Personalization of Pakistani Politics

Pakistan, since its inception, has seen numerous spells of military regimes followed by unstable and short-lived civilian governments. Experts have written and discussed the issues of Pakistan at length and breadth. Findings of the global watchdogs and Pakistani think tanks have also inked their proposals to get Pakistan out of the current quagmire. Their researches underscore the factors of dynastic politics, deep-seated polarization, and interference of non-parliamentary forces as major stumbling blocks toward a stable Pakistan. These are mere symptoms which require real diagnosis.

For that matter, what they have missed is the societal attitude and democratic character of the citizens which have the potential to radically change the political environment from a personalization of politics to a policy-centric Pakistan. By now, it has been discussed that political figures influence society and create deep divisions. However, this article attempts to debunk this notion, which is quite missing in the existing discourse on the subject of Pakistan’s politics and its woes.

Policy matters are neither discussed nor debated in the parliament nor public. Political actors in Pakistan are divided by ideologies, policy rhetoric, and narratives but they are agreed in maligning their opponents.

Unfortunately, the Pakistani public lacks democratic character and vigilance which are hallmarks of healthy democracies. The absence of policy debate in societal spaces leads to the abatement of positive discussion not only in society but also in the parliament. In other words, our representatives and their conduct reflect our societal attitudes. These traits profoundly decide whether Pakistani politics is driven by individuals or policies. A sound democratic populace can change the political course, keeping greater public interests at the core.

Politics without Ethics is a Disaster

A great highlight of Pakistan’s politics is that it has always been person-centric. Social media timelines, electronic media headlines, newspapers, public spaces, and even the parliament are overwhelmingly involved in myopic discourses, for instance, character assassination and misogyny. Policy matters are neither discussed nor debated in the parliament nor public. Political actors in Pakistan are divided by ideologies, policy rhetoric, and narratives but they are agreed in maligning their opponents.
Politics works just like the supply-demand principle. When society only cherishes bullying others, defaming their adversaries and even using public spaces for political victimization, ultimately lures the public sentiments. Contrarily, if society is literate, taking things critically, and vigilantly involved in policy-making, the political environment will effectively change in a positive direction.

A democratic character simply entails that citizens’ decisions and public opinion should be driven by the policy conduct of their leaders where voters could influence them rather than praising their non-democratic orientations. However, Pakistani political culture is tainted with streaks of authoritarianism.

In the developed world, people differ in policy initiatives. For instance, in the United States of America and Europe, the question of migrants, inflation, cost of living, and other public interests remains the pivot of social discourse rather, than involving in individuals. Public elect their representatives, by considering their visions and objectives. On the contrary, in Pakistan, polarization prevails based on the liking and disliking of the personalities. The public only praises their leadership, without deeming the country’s progress and vision.

People enjoy it when their opponents are defamed. They feel that their leader is stoic and stands up to pressure from other political parties and power corridors. The absence of policy discussion in societal spaces leads to the absence of policy discussions in parliaments and other key institutions. Therefore, elected members are indifferent to issues because society is not mature enough, democratically, and unable to pressure the government with their opinions and attitudes.

The Pakistani public is politically active without understanding democratic ideals. A democratic character simply entails that citizens’ decisions and public opinion should be driven by the policy conduct of their leaders where voters could influence them rather than praising their non-democratic orientations. However, Pakistani political culture is tainted with streaks of authoritarianism. They blindly follow their leader, leaving aside the country’s woes. Therefore, the conduct of parliament reflects the societal attitudes of Pakistan.

If Pakistan’s society embraced a true democratic ethos, non-democratic forces would have no space to infiltrate politics. A society grounded in democratic values acts as a safeguard, holding the government accountable and influencing the nation’s direction.

Pakistan has seen numerous politicians and not statesmen like Lee Kuan Yew who made his nation from scratch, because of the prevalence of non-democratic masses. Unfortunately, Pakistan is facing a slew of problems covering all aspects of common life but the parliament is actively involved in witch-hunting. In addition to this, Pakistani youth have been distracted from the real problems, because of the exacerbating social disillusionment and the lack of critical thinking. If the society starts discussing policies and stresses their elected leaders to deliver on promises, the whole environment and attitude of politicians will change, drastically.

People must remain vigilant in holding institutions accountable. The quality of discussions on social media reflects the Pakistani public’s lack of maturity when it comes to influencing the government. If society collectively addresses problems and rallies around them, politicians will be forced to engage in policy-making to win public support. They will distance themselves from divisive name-calling, recognizing that such behavior is disapproved by society. While it is true that politicians contribute to societal divisions, the attitude of society itself also plays a role in shaping political behavior.

Furthermore, the ongoing interference of non-democratic forces in Pakistan can be attributed to the fact that the societal structure is not fully democratic. Certain segments of society believe that politicians prioritize their interests, while the military is perceived as the real savior. If Pakistan’s society embraced a true democratic ethos, non-democratic forces would have no space to infiltrate politics. A society grounded in democratic values acts as a safeguard, holding the government accountable and influencing the nation’s direction. The reason Pakistan remains trapped in a politician-centric environment is that, despite being aware of its challenges, its citizens lack the democratic character necessary to hold their leaders accountable for their policies.

Way Forward

The government must prioritize meaningful policy discussions and abandon unnecessary rhetoric in parliament, as this benefits no one. The real need of the hour is to craft policies that address Pakistan’s issues and win public approval through substantive solutions rather than through name-calling. A country that fails to engage in policy discussions cannot formulate effective solutions to its problems, as the policy-making process begins with problem identification, followed by healthy debate grounded in public opinion.

On the other hand, the public must engage in thoughtful policy discussions and cultivate a true democratic spirit to influence the nation’s trajectory. In societies with strong democratic foundations, parliaments and politicians remain focused on policy matters, and both the media and the public condemn undemocratic actions. For Pakistan to see this shift, its society must improve the quality of political discourse to influence the behavior of its leaders.

Encouraging the study of political science or civic education in the curriculum is essential to fostering a democratic mindset. Additionally, educational institutions should introduce model parliaments to instill an understanding of the importance of constructive discussions in the country’s most significant institution. This will help the public evaluate whether their parliament members are engaged in meaningful debates or mere verbal attacks. When societal thinking aligns with the actions of politicians in power, all other issues Pakistan is facing will gradually be addressed. This will occur when citizens start holding their elected officials accountable for their actions with diligence and seriousness.