During the early days of the PPP rule, President Zardari frequently referred to the new elected government as 'my democracy'. The use of the possessive pronoun rankled civilised sensibilities but it was ignored as an inadvertent mistake, attributable to his lack of familiarity with political lexicon. It turns out he actually meant what he said.
We may have an elected government, but it derives its sustenance from a hereditary right. Asif Ali Zardari as PPP co-chairman - a position he did not earn but came into as Benazir Bhutto's widower - makes all vital decisions whether they pertain to the affairs of governance or of the PPP. He has appointed his personal friends to top positions as ministers, advisers, Speaker and Chairman of the two houses of Parliament. It is he, not the party, who chooses prime ministerial candidates. And, of course, assigning people important party positions is the co-Chairman's sole prerogative. Public or party service matters little; most of the PPP's old loyalists have been sidelined. Several have been expelled from its Central Committee, even deprived of basic membership as punishment for expressing dissenting opinion. Although, as per the Constitution, Zardari is ceremonial head of the state, above the fray of party politics, and executive power resides in the prime minister's office, it is he alone who exercises both the functions of party head and chief executive.
At his behest, the executive and the Parliament are on a collision course with the third pillar of the state, the judiciary, to save millions he is alleged to have acquired in illegal kickbacks during a previous PPP stint, stashing them away in Swiss banks. One prime minister, handpicked by him, has faced disqualification for defying the Supreme Court orders regarding the case while the other, chosen on the touchstone of personal allegiance, is expected to deliver on just one account: successful evasion of the court orders to write a letter to the Swiss authorities requesting revival of the money laundering case. If that undermines the entire political edifice, so be it. For all practical purposes, we are under one-man rule.
To be fair to President Zardari, his may be an extreme case, but the issue is not peculiar to him, or the PPP. Benazir, who bequeathed the party leadership to him in a will, exercised power more or less in a similar fashion though she had better credentials as a politician; and those she appointed as ministers and to other government or party positions possessed adequate qualifications. Having inherited the mantle of leadership from her father, Benazir Bhutto kept a tight grip on the party. When a challenge to her leadership came from within the Bhutto dynasty she countered it without mercy. Her mother Nusrat Bhutto had wanted to bring in her son Murtaza Bhutto, who Benazir sensed could throw a leadership challenge her way at some point. In a modern-day replay of the Mughal dynasty's succession wars, she wasted no time to orchestrate the dismissal of Nusrat Bhutto as the party chairperson and getting herself elected as life chairperson!
The PML-N is another big family fiefdom. Between them the two Sharif brothers, for over two decades, have been occupying top government positions when in power, and control of the party affairs at all times. The next generation has also entered the field like royal heirs, assuming important political positions. Politicians with decades of public service on their resumes are expected to defer to a son and a daughter of the senior Sharif brothers.
The malaise in fact is rampant in almost all South Asian countries. The story of Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khalida Zia in Bangladesh and the two Bandaranaike women in Sri Lanka is not very different. In India Sonia Gandhi, who had zero political experience to her credit, almost became prime minister, inheriting the Congress Party leadership from her slain husband Rajiv Gandhi, a scion of the Nehru dynasty. She had to step back after the opposition raised objections to her foreign origins, but continues to head the country's oldest political party as her son Rahul Gandhi gets groomed to be the prime minister if and when the party wins the next general election. India is a bit dissimilar, however, in that the main opposition party, the BJP, an ideological outfit, regularly elects its party chief who is a person other than its parliamentary party leader. None of these are model democracies.
In mature democracies such as the Westminster system, along which ours is modelled, politicians win party leadership through elections, and stay there for a limited time period. In the case of the Conservative party, MPs act as the electoral college while the Labour follows an element of one member one vote. The winners go on to lead their respective parties in general elections and to become prime ministers. With the end of a prime ministerial term comes the end of an incumbent's political careers as well. She/he may quit even earlier. For instance, Tony Blair, who led the Labour Party to its first landslide general election victory for 23 years in 1997 with his 'New Labour' centrist policy, went on to be the only leader of the party to deliver three consecutive wins. Yet two years into the third term, facing leadership challenge, he resigned letting Gordon Brown win Labour leadership election and take over as the next prime minister.
Likewise, in the US presidential form of government Democratic and Republican candidates for the top job go through a gruelling and lengthy process to win party nominations. After serving one or two terms, they move on to retire or pursue other interests. Hence, two parties may be alternating in power in those democracies, a process of renewal continues. New leaders take over from the old ones, offering fresh vision to resolve issues old and new.
What we have, needless to say, is a democracy in form only. Political dynasties claim respect and the right to rule on the basis of success in general elections, yet they refuse to hold elections within their own parties. They don't care much for democratic values. An under-age and unelected PPP Chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari(the middle name an afterthought to claim political inheritance), has been publicly ordering an elected prime minister what he must or must not do. As an heir apparent, he has also been shaking a finger at the superior judiciary.
Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf is in the process of setting a good example by holding elections to all party positions. The old parties, of course, are going to continue to refuse fulfilling this basic democratic requirement. The PTI is expected to perform well at the upcoming elections. Even if it has a small presence in the next Parliament, it can do a great good by demanding support for legislation that binds political parties to holding regular in-house elections. The civil society, too, has a responsibility to press for the same so that we have a truly representative democracy.saida_fazal@yahoo.com