News Analysis |
Liberty, equality, and rule of law define a democracy. It is the beauty of democracy that people feel free to think, express and differ. The growth of knowledge is, in Popperian terms, now essentially associated with the growth of democracy.
But it is also a fact that democracy has been hijacked by those who have power, money, and control over the means of narrative shaping. This has pushed the world into a controlled regime where only socially confused and politically illiberal democracy exists.
Leaders and heads of political parties always matter in a democracy but there is no denying of the fact that the masses matter more. Ideally, political parties are formed to aggregate, articulate, and represent the interests of the people at large.
A political fight between Hamza and Maryam which now seems very obvious will not disorganize the party rather it will lead to the end of the game.
People elect their representatives and show their confidence in the leadership of their respective representatives for the protection of their interests. Any leader who goes against the interests of the public is supposed to be thrown out of the race. The rule is quite simple; represent and serve.
But as a matter of fact, there is a practice going on in the world (particularly in the developing world) that people protect the interests of the leaders. The leaders are considered infallible, holy and unquestionable. This helps them maintain their power while using the people against any opposing force in the society.
Read more: Politics of confrontation: PML-N’s rebuttal to ‘prejudiced’ verdict!
Pakistan is an interesting example where dynastic political parties are ruling in a way that leaders protect their interests and ensure their election and re-election.
Currently, there is a debate about the division and dispute within the PML-N where many of its leaders are not comfortable to stay calm over Nawaz Sharif’s politics of confrontation; mainly his political fight against the state institutions after his disqualification from the Supreme Court.
Leaders and heads of political parties always matter in a democracy but there is no denying of the fact that the masses matter more.
Secondly, within the Sharif family, it is also a debate as to who will lead the party in the future: Hamza or Maryam?In the first context, it is difficult to believe at this moment that Nawaz’s party is facing any division because of his ‘non-democratic’ stance while continuing to berate the Supreme Court and its honorable judges.
The reason behind this disbelief is that now Nawaz and his party are certain to use the victim card in order to win the upcoming elections. In this regard just two days ago the party has decided to run an election cell for starting its campaign.
But the second observation that makes sense is that there is a debate within the Sharif family where Hamza wants to be the party head after his uncle and father but Nawaz’s daughter, Maryam, is certain to keep Hamza’s role limited to his dad’s province, Punjab.
Read more: London Plan: PML-N rejects minus Nawaz formula as Nisar lambastes party
However, the internal disorganization is not unmanageable for the PML-N unless Hamza and Maryam come out and fight openly. PML-N has no political ideology to fight for. It is not just a ‘party’, but Nawaz’s party. It is not politically affordable to let Nawaz go and maintain the domination of the party in Lahore and other areas of Pakistan. Hence, the minus-Nawaz strategy is not on the table anymore. Nawaz is there to stay.
Pakistan is an interesting example where dynastic political parties are ruling in a way that leaders protect their interests and ensure their election and re-election.
A political fight between Hamza and Maryam which now seems very obvious will not disorganize the party rather it will lead to the end of the game. It is always difficult for political factions to work independently for a longer period of time, which is why many parties desire to merge with other mainstream political parties.
Read more: PML-N harassment of NAB Court echoes 1997 attack on Supreme Court..!
Moreover, from another perspective, things look completely different. Nawaz’s party is not protecting the interests of the people; rather it is the people who are protecting the party. This has been the case in Pakistan because of illiteracy, lack of political socialization and the misrepresentation of religion in order to seek unconditional support and complete submission from the masses.
Any leader who goes against the interests of the public is supposed to be thrown out of the race. The rule is quite simple; represent and serve.
The nawazian democracy where the state tends to control people’s free thinking, tolerance, and rule of law seems only like a political strategy to maintain power, not the building blocks of democracy. As this forum has always maintained that the role of public intellectuals in reshaping narratives and socializing the general public is key, once again, it is emphasized that we need to be clear about the duties of the leaders and political parties in a democracy. There is no alternative except genuine democracy.