The Rise of the PTI: An Academic Analysis
By Mustafaen Kamal
London, UK

 

Pakistan’s short history has been punctuated with political instability and war. There have been occasional sprouting of hope for the globe’s sixth largest population, but all, thus far, have been quelled.

It is a country that has experienced three military coups, developed nuclear power, struggled with religious extremism and had the first female Muslim head of the government. These contrasting markers lead to the crux of Pakistan’s problem, a struggle for its national identity. The debate surrounding national identity is one subject to nuance but the discourse has been plagued with corruption, bribery and crime, which have consistently hindered Pakistan’s political and democratic progression.

In the context of contemporary political theories, I will discuss the surge in popularity of a relatively new political party, called Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI, literally translated to 'Pakistan Movement for Justice'). Imran Khan, the well-known former cricketer, founded the party in 1996 and, after several years of political anonymity, PTI has gained significant support, most notably from the formerly apathetic upper middle class members of Pakistani society.

Central to the idea of democracy is the concept of elections and representation; the

common man gets to choose and votes for whom he wishes to be ruled by. However, two central problems have prevented democracy from flourishing in Pakistan: the presence of very strong vested financial interests in suppressing individualism by feudal landlords and others, and military dictatorships, which provide a quick economic fix, but lead the nation back to square one after they inevitably disintegrate. However, when there are elections, the cleavage model is a possible explanation for how voters decide whom to vote for and whether their choices are expressive or strategic.

First, we will look at the cleavage model, which was the primary explanation for

voting behavior prior to the 1970s. Political cleavage simply is a division in society that produces an alignment between a group of voters and a party. These cleavages can take many forms and are ever-changing; examples include class divisions, ethnic divisions, urban-rural cleavages and cleavages along religious lines. “Individuals are multi-faceted and have a repertoire of attributes... that makes them eligible for membership in some identity category or social group” (Ref. Lipset, Seymour M. and Stein Rokkan, ‘Cleavage Structures, Party Systems', 1967). According to this model, because Pakistan is divided between groups that are in political conflict with one another, there is division of opinion on various issues and policy decisions. Thus, political parties spring up from these social groups with the sole intention of representing their interests. Political parties in Pakistan have rarely shown consistency in political alignment but the landscape has been dominated by ethnic politics: the left-leaning PPP (People’s Party of Pakistan) of Sindh and the right-leaning PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League) of Punjab (Ref. Bajwa, Farooq, Pakistan: A Historical and Contemporary Look, Revised Edition Oxford University Press). However, the PTI has offered a model of an

Islamic democratic welfare state, which the educated and aspirational classes of

Pakistan view as a refreshing retort to the entrenched status quo. This third way has

allowed the PTI to become the largest party by membership in Pakistan, with 10

million members. In context, this is approximately 30 multiples larger than the

membership of the Conservative Party in the UK, despite Pakistan’s population being only three times as large.

In Pakistan, elections are largely fought on ethnic lines, with provincialism being rife in political discourse. However, the emergence of the PTI as a political force has led to its popularity transcending ethnic boundaries. The cleavage model explains the initial growth of the PPP, as a socialist outlook seemed appealing for the growing impoverished population of Pakistan. However, this model does not take into account the fact that both major Pakistani political parties may have emerged out of a social group, but shifted their priority from representing that group to trying to win elections by shaping its policies so that it can get as many votes as possible. This reality has led to a surge of support for the PTI, whose leadership is popularly associated with integrity. This highlights another flaw in the model: that people will never change their party preference under any circumstances - an unrealistic assumption.

It would be remiss of this discussion to exclude the prevalent presence of military dictatorships throughout Pakistan’s history. In fact, at various stages during the PTI’s political rise the prospect of a military takeover was again on the table. This leads us to question whether Pakistan’s culture is hospitable to democracy. Almond and Verba have argued that a “psychological basis for democratization” (Ref. Almond and Verba, 'The Civic Culture', Sage Publications, 1963) must precede any democratic structure within a country. John Stuart Mill famously said “nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and civilized government.” This troubling colonial notion of cultural superiority was internalized by the dictators who sought to bring order to people whom they thought ill-equipped to partake in the political process.

At times, the Pakistani population largely supported dictatorial rule, with Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf enjoying 70%+ approval ratings (Ref. UN Data - Pakistan, 1968, 2002). Moreover, the prominence of Islam in Pakistan’s political

discourse can support those who say that Islam is antithetical to the Western concept of democracy. Huntington believes the biggest opposition to Western democracy comes from the Islamic world (Ref. Huntington, 'Clash of Civilizations', Foreign Affairs, 1993). It does not seem astute to categorize the values of Indonesia, Pakistan and Yemen as the same and all equally opposed to Western democracy. Moreover, the differences in “civilization” can be accounted for by economic and social developments, which occurred in the West and not in the East. With the advent of the rise in political support for the PTI we have seen that culture is indeed amorphous and responsive to the needs of the day. Many political commentators have correlated the increasing popularity of the PTI with a rise in the desire for democracy within Pakistan. One can perhaps attribute to this by discussing the concept of a “civic culture” (Ref. Almond and Verba, 'The Civic Culture', Sage Publications, 1963) which must exist for democracy to emerge and

survive. Almond and Verba present the following attitudes for democracy to exist and survive:

a. The belief on the part of individuals that they can influence political

decisions

b. Positive feelings towards the political system

c. High levels of interpersonal trust

d. Preferences for gradual societal change

Upon analysis, it seems that the PTI portrays itself to harbor these qualities and in

turn the electorate has believed them. In many speeches given by Imran Khan and

other senior members of the PTI a disdain for the old order has been displayed and the framework of a prospective new system has been presented which consists of a free and fair judicial and political system, a focus on helping the “aam admi” (common man), social manoeuverability and an eradication of corruption. These four motifs do fit in well with Almond and Verba’s prerequisites and can explain Pakistan’s first transition from one democratic government to another in 2012.

The PTI’s emergence can be seen as a social movement, more akin to the Arab Spring than any existing traditional political structure in Pakistan. The rallies and protests that the PTI has inspired have often been larger and louder than the like seen in Tahrir Square almost half a decade ago. However, the impact on the political landscape has been slightly less revolutionary. In the context of Dahl’s theory of interest groups it seems that the socially driven goals of health and education pursued by the PTI are in stark contrast to the established political class of Pakistan who represent, and are often part of, various interest groups that constitute several business areas. Testament to this is the fact that the current and the previous heads of the government in Pakistan have been amongst the highest net-worth individuals of the country, with fortunes of over a $1bn dollars in a nation where 60.3% of the population lives off $2 a day (Ref. UN Data - Pakistan, 2002). Much of their wealth was accumulated through questionable accruement of resources whilst in power.

Legislation under their governments often granted privileged access to particular

industry groups that were politically aligned with the respective party in power. For example, Asif Ali Zardari granted tax concessions to feudal landlords in the PPP heartland of Sindh and Nawaz Sharif, the current Prime Minister, has heavily

subsidized companies in the agriculture, textile and sugar industries in Punjab, historically a PML-N stronghold. The broad spectrums of ethnic and financial

consortiums, which comprise the PTI’s membership, dilute the power of any one

interest group seeking to sway it towards representing industry. This has allowed the PTI to preserve its social outlook and this has played well with the electorate. The PTI has enjoyed a great deal of grassroots support and continues to seek a similar overhaul of the current status quo, similar to the aims of the Arab Spring.

 

In conclusion, the PTI’s surge in popularity has changed politics in Pakistan. Various political theories can be applied to contextualize and comprehend how and why this has happened. However, one has to understand that many of the writers I have cited have written with a very Euro-centric bias in their writings. Thus, it would be imprudent to say that the case of Pakistan can be fully understood through the lens of the references in question. However, we can attain a superficial understanding of why the PTI has gained support and how its rejection of a status quo - which has given Pakistan three dictatorships, five wars and immense poverty - seems extremely appealing to an increasing segment of the population.