Politics of polarisation
Maleeha Lodhi
April 27, 2020
PEOPLE have much higher expectations of their leaders in times of crisis. They seek a clear
direction, reassurance, and above all, unity among public representatives so that they work
together to responsibly and purposefully address the challenge. With the country faced with a
national health emergency, the expectation is that politics will be cast aside and national
purpose prioritised over politicking.
What the public do not wish to see is bickering and politics as usual, with attacks on political
opponents that serve as distractions from efforts to deal with the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.
Nothing drains public trust more than partisan squabbling at a time of disruption and anxiety.
The political picture that has unfolded in the weeks since the virus struck is an unedifying one.
Rather than a national policy and a collective response being evolved, the situation that
emerged has been of provinces, especially Sindh, mostly going their own way and the centre
taking uncertain charge of the crisis.
The onus to forge a national consensus rested with the federal government. But the opportunity
was passed up despite offers for cooperation from the opposition. The stated justification was
that there could be no truck with those who looted public money. In one fell swoop, the entire
parliamentary membership was written off and the chance to evolve an inclusive policy
squandered. The result was to divide, not unite, the country’s political forces.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD
The reluctance early in the crisis to frame a nationally agreed approach by consulting the
provinces is explicable only in terms of politics — a partisan unwillingness to engage with
opposition-led Sindh. That situation later improved once new policy bodies with provincial
representation were set up but not nearly enough for a clear national narrative and policy to
emerge. Arguments by prominent ruling party ministers that the 18th Amendment allowed
provinces to choose their own path seemed a disingenuous effort to justify an abdication by the
centre.
National purpose needs to be prioritised over politicking.
More troubling is the continuation of partisan attacks, mostly but not only, by ruling party
members against their rivals. This was most strikingly exemplified by a bevy of ministers
travelling to Karachi to hold press conferences and launch attacks on the Sindh government’s
strategy. Irrespective of their disagreement with provincial actions, to engage in divisive politics
at such a critical moment was more than just a diversion. It seemed an effort to undermine
public trust in the provincial government when it was seeking public compliance for a lockdown
in the country’s largest and most vulnerable city. Later, a prominent ruling party leader even
accused the opposition of egging on doctors who addressed a press conference in Karachi only
to urge the authorities to close venues where people could congregate. Meanwhile, daily tirades
continue against the opposition by the federal government’s principal spokesperson.
Deeper reasons and a checkered political past lie behind such unseemly conduct. The country
does not have an inspiring record of political rivals working together. The 1990s, to cite an
example, marked a decade of intense political confrontation and instability. Those at the
receiving end of broadsides from ruling party members today behaved similarly against their
foes in the past and are therefore hardly beyond reproach. Habits of tolerating the ‘other’ never
took firm root in Pakistan’s fitful democracy. Locking up opposition leaders and slandering them
has a long history. Polarised politics is therefore hardly new.
However, in the post-2008 decade, a culture of political accommodation seemed to emerge. It
was fragile and there were outbreaks of political feuding. But in a break from the past, there was
greater tolerance of dissenting views. Adoption of the 18th Amendment, which following a
prolonged period of consensus building, seemed to tentatively usher in the politics of
conciliation and give and take.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD
But at the same time, the expansion of a freer broadcast media began to have a different
impact. Political debate started to acquire a more shrill and harsh tone. Not unlike other
democracies, television’s competitive 24/7 news cycle heightened the tendency for intensely
partisan debate. An environment was fostered that accentuated stridency in the political
discourse. Political protagonists felt that impact was created by outshouting an opponent on TV
rather than engaging in calm discussion.
The rise of a new political force, now the ruling party, introduced its own brand of politics and
campaigning. With its rejection of traditional politics and its political evolution taking place in
agitational mode in an extremely combative environment, this also fostered a political culture of
extreme partisanship. The party’s confrontational style of leadership helped to fire and mobilise
a loyal body of supporters who wanted to break from the ‘old politics’. Its leaders convinced
themselves that their uncompromising approach yielded rich political dividends. The self-image
of a party challenging the political status quo led its members to consciously break norms, and
use abrasive language, to distinguish themselves from their rivals.
The use of social media by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf — the first organised effort by any political
party — produced its own effects. Social media became a powerful political tool but one that
also contributed to aggressive messaging and politicking.
All of these seemed effective political tactics in opposition. But they persisted through the party’s
assumption of power. As many analysts have pointed out, the PTI has yet to transition, in
several important respects, from an opposition movement to a party of governance. Its attitude
towards rival parties remains rejectionist as all are regarded as venal and opportunistic. While
this depiction frees the ruling party from engaging the opposition, it has obvious consequences
for governance in a polity that is federal, where the ruling party lacks a parliamentary majority on
its own, minus its motley crew of allies, and in which its political rivals enjoy the allegiance of a
sizeable section of the electorate.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD
An extraordinary crisis calls for extraordinary actions by the leadership. Regardless of the ruling
party’s antipathy towards its opponents, a crisis of the magnitude of Covid-19 should urge its
leaders to at least suspend their partisan conduct and divisive rhetoric for now and embrace an
approach that is truly national in spirit and in practice. People expect nothing less from their
political leaders.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2020
