Illusion of Change: The Reality Behind Pakistani Elections

The 2024 Pakistani general elections are approaching amidst a highly charged political atmosphere. There have been concerns about the fairness and transparency of the election process. Historically, Pakistani elections have faced allegations of manipulation, interference and corruption by powerful entities, including the military. This year, similar concerns persist, with accusations of ‘election engineering’ rather than direct rigging, suggesting pre-poll manipulations rather than tampering on the day of voting itself.

The political landscape is marked by key developments and controversies. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has rejected the nomination of former Prime Minister Imran Khan due to his conviction in a corruption case, a decision that also affected other members of his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Khan, who remains a highly popular figure, has alleged that the military and the U.S. government conspired against his administration.

On the other hand, Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has unveiled its election manifesto focusing on economic reforms, a message of peace to India, and addressing the country’s staggering debt levels. Similarly, PTI has revealed its manifesto, emphasizing education reform and skill-based education, along with a commitment to an independent foreign policy.

Pakistan is currently grappling with a host of challenges that span across various aspects of life. These difficulties encompass social, economic, and structural issues within the state’s framework. The country is navigating through a critical phase where its social fabric, economic stability, and the very functioning of its state institutions are under significant strain. This multifaceted crisis is impacting all levels of Pakistani society, from individual citizens to the broader governance systems, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive and effective solutions.

The current federal structure, established within boundaries defined by the United Nations, appears to be ineffective in fostering unity among the diverse populations. The federation is once again dealing with insurgencies in several of its units, a recurring issue that previously led to the loss of half the country. There’s a growing belief that an alternative system, one that offers a more inclusive and regionally focused framework, might improve the situation. In Balochistan, for example, there is a prevailing concern among the locals about becoming a minority in their own land. The principle of majority rule leaves the Balochi population, numbering around 10 million, vulnerable against a much larger population of 120 million, raising questions about the protection of their rights. An alternative system could potentially offer a fair and neutral mechanism for resolving disputes, not only within the diverse communities of Pakistan but also extending to the broader Muslim world.

The past two years have served as a stark illustration of the challenges inherent in the balance of power concept within a state. Initially, the suspension of state functions was triggered by ongoing conflicts between the ruling party and the opposition. This was further compounded by a struggle for control over the top position in the armed forces. The situation escalated with power struggles within the judiciary, reaching a critical point. The root of these issues can be traced back to the contention over the appointment of the head of Pakistan’s armed forces intelligence, the ISI. This pattern of political and institutional turmoil seems to recur every decade in Pakistan’s 75-year history. Despite a general consensus that internal division weakens a nation’s ability to face external threats, the concept of balancing power continues to be a favored approach among the ruling elite, who are heavily influenced by Western ideals.

The devolution of power from the federal level to provincial and then local governments has proven to be a problematic approach. This distribution of power, resources, and responsibilities has often led to chaos and inefficiency. Each political entity, vying for maximum authority and resources, tends to shirk its responsibilities, leaving critical issues unaddressed. As a result, even routine tasks become contentious issues. The impact of this disarray is significantly amplified during natural disasters, exacerbating the suffering of the populace. For instance, the handling of floods in Sindh and Balochistan, as well as basic urban management tasks like garbage collection and street repairs in cities like Karachi and Peshawar, have turned into a bureaucratic tennis match. Responsibility is constantly passed between federal, provincial, and city governments, with each level of administration blaming the others, and none taking decisive action to resolve the problems.

Pakistan has found itself begging the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance 23 times, a testament to its recurring economic challenges. The country grapples with crippling inflation that has severely impacted the lives of its citizens. The cost of energy has escalated to unaffordable levels, healthcare is increasingly out of reach, and education is being deprioritized in the struggle for survival. The adoption of neoliberal economic policies has led to a paradoxical situation where a nation with nuclear capabilities is seemingly brought to its knees, compelled to act as a subordinate in the global arena. The strategies recommended by the IMF, often referred to as the post-Washington Consensus, have perpetuated a cycle of dependency and control by the West. These strategies include privatizing capital-intensive industries, tolerating corruption in the social sector, liberalizing markets, focusing on export-driven growth, maintaining fiat currencies through interest rates, implementing arbitrary and often regressive taxation systems, privatizing energy and supply chains, and engaging in interest-based financial activities. Such measures have only deepened Pakistan’s reliance on and subordination to Western hegemonic powers.

Pakistan’s progress is hindered by numerous challenges, many of which stem from external influences and conditions. The country’s political process, including its elections, is often perceived as a choice between different forms of governance that do not fundamentally alter the status quo. This situation is akin to choosing between different overseers, rather than genuinely freeing the nation from external constraints and internal issues. In essence, without confronting and resolving these deeply embedded systemic issues, Pakistan’s path to true autonomy and progress remains obstructed.

Written by Rizwan Abu Huthaifa