Allegations of rigging are not enough to explain the rout of the Pakistan People's Party in 1997 elections, PPP Senior Vice-Chairman Sheikh Muhammad Rashid said. Baba-e-Socialism (father of socialism) sees the phenomenon as a silent protest by voters. The party, he says, was founded to end the feudal dominance, but the present leadership surrounded itself with the very feudals, ignored the manifesto and neglected the workers.

In order to restore the party to its original from it is necessary, according to Sheikh Rashid, to address voters' grievances, rid the organisation of the feudals and mobilise the workers. The issue is whether this is really the basic reason for PPP's failure or debacle, or there are some other reasons as well. As far as the silent protest analysis is concerned, it is particularly arguable whether a party's vote bank remains static and unaffected or changes with its performance under specific objective situations and shifting principles, programmes and policies of the leadership. To my knowledge, PPP voters in various eleetions were different. Significant change, for example, has been witnessed in voting patterns in 1970, 1977, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1997 elections. In 1970, People's Party got only 81 of the 300 National Assembly seats (138 for West Pakistan). Awami League had the greatest number, 151, the three factions of Muslim League had 18 seats between them and the Jamaat-e-Islami only one. The alliance comprising the Jamaat-i-Islami, the League factions and others had even then accused the PPP of rigging the polls. The vote bank of all these parties changed in 1977 elections. For example, the People's Party won 155 of the 200 seats in the four provinces whereas the Pakistan National Alliance secured only 36. PNA's component parties - the Jamaat-i-Islami, the Muslim League, the Jamiat Ulema-i-lslam, the Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan, the Tehrik-i-lstiqlal, the Khaksaar Tehrik and the Qaumi Mahaz-i-Azadi, etc, then accused the Pakistan People's Party of rigging and announced a boycott of the provincial assemblies polls and a countrywide movement to oust its government.

Irrespective of the rigging allegation, it was obvious that the vote bank of both the PPP and the PNA had swelled. In 1985 the PPP boycotted the partyless polls. In 1988 it got 93 of the 207 NA seats while the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad got 54 seats and the remaining 60 were won by inde-pendent candidates and minor parties. It may be said that support for the PPP deelined, for the first time. Considering that the party got 93 seats, the vote bank had increased over 1970 elections when it got 81 but was far less than in 1977 when it had won 155. The IJI vote, on the other hand, had increased since 1977 (54 compared with 36 seats). The anti-PPP vote bank, thus, had kept increasing after 1970 elections and grown considerably larger. Also, in 1990 elections, the Pakistan Democratic Front, of which the PPP was a part, got 45 of the 207 NA seats while PML and its allies in the IJI got 105. This, too, would show that the PPP vote bank had been eroded compared with the three elections in 1970, 1977 and 1988 whereas that of the PML and its allies improved. Irrespective of the continuous decline in the PPP vote bank, the vote bank of the PML (and its allies) registered a gradual increase (183,654,105) seats in National Assembly.

Now for the 1993 election: out of the 207 seats, the PPP won 86 and its rivals the PML-N 72. Again it would show that PPP vote bank has changed with time giving it 811,559,345 votes and 86 seats, the rival PML, too, has somewhat increased its share of seats. Now in the 1997 elections, the PPP has won 18 of the 207 NA seats and the PML 136. So we can simultaneously see the PPP vote bank declining over the years after 1970 and the PML vote bank improving. The readers may be wondering that while the PML has secured more than two thirds of NA seats in the recent elections all three Muslim League factions in 1970 had only 18 seats. It is an irony of history that the PPP today finds itself in the situation the PML was in in 1970. All Muslim League factions had won the 18 seats in 1970 and the PPP has nowwon 18 seats in 1997. What, after all, is the reason? Impartial research in this regard is of utmost importance. As far as the ideas expressed by Baba-e-Socialism by way of an explanation for the voter's change of heart are concerned, they are totally out of con-text and obsolete. For example, according to Sheikh Rashid, besides rigging, a silent protest by voters is the reason for People's Party's defeat. The question is since when and how? Should it be understood to mean that PPP's voters are its serfs who cannot abandon it, only protest in silence? Facts suggest that they have been leaving the party. The statistics, on the basis of which we concluded a retrogression for the PPP from 1970 to 1997, prove the silent protest theory is an illogical assertion.

Vote bank of a party, it must be borne in mind, is not static but dynamic. If the hypothesis were true might it not be applicable also to the PML vote bank in reverse (to explain its progress from 1970 to 1997). The silent protest logic, therefore, has no place in the annals of political science. So far as Baba-e-Socialism's allegation against the leadership of gathering feudals around is concerned, anybody who knows People's Party since 1967 would agree that there were never more feudals in the party than in the 70s whereas according to a news item published in 1997, People's Party now has the least number of feudals. There are 60 per cent feudals and landlords in the present National Assembly, according to another news item. There are 46 big feudals in the assembly, out of which 21 are from PML while 11 belong to PPE? I am stating with fuD responsibility that in the 1970 elections there were more than 21 big feudals in the PPP only in Sindh province. So, Baba-e-Socialism's allegation of gathering feudals around is a concoction of his own mind. The truth is that despite big feudals, waderas, sardars and nawabs in the People's Party, the masses voted for it and made it win with heavy majority, in-flicting crushing defeat on its opponents. So far as Baba-e-Socialism's sug-gestion of acting on the manifesto and mobilisation of workers is con-cerned, the first thing is that the party manifesto during the Cold war which Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had started implementing is a thing for the mu-seum now.

So far as Benazir's second mani-festo/agenda and acting upon such manifestosson the road to 21st century is concerned, I think Sheikh Rashid does not seem to be in favour of both the manifestos or he would have talked about their implementation. Once the credibility of a leadership is lost, the total reliance is on the moral support of people, the political agenda is relegated to background and manifesto gets secondary importance, voters, then cannot be forced to stick even to the decisions flowing from pnnciples. Personal interests, therefore, become decisive. Under the circumstances the silent protest taunt amounts to adding insult to voters' injury. It is in fact a way of blaming the voter rather than the party leadership which is clearly not political logic. As far as the matter of mobilising the workers is concerned it may be said that political workers are not produced in a vacuum. They are the product of their political environment. Prime responsibility for demobilising the workers rests not with Maulana Kausar Niazi, Ghulam Mustafa Khar or Farooq Leghari. The ideologues like the Baba-e-So-cialism should aceept the sole responsibility for it. There can hardly be a second opinion about who is to blame for the workers' plight.

Phone: + 92 42 6666404 - 6687827
 

 

 
E-mail: jrc@syberwurx.com