What is on offer on the economic front?

The manifestoes of the two major parties namely the PML (N) and the PPP have been released amidst much fanfare. One question uppermost in the minds of analysts is: given that the national and provincial governments were allowed to complete their tenure would 2013 voting patterns reflect performance as opposed to exhibiting historical patterns that allowed political parties to present unrealistic manifestos in the past?

Previous to the 2008-13 PPP-led coalition government the only other civilian head of government allowed to complete one term was Z A Bhutto. His newly created party, the PPP, won an overwhelming majority in West Pakistan, with Sheikh Mujibur Rehman the overwhelming winner in East Pakistan which should have led to Sheikh Mujib forming the government in the centre. That events did not follow the dictates of majority rule accounted for Bangladesh declaring its independence from Pakistan and the emergence of Z A Bhutto as the country’s first elected Prime Minister. By the end of his first term in office Bhutto’s performance on the economic front had lost him quite a few constituencies. And history books are generally supportive of the claim that Bhutto won an overall majority in the 1977 elections but the victory was a far cry from his success his party achieved in the 1970 election. There were widespread charges of poll irregularities and depending on one’s political affiliations the opinion is markedly divergent with Bhutto supporters/inheritors claiming that his margin of victory was accurately reflected by the election results while his antagonists focus on widespread rigging.

The establishment’s role pre-election in the 1970s was limited to cobbling a joint opposition to the PPP through the illegal use of taxpayers’ money and post election in using rigging charges as an excuse to topple the popular PPP leader. Be that as it may the 1970 election results proved conclusively that relative unknowns in the political arena could win elections in Pakistan with a charismatic leader at the helm. In addition, Z A Bhutto also proved that a slogan, however unrealistic, can play a deciding role in elections. In this context it is relevant to note that the Bhuttos, father and daughter, were never supported by the establishment, with some PPP stalwarts abandoning ship when the chips were down – a fact that appears to be no longer relevant, or so analysts claim. The party members most likely to abandon ship during a military dictatorship belonged to the PML though PML (N) politicians argue that this has changed post-Musharraf. Or in other words the establishment appears to be more supportive of the Zardari-led PPP relative to the Nawaz Sharif-led PML(N).

The first lesson learned from the first ever government that completed its tenure was that a charismatic and popular leader can bring about change irrespective of who he gives a ticket to. The only major party whose leader has consistently rated lower than the party in popularity is President Zardari-led PPP. This may well account for the perception that Bilawal Bhutto must head the campaign in the 2013 elections if the party is to have a fighting chance even though he has yet to reach an age where he would qualify to participate in elections. However, at this stage there are no polls to show Bilawal Bhutto’s popularity ratings. Both Nawaz Sharif’s and Imran Khan’s personal ratings are considerably above that of their parties which implies that they have more latitude in selecting those who may not be historically electable.

The second major lesson learned from the 1970s is that a slogan/manifesto can make all the difference. The question today is how realistic should a slogan be? Z A Bhutto’s slogan of roti, kapra aur makaan was the first one in the country’s history and was undoubtedly effective. The 2013 PPP manifesto raises the same slogan which after completing five years in power in the centre and in two provinces (and a minority partnership with ANP in the lead role in Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa) may be difficult to swallow for a public more aware due to the electronic media operating in the cities. The large rural population however remains reliant on the state-run media for their news.

Pro- and anti-PPP skeptics alike argue that a better slogan would have been bijli (the 3700 MW claimed by the manifesto to have been brought on line during the past five years refers to projects that began during Musharraf’s regime), paani (due to failure of successive governments to deal with this crisis forecast over two to three decades ago) and transport (with prices escalating to well above the income of the poor). Ilm (and not taleem is another manifesto promise which is incomprehensible given that a state focuses on taleem and not ilm) and sehat are provincial subjects. And dehshat se mahfooz awam is too unrealistic in terms of the performance of the past five years to be given any credence.

In contrast the PML (N) has no slogan but has insisted that it can eliminate loadshedding in two years, improve governance/end corruption and improve law and order in the country. There is no mention of what the party would do in terms of raising tax revenue or rendering the system equitable and no mention of where the cuts on expenditure would be implemented. In short there is no shadow budget which would have had an element of realism. Skeptics argue that the bar has been so lowered in terms of the failures of the PPP-led government that promising what is basic in any civilised democratic society of today namely energy, protection of life and property, going after the corrupt and those engaged in disrupting law and order maybe sufficient to convince a populace to vote against the incumbent government.

But, so argues the third major party (second most popular in polls) Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf (PTI) that both PPP and PML(N) must be viewed as incumbent governments and therefore must be rejected by the electorate. Imran Khan’s lack of experience in government may not get him the majority seats in the national assembly that he is banking on especially in the Punjab; however his sustained attacks on the Sharif brothers for supporting flawed policies (sasti roti for one) may have won him some supporters but the fact that there has been no major scandal involving any of PML(N) senior leadership in a corruption scam, (unlike the PPP-led federal government) makes it difficult for several of Khan’s charges to stick.

President Zardari has reportedly claimed that PTI would cut into PML(N) and not PPP support and the 7th National Finance Commission (NFC) Award as well as the Eighteenth Amendment empowered the provinces financially and hence the onus for non-performance in the energy and the social sectors rest with the provinces. Given that three out of the four provinces were led by the PPP is dismissed by the President as he points to the fact that Punjab accounts for over 60 percent of the country.

Ignored in this analysis are three major factors. First, all surveys indicate that Punjab is likely to vote for PML (N). Another survey conclusion is that the PTI is the second largest party with PPP a poor third. Would the PTI cut into the PML (N) vote bank and not the PPP’s is a view that is simply not supported by facts. Second and equally pertinently the PPP as well as provincial governments agreement on the NFC award and Eighteenth Amendment are, without doubt, major achievements of which they should be proud. However, it is disturbing that the benefits of these two decisions have not been evident to the public because: (i) the federal government neither reduced the number of ministers/advisors nor the number of bureaucrats as a consequence of the devolution and overstaffing and heavy outlay on salaries and associated perks continued to increase expenditure under this head; (ii) no province had the capacity or indeed developed it to ensure that they take advantage of the devolution of key social sector ministries; and (iii) additional resources to the provinces did not lead to improvement in fiscal management. In other words, the benefits of these two momentous policy decisions have not filtered down at all due to the poor performance of the federal as well as provincial governments.

So who will Pakistanis vote for at the federal and the provincial level? On the basis of performance or lack thereof or on the basis of past loyalties – be they tribal or party specific? While one would have to wait for the election results to see if there have been any major upsets yet it must be acknowledged that democracy encourages voting on the basis of performance (especially if performance has been as poor as has been evident) as opposed to following historical patterns. And while democracy remains in its infancy in Pakistan today yet the election results would indicate how much of a democratic spirit was inculcated during the second time that a civilian rule completed its constitutional tenure.