Dichotomy in Electioneering: A Pakistani Perspective
Guest blog by temporal who blogs at Baithak
The blurb informs us that Mariam Mufti is currently working on her doctoral dissertation on the party system of Pakistan at Johns Hopkins University. In the News today she offers these views and definitions:
To resolve the debate on whether or not strong political parties are essential for democracy, we need to understand what political parties are their objectives, their organisation, and what they do.
Let’s define democracy in the Dahlian tradition as an apolitical system in which important government posts are decided through fair, competitive elections held on a regular schedule, freedoms of association and speech are protected and franchise is extended to all adult citizens. In such a political system, political parties may function as fundamental conduits of political life as major agents of representation and institutions that order legislative life.
Edmund Burke defines a political party as “…a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed”.There is nothing in this definition that suggests that political parties are inherently democratic or must function in a way that leads to democratic ends. In fact if the world is not ordered around the notion of some public good but around the inevitability of conflicting interests, then parties promote interests that are partial or extremist and have very little to do with the positive outcome of protection of citizen rights, much less democracy
Is this not a dichotomy? This debate is valid and necessary because many of us (including this writer) have been outspoken in their criticism of the lack of democratic traditions (read free and fair and transparent elections) within the political parties.
Look at the major players. PPP – the family heirloom. PML (N) – N says it all! MQM – No sir, let’s not even venture where angels do not tread. Jamaat? It is a fringe Barlevi group where rivals and Shias are screened – besides, doubt if they are a major player.
Why must “do as I say, don’t do as I do” be permitted in the political arena? Why must the public and the voters not demand transparency in the parties that hope to lead them?
Since Pakistan is, till going to press, a third word country, I would make the following suggestions:
- Election participation in Pakistan should be open only to a registered political party.
- Any political party with a base membership of say 20,000 paid members can apply for registration with the Election Commission of Pakistan.
- To be registered, the political parties must file audited financial statements, just like business corporations do, must submit a list of paid members in good standing, and must conduct free, fair and transparent elections of its offices every year. Failure to abide by these would result in their decertification.
And while we are talking about Election Commission here is another suggestion.
It should disallow a contestant to stand in elections from more than one constituency. I don’t know how this crept in. Another way to curb this would be for the EC to allow this practice but tell them that since by lawthey can only retain one seat, the vacating seat would automatically be awarded to the runner up. This will have the intended result.
Comment Meta: Leave a comment | Subscribe to the Comment Feed | Upload your Comment Image
