IN Pakistan’s deeply polarized environment, political conversation has been reduced to a slanging match between political leaders who increasingly resort to provocative rhetoric. The partisan is so intense that supporters of rival parties applaud such behaviors by their leaders and amuse themselves in their demonstration of launching bitter insults at opponents. The lack of civil discourse has become an unedifying feature of the country’s political landscape.
Two aspects of political culture are not new, but have become more pronounced and pervasive today due to greater polarization. One, the excessive preoccupation of political leaders with malicious opponents and accusing them of any transgression or crime. The allegation is no longer that the other party is incapable of governing, but that it is guilty of nothing less than being unpatriotic or an instrument of foreign powers. And two, the seriousness of the language used and the political resentment it reflects. Offensive remarks by party spokesmen now border on crude and even vulgar, as exemplified in a recent press release by PTI’s Shahbaz Gill. In order not to be defeated in this game, the government coalition spokesmen also used indecent language against the PTI leader.
Rarely has public discourse fallen to this level – and the general election is nowhere near as good, since the campaign season usually sees an escalation of weather rhetoric. Such is the animosity between political rivals, who act as if they are engaged in a terminal conflict, that saying anything and everything to vilify the other is considered a fair game with nothing held off-limits.
Inflammatory statements that fail the proof of truth are often made with little respect for their implications. The boundless denigration of opponents has turned insults into a political weapon.
Read: Pakistan’s Angry Political Culture
Of course, indecent behavior has also been witnessed in the past, when political leaders have exchanged wild allegations, often during election campaigns. But the uncontrolled language and behavior of the norm on display today is unprecedented.
The angry and toxic environment this creates gives way to an unparalleled level of intolerance among supporters of rival parties and also divides the country.
People have left the impression that power, not public purpose, guides political leaders.
24/7 broadcast media, particularly television talk shows, play combative politics and reinforce it by pitting political opponents against each other and encouraging noisy clashes. But it is social media that has magnified polarization and provided a platform for scurrilous political content. Because party activists remain anonymous on digital platforms such as Twitter, this minimizes the risk of retaliation. It is therefore easy for them to spread misinformation and allegations without support against political enemies. Social media has also allowed people looking for partisan information sources to live in digital bubbles and shut their minds to see things different from their own. This produces hyperpartisanship and also deepens political division.
First of all, this undermines political discourse and denounces the focus on serious issues. There is little political debate about the country’s political problems and challenges, much less about tackling them.
At a time when Pakistan’s problems need a sober debate on how to resolve them, personal attacks and calling names are on the rise. This prevents reasoned or informed discussion. What goes through the political debate is dominated by the invective, not the argument. With unbridled language becoming the norm rather than the exception, this degrades political conversation.
Two, this toxic political culture makes the work of the political system almost impossible. As the middle ground is removed from extreme positions held by political leaders, the tolerance, compromise and mutual support necessary to make the functioning of the democratic system become elusive. With the ethic of war – to defeat the “enemy” – rather than the ethic of competition that shapes political behavior, this excludes efforts to engage rivals, much less show respect. Angry partisanship has made the land of the political center shrinking, with no one making any effort to bridge or even manage the differences.
Moreover, when both parties accuse each other of treason or the most flagrant crimes, it eliminates the room for dialogue and even minimal cooperation in the political process. This exposes the political system to the risk of paralysis and dysfunction. What is lost is the obligation to work the political system in the public interest.
Boycotts, disruptive behaviors and shouting parties are hardly the way for public representatives to live up to their responsibilities. It is certainly not for this reason that his constituents sent him to parliament to represent his interests.
This undermines democracy and puts the political system on a slippery slope to democratic erosion.
The third consequence is the kind of trouble-free politics that emerges in this environment. Rather than focus their competition on public policy issues, political leaders prefer to demonize their opponents. This distracts them from the article what they are going for and explains their party program. He is left to talk show hosts to joke about his place on national issues, but even then his responses are more directed at rebuking opponents than at explaining his party’s view. This environment is hostile to the generation of new ideas needed to deal with the country’s multiple challenges. It also leaves people with the impression that political leaders are either indifferent to serious issues or that the party platforms of old political rivals have become indistinguishable – as power, not public purpose, guides them.
The inevitable impact of this on people is fueling the perception that political leaders are more interested in outdoing each other and overthrowing the government of the day than in the issues that concern them. Politics is then seen as little more than a power struggle between the elites disconnected from the problems and aspirations of the citizens.
Leaders of constantly squabbling, accusing each other of sleaze and uncivil behavior, erode public trust. What people want instead is well known and reflected in a recent Gallup poll. This found that a decisive majority of people, 78 per cent, want political differences to be resolved through dialogue and not resort to agitated activity. When this does not happen, public cynicism and disenchantment with politicians and political institutions follow. This leaves democracy in disrepute.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK & amp; UN.
Published in Dawn, July 9, 2022
