Interesting question, why hasn’t anyone succeeded in making a third alternative national party? After all Imran Khan barely managed one seat, with some minor success in other areas.
I always figured theres no third party because we have the Army around! But, even so including the PPP and PML(N) no party has ever managed to make it into power without a lot of help from people in Islamabad.
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/mar-2003/16/EDITOR/op3.asp
Imran Khan’s dilemma
Asghar Butt
Mr Imran Khan was being interviewed a few days back on a TV channel catering to a Pakistani audience. He offered a detailed explanation for the failure of his Tehrik-i-Insaf to secure more than one seat in the National Assembly. Without going into the merits of his case, another explanation of what may have happened is being offered.
Imran Khan, whose fame primarily rests on his cricketing achievements and secondarily on his untiring efforts to build a Cancer Hospital, has had a less than fortunate innings in politics. After two general elections, in the first of which the Tehrik-i-Insaf, could not win even a single seat, and in the second, he won only his own seat from Mianwali, he and his party are nowhere. Why? He has many assets. His name is a household word. He is young, energetic and goodlooking. He is very popular among the younger people. He is known to have courage and an unblemished record in money matters. That compares favourably with many in and out of power today. And yet on polling day these assets could not be encashed. Ironically, reward came not for his services to the country but from the Niazi biradri of his ancestral district of Mianwali.
Imran, during his political campaigns past and present, had urged voters not to elect those whose appeal lay in their money, biradari or glib talk of doing everything for everybody, but for the honest and the upright. That appeal did not work in Lahore, from where he contested a city seat. Would it have worked even in Mianwali had he not been a Niazi? It did not work for any of his party’s candidates anywhere. So was his appeal for electing the honest and the upright wrong? Not necessarily. The problem with that appeal is that not just the Tehrik is making it, it comes from many other platforms, including those of all the religious parties. The advantage that other parties had over the Tehrik was that depending on the audience, additional popular slogans were added . In NWFP and Balochistan, religion and anti-American slogans were added to the claim of honesty by the religious parties.
Apart from that, the real challenge before Imran was to break into the strongholds of the two mainstream parties, the PPP and the PML which had by turn been in power before the military takeover. Had either been in power at election time, its record could be attacked and its mis-steps exploited by a newcomer to attract the voters’ attention. With both having been out of power, their challenger had nothing to nail them down. Indeed, their political adversity gave them both an aura of martyrdom. As for the PML(Q), the ‘King’s party’ label foisted on it by its detractors did not inflict too much damage because of a strange anomaly. The anomaly being that while most voters were against the military rule the PML(Q) seemingly condoned, they were not averse to the political, economic and social reforms the military had introduced. By owning them as part of their agenda, some PML(Q) candidates actually managed to sail on the military’s coattails. And, of course, many PML(Q) politicians had personal constituencies where they had worked for long. All these factors combined to hinder a newcomer from encroaching on rival turf. That was aggravated by an untested candidate’s not readily earning the voters’ confidence.
That is part of the problem for a newcomer, though not really an insurmountable one. The real problem lies with the message of a new party. Most Pakistani parties, including the Tehrik, have similar programmes. So there is not much of a choice for a voter, except for the capability and resolve of the party leaderships to deliver on the promises made to the electorate. In the Tehrik’s case, a voter may well have asked whether the party had anything different or special to offer. The answer probably was that the party would ensure Insaf in society. Injustices between haves and have-nots, and rich and poor, are common enough. Therefore Imran’s slogan ought to have gone home. It did not. Probably because the common man associates the system of justice with the police and the courts, about both of which he is deeply sceptical. But even if he has no scepticism and believes in the ability of a party like the Tehrik to reform the police and the courts, he may have asked himself whether the foremost need of his life is justice. The majority of our people have very little contact with the police and the courts. Their needs and priorities are likely to be different.
Bhutto swept the polls some decades back on the slogan of Roti Kapra aur Makan. Similarly, Indira Gandhi revived her political fortunes in India on the slogan of Gharibi Hatao. These slogans seemed to have touched a chord in the people’s hearts and pointedly answered their needs, which neither the slogan of Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s Tehrik-i-Istiqlal, nor Imran’s Tehrik-i-Insaf did in October. Yet no candidate can afford to go overboard promising things. To tell the electorate there would be jobs for everyone and no one will sleep hungry at night, is nice but hardly deliverable. Keeping within the realm of the possible and yet addressing the masses’ basic needs, a suitable party slogan can be very helpful, provided the party has an infrastructure, including a well-organised network of offices. That has to be followed up by door-to-door canvassing by the party workers and candidates. Ideally there should be a membership recruitment drive and when a sufficient number of members have been recruited, election to party offices should be held. All these are elementary things known to politicians but one wonders if Imran paid them any attention.
In my constituency in Lahore, there was a cloth banner of the Tehrik-i-Insaf candidate during the elections but nothing else. No one called seeking votes. No pamphlet, letter or any other material was mailed to us. Others I spoke to had the same story to tell. I was even told of Imran once deliberately avoiding meeting a group of workers. He may be shy personally, and mixing with the commoners may not be one of his strong points, but such traits detract from a leader’s mass appeal.
With a relatively weak slogan and a programme that does not inspire, to start with, with less than vigorous candidates, with an organisation weak in manpower and finances, how far could Imran or his party go? His sincerity and resolve to set things right, added to his other assets can move matters a little, but can hardly create the momentum needed for a new party to make its mark.
E-mail queries and comments to: [email protected]