Issue, Less Politics

Lost in the noise of politics and intensity of power tussles today is

any serious focus on the issues that are critical to the country’s future. In the political
confrontation raging today, the preoccupation of political leaders is with outmanoeuvring
opponents, not explaining how they propose to solve national problems or what their
parties stand for. This at a time when the country’s multiple challenges are crying out for
solutions and answers. Above all, a polarised environment marked by constant exchange of
toxic rhetoric makes it impossible to evolve much-needed consensus on key national issues.
It also creates an atmosphere inimical to the generation of new ideas.

The political discourse today consists predominantly of bitter invective and aggressive rhetoric
along with unceasing efforts by political leaders to denigrate opponents. Instead of debating
public policy, much of the political conversation involves diatribes and allegations of
malfeasance and venality hurled by political leaders against one another. This has spawned a
form of issue-less politics, where instead of the country’s challenges being seriously discussed,
political narratives are reduced to deriding rivals. Perhaps because parties no longer have any
programmes, shallow narratives dominate politics. No political party has offered a credible
vision of the country’s future, much less outlined a strategy to reach that destination.

Take, for example, the response of both government and opposition figures to the two key
challenges faced by the country today — an unprecedented economic crisis and the security
threat from the renewed surge of militant violence. On the first, public exchanges have taken the
form of who is responsible for pushing the economy into the critical ward. In other words, a
blame game has been underway rather than an informed discussion of what Pakistan needs to do
to salvage the economy on an enduring basis. The government has said it will take all the policy
actions needed to reach an agreement with the IMF. But it has not spelled out any economic plan
beyond securing the Fund bailout, which is necessary but not sufficient, for a sustainable way out
of the country’s perpetual fiscal and balance-of-payments crisis. The IMF deal can only provide
temporary relief. It should be an initial part, not substitute for a broader homegrown economic
strategy to chart a path to growth. Tellingly, PML-N’s coalition partners, especially PPP, have
shown little interest in saying anything on the economic situation, conveying the impression that
they have nothing to do with how the economy is being managed. Meanwhile, opposition
representatives have been castigating the government for taking steps to satisfy the IMF saying
they will compound people’s hardship and misery. But they have not offered any alternative or
their own vision of how the economic crisis should be addressed.

Political leaders should be focusing on meeting the country’s challenges, not undermining
opponents.

A similar stance was on display in the response to militant violence. Both blamed each other for
the current wave of terrorism sweeping across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Leaders of the ruling
coalition at the centre accused Imran Khan and his KP government for pursuing policies that
encouraged the return of militant activities and held the provincial government responsible for
not acting against the TTP. Khan and his party leaders, on the other hand, claimed the province
was peaceful when PTI was in power at the centre. They defended resettling TTP fighters in the
province and said it was, in any case, the responsibility of federal agencies to deal with terrorism.
Imran Khan also linked the surge in violence to his removal from power.

For his part, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif blamed the KP government for the surge of terrorism
by failing to equip the police and civil armed forces to fight militants. He asked where funds
allocated to the province for this purpose went. Meanwhile, the much-postponed ‘all-parties
conference’ announced by him seemed little more than a cosmetic exercise when the atmosphere
was vitiated by the arrests of opposition figures and the combative attitude adopted by the
government against PTI and its allies. Repeated postponement of the APC showed a lack of
seriousness. A serious move should involve holding a conference after and not before fashioning
a coherent counter-militancy strategy, which is still lacking. Conferences are forums to ratify or
tweak strategies, not frame them.

Another aspect of the poverty of political discourse is how platitudes and clichés are what some
political leaders think is enough to convey their position in key policy areas. This again reflects
the fact that their parties lack any programme, policy plan or aims. Banal pronunciations by
power holders are reported daily by the media. Examples include: “Pakistan will be the
investment centre in the region”; “We need to boost exports and productivity”; “We will protect
the poor from inflation”; “We are committed to provide education for all”; “Education is the key
to progress”; “Terrorism is Pakistan’s foremost problem”; “National unity is needed to fight
terrorism”; and so on. These statements of the obvious say nothing about what the actual policy
goals are, and more importantly, how they are to be achieved. It is as if mouthing platitudes will
magically translate into policy and accomplish goals. If it isn’t platitudes, its exhortations —
calling on people to unite, make sacrifices or show forbearance in the face of national adversity.
Again, these are statements made in a policy vacuum. Platitudes are not a substitute for strategy
any more than exhortations are for policy.

People have much higher expectations of their leaders at times of crisis. They seek a clear and
credible direction, assurance that national problems will be competently addressed, and above
all, solidarity among public representatives so that they are seen to be working together to
responsibly and purposefully address challenges. If all the public hears are allegations that the
other side is unfit to govern and sees no efforts to discuss and act on issues of concern to them, it
erodes trust in both politicians and the political system. Democracy is undermined when people
see politics as just a power struggle shorn of public purpose.