Much has been said about how similar, or different, the emergent Aam Aaadmi Party in India is to Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf. Some point at the similarities of their challenge to how politics are traditionally played out in the two countries while others highlight the difference between AAP’s collective leadership and PTI’s cult of the hero. Beyond these analytical tidbits, one thing is clear: the two parties have gained popularity by articulating the aspirations of a growing constituency in both countries demanding a better deal from their governments. Criticising the entrenched political parties and their disregard for the common man, the aam aadmi, the two parties promise to put the welfare of this marginalised majority at the heart of their politics. For me, the important question is: Are they equipped to perform the important task they’ve set for themselves?
It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that the entrenched ruling elites, not only in poor developing countries like Pakistan and India but also in rich developed democracies like the US and the UK, live in a bubble of power and money. Public welfare has been reduced to a mere slogan, a façade to hide their personal ambition and their wheeling and dealing on behest of powerful moneyed interests. The crumbs of benefits that sometimes fall the public’s way are mostly unintended consequences of their power games or a result of pressure generated by mobilisation of popular opinion. Otherwise, they are happy doing what they do; extracting economic benefits for themselves, their family and friends, and their sponsors and masters. The cost of this farce in the name of democracy is paid by the aam aadmi.
Take, for instance, the decision by Pakistan government to provide gas at a concessionary rate to a new fertilizer plant by the multinational Engro for ten years. The Sui Northern Gas will suffer a loss of Rs 6.59 billion each year due to the artificially reduced rates that were ‘suggested’ by Engro and given to it on a platter by the government. The federal government will lose Rs 1.12 billion in annual sales tax and the Sindh government another Rs 4.71 billion each year due to the reduction in gas surcharge and cess payments. This is not the biggest favour that our poor government has advanced to a rich corporation at the cost of the aam aadmi. Pick up the newspaper for any given day and, along with stories about the dire straits of our economy and increasing poverty, you’d come across reports about concessions and incentives being lavished upon private corporations to ensure bigger profits for them.
It is not only this government or that which is the culprit. This bias for private profit instead of public welfare is not the problem of poor developing countries alone. With some notable exceptions, this is how governments run the show all over the world. Dictators could always offer such anti-people favours to whoever they wished. Now, even democracies have been hacked against the public conclusively; they exist in the name of the people but their policies and actions are directed and dictated by interests that have nothing to do with the public, that are actually instrumental in making the people poor. In the case of poor developing countries like Pakistan and India, the subservience of ruling elites to their unstated corrupt ambitions, criminal mafias and corporate entities is further compounded by their slavery to the political and strategic interests of the imperialist machine.
Pro-people politics in the given situation is not possible without questioning the basic framework of predatory capitalism and democratic systems that are designed to promote its interests. Public welfare is not possible unless basic assumptions about ‘development’ are redefined to look beyond statistical figures and focus on real people and the lives they live. It is not as simple as replacing the corrupt ruling elites with honest individuals. It is not about tinkering with policies and creating more room for public welfare. It requires a basic re-orientation that makes public welfare the core task of governance and creates room for private profit within the new scheme of things, profit that is regulated very sternly for the cost it extracts from the environment and the communities sustained by it.
The problem with PTI and AAP is that though they challenge the conduct of political parties they do not challenge the democratic systems within which they operate; systems with inbuilt biases against the aam aadmi and in favour of the rich. While they question the policies of their political rivals, they do not question the dollar-based economic framework blessed by the IMF and World Bank and imposed by the empire through various arms and agencies at its disposal. The PTI, for instance, condemns drone attacks but does not place these attacks in the context of imperialism. Its rhetoric about independence from US domination is not underpinned by a world-view that contextualises that domination and creates an understanding about what that domination means and how it is exercised. The AAP seems stuck in a similar piecemeal rejection of the exploitative regime that rules the world.
Without questioning the sincerity of their leadership, it is important to point out the inherent lack of these parties’ capacity to realise their goal of creating a better world for the aam aadmi. Contesting and winning elections within the hacked democratic systems is not enough. Tinkering with policies within the existing frameworks of economy and development are unlikely to do the trick. The parties might perform the useful function of placing popular concerns on the political agenda and creating pressure on governments to do something about them but, given their present limitations, they are unlikely to create a momentum that could create an egalitarian and just society. To fulfill their promises to the aam aadmi, they will need to work hard on creating a vision that is not enclosed by the existing politico-economic frameworks. Instead of starting with what there is and hoping to improve it with honest administration and tweaking of policies, they’d have to imagine the future anew.
n The writer is a freelance columnist.