The decline of democratic legitimacy
IN Pakistan, the process of state building and nation building has been a complex endeavor, closely intertwined with societal developments. Following the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, the lack of established state institutions and infrastructure made the adoption of British legacy a challenging and unstable political process. The power dynamics primarily revolved around subordinate classes supporting the rule of landlords. As Pakistan evolved beyond its nascent stage, a significant shift occurred in the political landscape during the 1960s. This period witnessed the replacement of class-based (revolutionary) politics with authoritarianism, influenced by capital influx and urbanization.
The 1970s saw the emergence of industrial workers, student unions and middle-class socialist ideologies. However, class politics was short-lived, yielding to Antonio Gramsci’s commonsense politics in the 1980s which aimed to incorporate the lower classes of society as stakeholders. To counter the industrial class struggle of the 1960s, General Zia-ul-Haq integrated political-religious parties into the power structure by fostering the street mosque culture. In the four decades following Zia’s era, Pakistani politics witnessed a blend of patronage and intellectual politics between the PML-N and PPP. Recently, the political landscape has shifted once again as the marginalized and educated segments of society appear to be swayed by anti-American and anti-establishment rhetoric. Such sloganeering has rejuvenated Imran Khan’s popularity after a decline in April 2022, marking the end of his nearly four-year rule.
However, the public resentment primarily stems from the return of the previous government, accused of corruption and nepotism, rather than a dismissal of the PTI. The PTI leadership skilfully capitalizes on this resentment despite their limited understanding of the geopolitical, geostrategic and geo-economics realities of the contemporary international system. Their vision of a utopian world remains disconnected from the actual circumstances. Presently, Khan’s popularity is soaring due to PTI’s ongoing confrontations with state institutions, including the establishment. However, this leadership strategy presents significant challenges in the domains of foreign policy and security. I have encountered numerous individuals who express their hopes and aspirations for a genuine independence movement, which they view as a turning point for Pakistan.
Even an impartial observer can discern the political manoeuvring employed to bring the PTI to power in 2018. The PTI government enjoyed unprecedented support from the establishment throughout its more than three-and-a-half years in power, leading to the title of “Ladla” (favorite). However, staunch supporters of the PTI became disillusioned with the party’s poor performance, ambiguous decision-making and government inefficiency, causing a decline in its popularity. Nonetheless, the PTI’s resurgence was facilitated by the comeback of the PDM (Pakistan Democratic Movement). The core of Pakistan’s political structure is shifting from a focus on electoral politics to one rooted in fundamentalism which inherently breeds instability. Encouraging the youth and the general public to turn against state institutions, institutional leaders and the centre of power can have disastrous consequences for the country.
The PTI leadership’s persistent attacks on state institutions, particularly the establishment and their derogatory comments have compelled me to reflect on history and recall the aftermath of World War-I in Germany under Adolf Hitler. The transition from democracy to authoritarianism in Germany occurred amidst political instability and economic depression. In Hitler, the people saw a charismatic figure who they believed would rescue and restore their nation. From the Hitler side, an important factor in state affairs comes to mind the mentality of leaders. The transformation of leaders’ mindsets serves as the primary driving force behind a political party which subsequently shapes the trajectory of the State. Populism or populist leadership remains a contentious concept lacking a precise definition. According to Robert R. Barr, some leaders exploit political instability by employing anti-establishment rhetoric.
Weberian analytical tools are utilized to examine leadership and its various styles. In the Weberian context, a populist leader garners public support through anti-establishment rhetoric, commonly known as ‘grievance politics.’ This approach involves the dissemination of misinformation to expedite the resolution of problems despite the hindrances posed by exploitation and resentment. Weber focuses on charismatic leaders and their radical mindset characterized by traits such as narcissism, nepotism, demagoguery and unpredictability. According to Weber, these aspects strengthen the movement, but simultaneously weaken its organizational effectiveness. Populist leaders possess charismatic qualities, make grandiose promises, employ effective propaganda methods and consequently undermine the established political system. However, their actions often contradict the political and economic development of a nation. Such leaders and movements not only weaken the political system but also undermine other state institutions and the rule of law.
Bhutto’s overt opposition to Ayub Khan and his inclination towards class politics swiftly garnered immense popularity among the people. He possessed an absolutist mentality and harboured a desire for absolute power, which became problematic. This pursuit of absolute power led to an uncompromising situation, triggering a power-sharing crisis and eventually culminating in a war of independence in the eastern wing. Given the evolving paradigms, it becomes crucial to question where the self-proclaimed dictatorial mentality of PTI is leading the nation and the state. Although PTI gained popular support for its anti-American and anti-establishment stance, it remains uncertain whether this strategy will yield dividends for the long-term interests of the state and society.
History attests that totalitarian power not only breeds corruption but also leads to destruction. Adolf Hitler transformed Germany from a democratic system into a dictatorship, subsequently plunging the nation into a devastating war with catastrophic consequences. PTI’s shift towards fundamentalist politics entails direct confrontation with state institutions, including defamatory campaigns against high-ranking officials and institutional heads. Our political leaders bear a tremendous responsibility to foster a political environment based on the principles of rationality rather than promoting hatred, vandalism and fundamentalism.
Radicalizing an already marginalized and unemployed youth will inevitably tear apart the fabric of our society. Pakistan can only emerge as a robust state and nation once the socio-cultural trends of intolerance, nepotism, extremist ideologies and violence, which have distorted the national fabric, are eradicated. To build a nation, we must prioritize elements such as tolerance, enlightenment, coexistence, critical thinking skills, inclusivity and respect for opposing ideologies. These values must be instilled in future generations of Pakistan, shaping the foundation of the State.
—The writer, a PhD scholar, is associated with Islamia University Bahawalpur.
Email: akramzaheer86@yahoo.com
