. If this explains the lower turnouts, then the ‘third force’ may not get as many votes as it may expect. Nonetheless, the aspirant ‘third force’ is hoping to bring out more voters – the young as well as the apathetic – in the hope that they would vote for that ‘third force’.

Photo: Reuters

Still, this would be more likely to impact on urban constituencies.  In rural and remote areas local politics and the strength of long established MPs would make it difficult for a ‘third force’ candidate to unsettle them. Further externalities could also be at play – for example, in rural Sind, a traditional support base of PPP, the impact of the Benazir Income Support Program, Pakistan’s flagship unconditional cash-transfer program for poor females, the first of its kind and named after the assassinated party leader is likely to secure many seats, and it counteracts the possible effects of an increased turn out.

As a result, the ‘third force’ has concentrated its efforts around its leader’s Pushtun-Punjabi heredity in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (previously known as North-West Frontier province) and in urban Punjab, his home base.

Also relevant is that formation, patronage, acceptability or the resonance with citizens of a ‘third force’ could take a (long) while. It did for PTI. Though countries and their politics vary, a potential ‘third force’ has to be able to overcome the intricacies of inherent and wide-ranging issues. This is easier said than done. Taliban insurgencies have apparently have restricted campaign activities, but not those of Mr. Khan, with whom many guess the Taliban has had secret deals. This suspicion stems from the perception of his apparent lenient approach towards Taliban – a promise of negotiation and withdrawal of forces from tribal areas.

Photo: Reuters

In short, there are substantial barriers to the introduction of a credible ‘third force’. So the ‘force’ has to be agile and quick to manipulate any advantage.

Let us see what is being predicted. Two of the parties are well established and have been in power before, but failing to complete their terms, except for the most recent term completed by PPP.  Its reign was marred by shortfalls – a crippled economy, bombs, violence and humiliation, most notably the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbotabad by their supposedly long term and strategic ally.

PPP also suffers from the usual burden of incumbency; above all, it has been hounded by huge corruption allegations against its leader. The judiciary, though accepted as independent, has held a terrible grudge against him and forced PPP to change Prime Ministers for not writing to the Swiss authority to re-open a corruption case against Mr. Zardari, widower of the former party leader. Its election campaign has been almost non- existent. Yet, it is expected to retain a lot of National Assembly (NA) seats in Sind, its stronghold. Many attribute this to lack of alternatives (other parties’ organisational reach is limited in the province), and the welfare benefit scheme named after its late leader Benazir, has been popular in rural areas.

The clear front runner according to almost all news sources is PLM-N of the Sharif brothers, who are predicted to enjoy a clear majority by winning a large number of NA seats in their Punjab, the most populous state, hence also the state with the largest allocation of National Assembly seats, 148 out of a total 272. To form a majority government, parties need to win 137 of them. They apparently showcased their success in providing infrastructure – a metro bus system in Lahore and a freeway to the capital. Hailing from an industrialist business background they also enjoy a ‘pro-business’ tag. They are thought to have a sizeable loyal vote bank. The younger Sharif has also been the Chief Minister of the province, and he is regarded as a successful administrator and reformer. They are wary of the newcomer, who has gained considerable momentum in recent days, and, if at all, is the only one who could stop their gaining power for the third time.

Despite their feigned amiable gestures they have a few issues to settle with the establishment, if returned to power, who it seems has decided to refrain from interfering, at least for now.

The ‘third force’ PTI obviously benefits from not previously being in government; it appears to be drawing support mostly from urban youth, first time voters who it has been able to interest with its belligerent promises – ending the ‘American War’, ‘Corruption’, ‘Education for all’ – and frequent rallies in target areas. It has nominated a large number of new young candidates through an intra-party polling process that has been praised by the local press.

But other players who will hold a crucial balance, such as the Muttahida Quami Movement, with a strong base in Karachi, Balochistan National Party in the aggrieved province, a plethora of nationalist parties in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa and Federally Administered Tribal Areas. It is not an easy country to campaign in by any means with its vast ethnic diversity and traditional regional strongholds which have already cast shadows over the election.

When this is all said, I have not been able to find any analysis of constituency survey data; in other words, the above is mere conjecture. That too is from an individual who has never been to the country and only known it by its cricket teams. It may well prove to be a long shot. Even for the desperately driven ‘third force’.

—————————–
Irfan Chowdhury writes from Canberra, Australia.

Reference:

The electoral information and analysis is sourced from:

1.       http://fiverupees.com/2013/05/08/the-definitive-fiverupees-election-post/

2.       http://kafila.org/2013/05/10/naya-pakistan-an-old-fable-ayesha-siddiqa/

Photo: bdnews24.com

We have been here before, and only recently. The callousness with which we have shrugged off the last incident will help us to forget this one too. Media is abuzz. Stories such as this get their viewership up. The bigger the catastrophe the bigger and prolonged is the coverage, appetising for our comfortable environment at home or abroad to shed some tears, to debate it on social media, to discuss it at dinner tables or even to write an op-ed. For a few days this will grab our leaders’ attention as well that of those elsewhere. Time will pass, negotiators and PR operatives are called in to handle the initial barrage of public sentiment. Incredible and spontaneous human spirit tries its best to help the victims. In the end, though, life goes back to normal until the next catastrophe. And what is normal in our country?

To find a parallel to describe what is going on in the country would be nearly impossible. Even if loss of human lives through violence or manmade disaster shakes some, years of coping and living with tragedy has forced us to accept it graciously.

A classic case of master-slave relationship: Slaves are incessantly victimised by the master. The master of course has at its deposal a very large number of slaves, traded nationally and internationally to create upcoming masters.

This philosophy has been ingrained into our region for centuries and we find it hard to break free from it. Long before the advent of these nouveau riche ‘exporters’ we have a history of enslaving farmers when we shackled them for generations; suppressed and deprived them of basic needs, food and clothes, as they toiled to produce crops for us. Profiteering on their labour, (cheap or at no cost), we have built monuments to our progress.

Photo: bdnews24.com

Ordinary households thrive on it. Servants as we call them make our lives comfortable. They are cheap, available and, importantly, easy to ‘manage’ — highly unlikely to complain about abuse: sexual, physical or financial. Above all they are hassle-free to dismiss. Though they are becoming a little bit harder to find in cities, the supply is adequate for the time being as they have very few options. Servants themselves can swallow everything, but long for a tiny bit of freedom. Thus, working in a factory, enslaved in 12-hour shifts, 30 days a month, gives them some break and a sense of independent living. They may not have sick pay, holidays, parental entitlements or retirement benefits and do not get paid when absent from work, but they can still enjoy a collegial environment and a relatively improved income.

So slavery remains to be the main game, everything — the economy, politics, the law of the land — is hinged on it. How one can exploit slaves better than others decides the status and money one achieves. Hence, the fierce competition to make a buck that we are often compelled to hear from upcoming and emerging masters.

Our $20 billion sector looks to overtake China’s as the world’s largest apparel exporter in coming years, and the masters claim that the majority of them comply with work safety regulations, according to their international and wealthier masters (the buyers). Many accept orders on low prices which lead them to exploit the slaves, forcing them to extract every drop of sweat they can from them, and adherence to work-safety regulations becomes a luxury.

The masters know it well. That is why, lacking basic decency, they trap slaves in their buildings and factories holding their lives, however meagre, as ransom. Why should they bother when they know that there will be no penalty for non-compliance as long as they can keep other masters happy, namely politicians and foreign buyers. After all, the so-called liberated and ethical wealthy foreigners have approached them in the first place to get this dirty job done, which would be too expensive in their own countries.

This is the modern food-chain, not dissimilar to that of colonial powers when slaves could even be whipped, a function sorely missed. So they had to invent new sectors such as this and termed it as ‘trade aid’. The custodians of the food chain are powerful; it has been reported that no less than 25 present MPs have direct stakes in the sector. Imagine the combined power of businessmen and politicians — with such power one could call night as day.

The instinct to inflict despicable trauma on the weak — women, minorities and the poor — creeps on us, just as our now well- lauded economic success and future prospect does. Otherwise how can one explain the social structure that fosters slavery, where the hapless trade their bodies and lives only to experience more pain.

Tragedies largely caused by human cruelty and greed, actions which could be averted, are going to become more frequent and it is hard to see whether the loss of more lives can stop this flourishing and corrupt system.

—————————–
Irfan Chowdhury writes from Canberra, Australia.