The inter-party democracy is an essential ingredient for strengthening national democracy. Any weakness in the former inevitably leads to weakness in the latter. There are three key roles that the parties are required to serve. First is mobilizing, i.e., formulating agendas and structuring coalitions around specific social issues; second is campaigning; and third is governance if they assume office.
Parties have two differences that define them, namely organizational differences and agenda-wise differences. Pertaining to the former, they differ first in whether the party leader’s way of making decisions is personalized or bureaucratized. Personalized parties are formed around one charming leader and are often dynastic. Bureaucratized parties are based on merit. Another major organizational difference is related to party structures. While some parties have a structure that is mass based with deep roots in their voting areas, others have haggard structures which limit their abilities to mobilize their voting areas significantly.
In Pakistan, majority of the parties have become either scrawny or stagnant over time and are actually becoming puerile and worse overtime unlike the political parties of the past.
There are two categories that parties can be divided into according to their agendas. One is universalistic and the other is particularistic. Universalistic parties focus on problems that are not confined to a limited number of issues, geography or demographics. On the other hand, particularistic parties focus on a limited number of issues unique to a particular group or area of the country.
Mature parties can be easily identified as they have a bureaucratized system, democratic governance, mass structures and universalistic agendas. However, in South Asia most parties have personalized leadership, dynastic structures and overwhelming focus on patronage. While the political situation in some countries has grown worse over time, some analysts opine that with time and consistency, these parties would become similar to mature parties.
In Pakistan, majority of the parties have become either scrawny or stagnant over time and are actually becoming puerile and worse overtime unlike the political parties of the past. Jinnah’s Muslim League was a lot better than PML-N. The PPP today is an emaciated reflection of the PPP in the 1960s. The MQM has been implicated in crime over time and has lost its old charisma. The PTI has included the very people it rallies against in the party.
Regionally speaking the political situation is bad too. BJP has become increasingly segregated and has been entangled in indecent scandals. The AAP has faded with time and Congress in India today is nothing like Nehru’s Congress. Same is the case with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Hence, it can be boldly claimed that time alone will bring no change.
Major parties of the country reflect the thoughts of the large segments of the society. In developing states there are three kinds of people. The ones who thrive on merit (middle-class), the ones who can never attain merit (poor) and the ones who do not want merit. Those who are corrupt (who do not need merit) trap those who can never get merit while the middle-class is left in dismay.
The pre-freedom parties were of better quality because they were not after power. Their only concern was freedom, and even that they were not certain of attaining. Since traditional politicians look for immediate power and money, they often supported the colonial powers allowing visionaries to lead those parties. Once freedom was attained, traditional politicians came in and pushed the principled politicians out thereby eroding the party quality.
Although, the situation seems bleak there is a silver lining to it as well. Over the last few years, South Asian economies have expanded and so has the middle class. Parties that represent this group are AAP and PTI. But these parties face another set of problems. They face double jeopardy. Their voter base is still not big enough to help them win. If they go after merit, they may face defeat. To prevent this, they adopt traditional politics to come at par with the other parties in the game. They struggle to defeat the traditional parties in their own game and risk losing their middle class voters in the process.
Although, the situation seems bleak there is a silver lining to it as well. Over the last few years, South Asian economies have expanded and so has the middle class.
Such parties and their middle-class supporters also struggle to grasp social complexities. Consequently, when they cannot link with the poor, they fail to deliver their promises and to develop large coalitions. We as a nation must accept the reality that our political parties emerge from our society and reflect its realities. To overcome these weaknesses, there are no shortcuts other than a slow and gradual process of change in the society. And this change is possible only if the democratic system continues to flourish and strengthen in the country.
