Cover Story 
 

Cover Story

Political Perspectives

Although freedom is more likely to flourish with multiple parties, the measure of democracy is not the number of parties but the degree of recognition of individual rights.

By Sirajuddin Aziz | November 2021


Feudalism was not meant to be a political system, yet always through history, it had a political context or, in the least, a connotation. The feudal system hinges on a lethal combination of legal, economic, military and cultural systems and has flourished from Japan to Europe, over centuries. It is exploitative because the landowner demands in exchange, labour and services, from the landless. In his book, Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith referred to what he called ‘feudal government’, as an economic system. In actuality the decentralization of an empire inspires feudalism. The sub-continent, during the Mughal era, in particular, was a perfect case in point. They (rulers of Delhi) handed over large estates to submissive rajas, maharajas, nawabs, etc., they lorded over the masses and the peasantry. It is another matter that such craving for administrative purposes diluted the powers of Delhi’s rulers.

Feudal society is from the lowliest of the low, to the wealthiest of the filthiest order, of the economic strata. The powerful distinct social groups acquire prominence through the perpetuation of exploitation of labour and the peasants. A feudal society comprises the nobility (read all the ignoble), the clergy (read the religious opportunists) and the peasants (read the hapless). This is not about Pakistan -- it is a broad definition of feudalistic society. But the existing system’s similarities with our politicians’ feudal outlook are striking.

Capitalist society or capitalism as an economic system is a trivial refinement over the feudal system, where the relationship of social contract is established between powerful entrepreneurship and the working class, cum labour. There is free enterprise, but there are only fetters for the working class.

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance (H.L . Mencken). Upon gaining independence, both Pakistan and India thought it proper to pursue the Westminister model of parliamentary democracy. In doing so, at least Pakistani politicians failed to see if its contours suited the local situation. Shashi Tharoor. in his book, ‘An Era of Darkness’ is describes the British parliamentary system in the following words: “I am far from convinced that the British system is suited for India. The parliamentary democracy we have adopted involves the British perversity of electing legislature to form an executive: this has created a breed of legislators, largely unqualified to legislate, who have sought election only in order to wield (or influence) executive power…. It has distorted the voting preference of an electorate that knows which individual it wants but not necessarily which policies”.

This is so true for Pakistan, as well. Many disputed elections indicate that, possibly it is insanity that drives people to vote.

In our context, self-interest of politicians is projected as contest of values and principles. People have to learn that a good politician and an honest dacoit can never make an acceptable equation. Most politicians, regrettably, agree with Frank Mcnally’s views, that if the politician wishes to succeed in politics, he/she must keep the conscience under control. Somewhere it is said that a politician is one who lays down his life for his country. Theadore Roosevelt, I am certain had no idea of our parliamentary setup when he remarked, “when they call the roll in Senate, the senators do not know whether to answer, “Present” or “Not Guilty”. Unfortunately the poor (uneducated mostly) electorate has to choose between candidates to know which of them would do the least harm. Political systems developed over centuries have been many. The political party system is based on the adult franchise that exercises its right to vote for a person / party, of his/ her choice, with free will and no coercion.


Under the political party system, we have the Indian and Chinese examples of a single dominant party, with some differences. India at least for the first 30-40 years, following Independence, had the Indian National Congress as the dominant party, within a multi-party system; China on the other hand, has a single and only dominant party. The Chinese cannot form any other political party. Membership to the Communist party is limited as not all 1.4 billion Chinese are members of the party.

Against the single party system is the two party system. These two are powerful political parties. The best example is that of the Democrats and Republicans in the USA and the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK. In both scenarios, one of the two parties see-saw themselves to power, of course through electoral ballot.

The other and possibly the most common political party system is the “Multi-Party” political environment. Here there are several parties, equally or even not equally placed, vis-a-vis, popularity. The party that gets the majority of seats is entitled to form the government; and if no single party emerges with a majority, the political process and engineering for ‘coalition’ sets in. Many times, coalition governments are held together by only a few votes. Under such circumstances, the government becomes indecisive, incoherent and significantly unable to legislate. The legislature fails to frame policies and is easily immobilized. Only Switzerland is a classic example of a successful multi-party system - all the big four political parties, through an act of the parliament, share power.

Added to these systems are the parties, whose playing field is in the realm of religious ideology - and usually a single party is dominant.

India was extremely lucky to have Jawaharlal Nehru at the helm for a good seventeen years in the beginning. The Indian National Congress adopted without resistance Nehruvian Socialism. He was the architect of undoing the Rajas, Maharajas, Princes, Nawanbs, etc. Vallabhbhai Patel wiped out the feudal structure at the grassroot level. The action was so swift that feudalism does not even have any remnants in India today. Pakistan was unfortunate - it had only politicians who were large landowners. They kept the feudal structure intact.

In India, the Congress did not splinter into groups, at least until Nehru and his close associates lasted. Unlike India, we witnessed political instability once Mother Nature removed firstly, Jinnah and secondly when Liaquat Ali Khan was taken out by an assassin. The roller-coaster ride continues since then.…. we have experimented with all possible formats of government and governance, ranging from totalitarianism to autocratic; from basic democracy to polluted democracy; and from partyless elections to an army load of parties, participating in the milieu of elections, farce or real.

The Muslim League was orphaned in 1951 and every orphanage-keeper that promised to keep it safe, abused it to the fullest. It broke up and over the years splintered into various factions, from Muslim League to PML- N and PML-J, PML-Z and of course PML-Q . We seem to be running out of English alphabets for adding new suffixes. Most of these off-shoots of Muslim League were fathered outside the realm of politics or the proletariat. Political parties, in our context, die due to overeating of the spaghetti of lies they cook. We have witnessed on the parliament floor brawls, both verbal and physical. The legislators bring to the table a truckload of inadequacies of speech, choice of words, articulation and, above all, grace and decency in conservation.

Given our cultural and traditional orientation, my personal view is that what may suit us best is a directly elected president from amongst the people, who should have a cabinet of his choice (not electables!). This system must exist for a minimum of thirty years; and it can last, with frequent elections.

Regardless of what systems any country chooses to adopt, it is significant, to keep in perspective, firstly the level of education and its quality; and secondly how the politicians define themselves, dishonest or honest. A combination of both these elements needs to be evaluated before concluding, what type and how many political parties should exist in any given political system.

Read More