Marvi Memon "Every party who takes votes from us does it in the name of the poor, but then we get slaughtered." I have often been thinking of this one phrase I hear the most when I am with my people, my marooara of Pakistan. What does it mean? It means that these poor people are used, but not served. It means that they are not given their basic necessities by people who claim to be from them. It is the biggest farce placed on democracy I have witnessed so far. The parliamentarians are not from their people because they are too VIP. We need the tables turned a bit. We need the actual poor in the Assemblies to represent themselves. Of course, this cannot happen for 100 percent of the electorate so some kind of a quota system is required. After all, to encourage women there was a quota kept for them to enter politics. Similarly, a quota is required for the poor. The definition of 'poor would be anyone earning less than average income of the country. Do you think the issues of the poor are best handled by the rich? They have not been in 64 years. In the Assemblies, these issues are discussed in such indirect ways that it hurts. It is just a list for them; it is not their actual problem or a matter of life and death. If I have a problem, only I can talk about it best. Why do I need go-betweens or surrogates? Frankly, nobody else can know the pain, unless they are going through it. This was my single biggest learning from all my protests. For instance, when I marched with the clerks, I lived with them in their homes. I got to see their pain from close. When I protested with the Lady Health Workers, I could feel their pain; however, only they can know it in actual terms. I was only a visitor to their pain. Only they can come up with their solutions. Having said that, I also saw that the poor are not the best of negotiators because they are pressurised by our class system. But the minute you will allow them to enter the Assemblies, they will gain the courage to stand up for themselves and negotiate better. So, I submit most humbly that my small farmer of Rajanpur is the best man for the job of representing his class because he suffers when his water is stolen. He knows what it feels like to be cheated out of his share of land. He knows what it feels like when his hut is swept away by the flood and he has to sleep with mosquitoes on the road. He knows best the pain of having uneducated children and a wife who gives birth in the middle of nowhere. He knows the pain of not having the roads to take his produce to the market. He also knows that if he was given the development funds to make the roads, he would spend it on roads, since his children would use those roads daily and it would be in his best interest. Of course, some poor have managed to enter the Assemblies, but have become mafia men and stolen from the poor. This can always be handled by a firm political party leader, who is not corrupt himself or herself. The same issue exists of the rich who go into the Assemblies and steal from the poor. They can also be straight jacketed. I simply want to understand, why a hari cannot represent his community? Why does he need a wadera to do it? Why does he need the wadera to do his talking? Simply, because the feudal structure is such that they are financially beholden to the chaudhry or sardar or wadera. Every single party does doublespeak. They talk against the feudal system in their flowery speeches, but their candidates are all feudal. What if there was a rule that instead of choosing the feudal, the political party would do primaries in each constituency and choose the man or woman elected with most votes to represent his own class versus from the class above him. Impractical? Idealist? Real democracy frankly, since the poor can best be represented by the poor. No party to-date has taken on the feudal structure because they want to come into the government and if they do discard the feudals, their muscle men would not let them. So, no one has actually tried to fix the system. I think it is worth fixing this imbalance. By keeping a quota, it would create a balance gradually although it is not an overnight process. Lets dream a little. Here is an Assembly where there is one bold, truly democratic party, which has sent a majority - not all poor - to the Assemblies. The not so poor are only there to support the poor so they are not pressurised. The hari would sit next to the wadera and speak up whenever his issues are sidetracked or sidelined for power politics and personal gains. He would walk into the bureaucrats office and demand to see the file of the road built in his village where the contractor has been corrupt. Frankly, corruption would be cut due to this hands-on monitoring. All this will happen provided there was a solid party structure to monitor. It is a fact that humans are humans and they need to be monitored. Whether rich or poor, they are humans and open to temptation. The hari would best be able to force the Assemblies to get his water scheme on track because his children would have no water. It would not be part time, but a full time job for him; where his life would depend on fixing his area so that his children and family got basic amenities. I have spent so much time in the last three years in the villages and among the poor that I have trouble dealing with the contrasts in our social structure. Wherever possible, I have tried to walk the talk and live their lives to feel the pain. But I know that at the end of the day, I have a comfortable halal ki kamai ka home with food, water, electricity and gas. This poor hari knows that he doesn't have and here is his chance to fix the destiny of his people. My question is: If elected to the Assemblies, why wouldn't he want to do a good job? I think, there would be enough peer pressure on him to do so. Surely, he would have to deliver. But how would he get into power? When the majority rejects the minority and truly gets democratic. When his poor elect him without the fear of the wadera because they are in majority and should be able to stand up to the sardars. Hence, if you want progress, then you need to get the poor into Assemblies and weed the rich out gradually. Only then there would be a true distribution of wealth. The middle class would emerge and Pakistan would progress. The writer is a former Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan.