Pakistan’s fragile democratic process has delivered yet another varied and tumultuous result. A hung parliament has confounded pollsters and generals alike, setting the scene for some familiar skullduggery ahead. The expectation is that a coalition might be stitched between the Nawaz Sharif-led PML-N and the Bhutto-Zardari-led PPP under the watchful eye of the military. Yet, with neither party being the largest in parliament, whether this outcome genuinely reflects popular aspirations remains to be seen. What is certain though is that stability in Pakistan is of profound importance, not just domestically but beyond its shores.
A few immediate trends can be discerned from the verdict. First, the results do not point to any surge for PML-N across the electorate. Supporters had hoped that Nawaz Sharif’s homecoming after several years in exile would galvanise the public. But a tally of approximately 75 seats out of 265 is hardly convincing. The party did well in its traditional sphere of influence in Punjab but it wasn’t as dominant as before. It fared poorly in Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Nawaz Sharif’s claim of economic competence failed to persuade the voters. He stood in two constituencies with mixed results — he won from Lahore but embarrassingly lost in Mansehra to a PTI-backed candidate. That’s not a headline the party wants to trumpet. The overall impression remains of a party rooted in its Punjabi heritage, struggling to create a pan-Pakistan identity.
As for the Bhutto-Zardari-led PPP, the results were abysmal. The party languished with around 54 seats. It is a desultory outcome for a party once seen as the natural party of civilian governance in Pakistan. The PPP has continued to retain sway in Sindh but its appeal has diminished in other parts of the country. In a country that has a huge population of young people — about 44 per cent of the electorate is under 35 — Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has failed to win over the youth. He underscored his own lack of confidence by standing in three constituencies, losing ignominiously in Lahore (NA-127 seat) where he came third. The underlying message from voters is that age-old tropes recalling the glory days of the PPP do not work anymore. Voters care more about the future than the past.
The absurdist nature of Pakistani politics was laid threadbare in an outcome where the largest party in the election was not even formally recognised as a party on the ballot; where the largest block of winners were independent candidates who everyone knew were not independent at all. The result marks a triumph against the odds for Imran Khan’s PTI, which has emerged as the largest block with just under 100 seats. Supporters have asserted that but for perceived electoral malfeasance, the figure would be much higher. Those claims are unproven but what is certain is that Imran Khan remains the most popular politician in Pakistan. The establishment — read, the army — may have tried its best to sideline Imran Khan’s PTI, but the “cornered tiger” has fought back spectacularly.
What lies ahead then? The expectation is that the army will revert to its traditional role in “guiding” politicians towards stability by encouraging a PML-N and PPP coalition of sorts. History tells us this is par for the course in Islamabad. The aphorism goes that in most countries, the state has an army; in Pakistan, the army has a state. But it seems unclear if an unwieldy coalition of PML-N, PPP and a cohort of religious ideologues can harmoniously survive the long term. As the Sharif and Bhutto families return to their traditional roles at the high table, the PTI’s role in the landscape should not be discounted. The army too must be wary because it seems to be leaning against public opinion which favours the PTI. Forecasters should price-in some uncertainty.
In the long run, key structural challenges remain. First, there has been a history of populism in Pakistan that hasn’t been accompanied by a grown-up economic discourse. From the days of Zulfikar Bhutto’s “Islamic socialism” to Imran Khan’s recent welfare schemes, economic measures have inevitably been funded by borrowing. Prudent fiscal management and economic liberalism has seldom factored in public discourse. But it is the key to attracting investment and unlocking growth. The macroeconomic indicators are uneasy. Inflation is currently around 30 per cent and unemployment is running high. That will come to a head as an IMF bail-out approaches maturity this year. It will be a huge test for any incoming government.
Second, in a nation as diverse as Pakistan with varied cultural, social and religious traditions, successive governments have struggled to articulate a coherent organising vision which amounts to more than blatant jingoism. This is a challenge shared across the subcontinent. But the goal remains to prioritise social development and economic self-interest above all other ideological concerns. Third, the elephant in the room is India. There is a rational case for de-escalating tension with India by speaking the language of commerce and diplomacy. In the past, the Pakistan army hasn’t been overly supportive of such an overture but a desperate economic situation might lead it towards this course.
The path ahead is unlikely to be straightforward. In a society bedevilled by religious-military-feudal settlements, reforms will seldom follow a straight-line path. But the hope remains that public sentiment from within will prompt changes. If Pakistan is to realise its potential, then it must approach the future with an open mind and allow civilian governance to flourish, leaving aside the military weight of the past. Only then will the familiar chorus of “Dil Dil Pakistan” lead to redemption.
The writer is a London-based lawyer and political commentator
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
visit website
