Political Impacts on Rural Areas of Pakistan
Pakistan’s political system has always defended the interests of the ruling class. Despite being the representational authority, political leaders have failed to inspire optimism for a democratic state that would deliver socioeconomic justice to all Pakistanis.
The political leadership failed to reach an agreement on the national language, the role of Islam, provincial representation, and the division of powers between the centre and the provinces, which resulted in the constitution being delayed and general elections being postponed.
Pakistan emerged from its infancy in October 1956, when a consensus was reached and the country’s first constitution went into effect. The democratic governance experience was brief but bitter. Gen Muhammad Ayub Khan easily executed a military coup in October 1958.
As a result of the influx of money and urbanisation, the political paradigm transformed throughout the 1960s and 1970s, with class (revolutionary) politics being supplanted by authoritarianism. Here, industrial workers, student organisations, and middle-class socialist ideas arose.
Class politics, on the other hand, was short-lived, being supplanted in the 1980s by Antonio Gramsci’s commonsense politics. In which the lower sections of society are also participants. To fight the industrial class conflict of the 1960s, Zia provided Pakistan with political-religious parties and a political position inside the power structure through the street mosque culture.
For four decades after Zia, Pakistan’s political environment was a mash-up of PML(N) and PPP patronage, as well as intellectual politics. When the poor and educated are illiterate, lack critical thinking abilities, and are affected by anti-American and anti-establishment rhetoric, the terrain of Pakistan’s politics changes once more. Anti-establishment and anti-American rhetoric has given fresh life to Khan’s April 2022 lows at the end of his almost four-year presidency.
More than the departure of the PTI, there is widespread popular dissatisfaction with the restoration of the former administration, which was accused of corruption and nepotism. The PTI leadership has capitalised on the PDM’s hostility while having little understanding of its connections with the geopolitical, geostrategic, and geoeconomic realities of the modern world order. The PTI leadership imagines a world that is distant from reality. This is a vision that has been presented to the people of Pakistan.
PTI head Imran Khan’s popularity is now surging as a result of the PTI’s ongoing struggle with state institutions, especially the establishment, but the leadership style offers significant issues in foreign policy and security.
People are hopeful, and the Azadi March is being hailed as a watershed moment for Pakistan. As the history of democratic regimes in Pakistan shows, even the blind can perceive the political engineering to bring the PTI to power in 2018.
Only until the socio-cultural tendencies of intolerance, exclusivity, nepotism, extreme ideology, and violence that have distorted the national fabric are reformed as a country can Pakistan emerge as a powerful state and nation. Furthermore, the political nursery of openness, tolerance, enlightenment, and cohabitation in state development should encourage critical thinking abilities, inclusion, and respect for competing ideas in Pakistan’s future generations.
The elite has always orchestrated the game of political engineering. Imran Khan benefited from this game and earned the term ladle (pampered favourite). During its more than three and a half years in office, the PTI administration has received unparalleled backing from the establishment. PTI supporters are also dissatisfied with the party’s poor performance, uncertainty, and delays in government issues. The PTI’s popularity dropped as a result of an unsatisfactory administration, but the PDM stepped in to save it.
The Pakistani political structure is shifting away from clientelism and towards fundamentalism, and fundamentalism entails instability. In this case, agitating youth and people against state institutions, institutional heads, and the country’s centre of power might have fatal consequences.
This is the political history of Pakistan: the political leadership’s repeated attacks on state institutions, particularly the establishment, while they are not in power. Opposition parties urge them to intervene to save people from the government’s cruel measures and unlawful political cases.
When we go back and open the archives of history, we see that Germany’s shift from democracy to dictatorship occurred in the setting of political instability and economic misery and that people recognised Adolf Hitler as the charismatic figure of their messiah and saviour. We are reminded here of another key component in state affairs, namely the leadership’s attitude.
The mental transformation of the leaders is the primary driving force of the party, determining the direction of the state. Populism, often known as populist leadership, is a contentious notion with no clear meaning.
According to Robert R. Barr, some politicians exploit political insecurity by using anti-establishment rhetoric. Margaret Canovan, another political expert, contends that the core message of populism is that power is concentrated in the hands of corrupt politicians and unrepresentative elites to the exclusion of the people.
Max Weber examines charismatic leaders and their radical attitude, as well as their narcissism, nepotism, demagoguery, and unpredictability. According to him, all of the leader’s characteristics boost the movement while weakening its organizational efficacy.
Populist leaders are charismatic, make the greatest promises, employ efficient advertising tools, and so undermine the current political system, but most significantly, they keep their promises. They seldom do since their acts are detrimental to growth, both political and economic. Such leaders and movements not only undermine the state’s political system but also undermine other state institutions and the rule of law.
Bhutto’s affinity for class politics, along with his outspoken hostility to Ayub Khan, quickly made him a popular figure among the masses. He wants total power with an absolutist attitude; an absolutist mentality is a problem. With his power-hungry mind,
Bhutto had become a tyrant in the country. The pursuit of total authority led him to an uncompromising position involving a power-sharing issue that escalated into an independence war in the Eastern Wing.
All political parties are tyrants in their political chambers, and they have banded together to defend themselves against corruption. These undemocratic political groups constantly rose to power for selfish gain.
History demonstrates that totalitarian authority not only corrupts but also destroys. Adolf Hitler transformed Germany from a democratic government to a dictatorship before plunging the country into a brutal war with devastating repercussions. Bhutto’s desire for total power led to Pakistan’s collapse. The PTI’s shift to fundamentalist politics is now centred on direct conflict with state institutions, including defamation campaigns against prominent officials and institutional leaders.
The PTI’s young tigers will cause problems for Pakistani society in the coming years. Our political leaders have a significant obligation to establish the state’s political nursery, where they should grow its political system based on reason rather than anger, vandalism, and extremism. The radicalization of already radicalised youngsters will irreparably damage the fabric of our society.
CONCLUSION
Only until the socio-cultural tendencies of intolerance, exclusivity, nepotism, extreme ideology, and violence that have distorted the national fabric are reformed as a country can Pakistan emerge as a powerful state and nation. Furthermore, the political nursery of openness, tolerance, enlightenment, and cohabitation in state development should encourage critical thinking abilities, inclusion, and respect for competing ideas in Pakistan’s future generations.
