Populism and Populist Politics in Pakistan

S. Mushfiq Murshed*

*The author is the editor of Criterion Quarterly.

Some political theorists suggest that populism is an ideology whereas others consider it as a political strategy or a means to an end — the end being to acquire power. In the context of Pakistan, most political parties, when out of power, tend to develop a populist stance that seems to be more of a political strategy. Such movements, guised under the pretense of ‘us’ versus ‘the others’ or ‘the people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’ tend to divide societies into ‘antagonistic camps’ ¹—polarization.

Populist leaders project their preconceived notion of moral superiority by “rejecting the legitimacy of their political opponents… Whoever competes with populists, opposes their claims or criticizes their abuses is excluded from ‘the people’, vilified and treated as a traitor to the people.” ² This is the key component of a populist’s pressure tactics, once a strong base of unflinching followers has been established.

An interview conducted by the Criterion team in 2008 came to mind while writing this article. We had the opportunity to interview Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday on the eve of the one-year anniversary marking the historical Supreme Court judgement that reinstated Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. ³ Justice Ramday was the presiding judge of the Supreme Court bench hearing that case. He was subsequently removed from office, along with the other judges who refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) on 3 November 2007.

The populist (‘The people’) impact on institutions and their role in history was constantly highlighted in his answers. His arguments showed the strength gained or lost by institutions due to the support or rejection of the public. In the 2007 verdict to reinstate the Chief Justice, for instance, it was the positive manifestation of the people’s conviction that supported the Supreme Court bench. However, the flip-side of populism is characterized by “peculiar negativism” ⁴ which is anti-elite, anti-establishment, anti-democracy, etc. and the same arguments can be used to justify this side as well. Some excerpts from Justice Ramday’s answers have been reproduced below:

The courts in any country reflect the aspirations, expectations or, to be more precise, the conduct of the people themselves… Their strength lies in the people and the public. So, it’s always the strength of the public or the weakness of the public which determines the strength or weakness of the judiciary in any country at any time.
So, unless there is awakening and there is awareness amongst the people that this institution belongs to them and they need this institution to protect them from any aggression or any encroachments of any kind and unless the people show their determination to stand behind the courts and the judiciary, the courts will become ineffective.
Q: By people’s strength do you mean the laws of the parliament, the people’s representatives or people in the street?

A: The public at large…

No institution can function without public/civil support, including the army. We had one of the best trained armies of the world, yet they could not win in East Pakistan. This was not because there was anything wrong with our soldiers but because the public support was not there for them. It’s only when the public decides to protect and defend their institutions that these kind of encroachments, assaults, interventions and interferences seize to exist.”
And on all those three previous occasions which I witnessed, even the 58 martial law, I was then 12 or 13 yrs old, rightly or wrongly, fortunately or unfortunately, the steps taken by the army chiefs were generally welcomed, not just accepted but generally welcomed by the public at large. Of course, some of the judges, as I mentioned earlier, showed their character, and refused to take oath under the PCO. But generally, since everybody seemed to have accepted it – the whole nation seemed to have accepted the imposition of those martial laws – the judges also went along. Technically of course there was reason for not doing it but generally, politically, and according to the atmosphere the taking oath of the judges was never really ever an issue.
And people never looked down upon or said anything to the judges who took oath. The public, the political leaders and everybody accepted it and it was never an issue.
Q: So, what you are saying is that the main difference between the previous PCOs and this one is public support and right now the support is not there.

A: Yes. That is number one…

I remember in ’77 the whole nation was on the streets and clamoring that a martial law should be imposed. Your political leaders wrote letters to the army chief. The people of the nation had taken out rallies and processions asking the army to come in. The people had accepted it. Technically, in an absolute puritan theory one may not agree with it…
Q: When the Supreme Court becomes a victim then who do they turn to?

A: The answer lies with the people.

Q: Is the check of the Supreme Court also the people?

A: That is what I told you earlier. It is only the people that can defend these institutions, protect these institutions and claim supremacy and sovereignty of these Institutions…

According to the above excerpts from the interview, great responsibility/blame—from martial laws to Supreme Court judgements to the outcome of wars to defending national institutions— has been placed on the shoulders of a people that successive governments have ensured remain politically and socio-economically suppressed. Their role remains that of followers rather than instigators of movements.

Populist movements within the country are usually instigated by political entities with dubious motives that have little to do with the welfare of the people or national institutions. Yet, they portray themselves as champions of the masses and the nation. They skilfully weave a well-crafted narrative whereby they embrace the people’s value system as their own. The people see a charismatic savior who is willing to sacrifice everything for their well-being. Nothing is further from the truth.

Eventually, the only sacrifice made is the people’s cause and what was meant to be a great conflict between ‘the people’ and ‘the corrupt elite’ turns out to be just another battle of ‘the elite vs the elite’ for power. Despite being duped on multiple occasions, the masses continue to fall prey to this deception in the hope that they will eventually get respite from their socio-economic tribulations and political oppression.

These unfortunate scenarios have recently resurfaced with vengeance. Political parties allied under the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) banner, just a few months ago, before ascending to the corridors of power, had based their strategy around the socio-economic plight inflicted on the people by the PTI administration. Undue haste in ousting the latter under the guise of alleviating the misery of the people suggested that the PDM may have had an alternative set of progressive policies. Present circumstances, however, suggest that their motives were far less altruistic. As a result, this administration has been left with a list of unpopular decisions to be made, whereas, Imran Khan has a freehand in applying pressure through a populist strategy—although the latter’s administration carries a large portion of the blame for the present socio-economic state of affairs in the country.

At the moment, after being removed from power, Imran Khan is in a populist mode. He and his strategists have developed a textbook populist movement. He has galvanized the masses against the present administration through highlighting their real and perceived political and socio-economical grievances and presenting himself as their savior. In addition, a nationalist tinge – striving to liberate the masses from the ‘corrupt elite’ imposed on ‘the people’ by foreign powers – and a religious tilt – labelling the movement as a Jihad – have been added to the mix to rile up the emotions and sensitivities of his audience.

Furthermore, the moral superiority and ‘peculiar negativism’ characteristics of populism are at an all-time high in his rhetoric. Opposers of his worldview are labelled as traitors or cronies of the US and are ridiculed. Space for negotiations and compromise is minimal. As a result, the country is trifurcated into three distinct groups—the two sides of the current political rivalry and a growing number of disgruntled citizens who, if given the choice of the present political lot in the next general election, may not even exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Some may consider this a bleak and highly pessimistic outlook. Unfortunately, the dismal state of most of the people in Pakistan makes it blatantly obvious that there is a dearth of sincere, genuine and honest leadership in the country who have a grand vision that goes beyond their personal ambitions. This country is blessed with resources, a massive workforce, geo-economic and geo-political advantages, etc., yet, whenever opportunities arise, the powerful fill their personal coffers at the expense of providing socio-economic relief to the people by developing the necessary sustainable capacity building policies/ measures/environment for their progress.

An article written by Mr. Ashraf Jehangir Qazi titled, “Transformational Leadership” ⁵ was published in the Oct/Dec 2010 issue of Criterion Quarterly. It is disheartening to observe that most of the problems inflicting Pakistan and its people that were mentioned in the 2010 article remain the same today, with compounded intensity. He wrote, “The tragedy is that most of those in influential quarters are not in the least bothered by this state of affairs… Continued dependence on IMF and western economic assistance to meet the basic needs of our people is testimony to this fact…The utter ruin of our education and health systems is testimony to this fact. The reign of religious extremists and foreign neo-colonial “friends” is testimony to this fact. The Pakistan of today – regarded by many as the world’s most prominent failing state – is testimony to this fact. Finally, the moral passivity and witty cynicism of the comfortable and educated classes are testimony to this fact. It has been well said that a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.”

Successive governments have betrayed the nation and its people. There is a reason why the political elite do not invest in the empowerment and well-being of the people. They make sure that the masses remain uneducated, unaware of their potential and rights and socio-economically vulnerable. In such a state, they are easier to manipulate and are pawns in the former’s negative populism schemes.

There is a positive side to populism as well and, despite what has been written in this paper, there is always a silver lining. The fate of this nation can only change once the people are empowered and take ownership of the national institutions that are in place to serve them. What Justice Ramday said in his interview is not a fabrication of a utopian idealistic mindset, it is achievable, i.e., “The courts (read state institutions) in any country reflect the aspirations, expectations or, to be more precise, the conduct of the people themselves… Their strength lies in the people and the public. So, it’s always the strength of the public or the weakness of the public which determines the strength or weakness of the judiciary (read state institutions) in any country at any time.”

All the necessary legislations safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens are in place. Awareness and implementation are needed. To reach this level, state institutions need to perform their constitutional duties and not succumb to negative populist pressure. A caretaker/guardian role needs to be maintained until the people have been empowered, educated, and made aware of their potential and rights. Once they reach that level of social and political emancipation, they will automatically shed the shackles of their ‘Jiyala’ mentality. That will be the beginning of the end of this vicious cycle that has deprived Pakistan and its citizens of the prosperity that they deserve. That will truly be the dawn of what we so frivolously call ‘Naya Pakistan’.