Absence of political marketing due to absence of democracy in democracy

By Prof Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by Prof DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

Democracy from 1988 to 1999 was only the manifestation of the ideology of democracy. Therefore it failed to prove its efficiency, toughness, and reliance in the ideological and security field and its power to transform a non-democratic people into a democratic one. The poverty of genuine democratic living in a society, which became during democratic interval formally and constitutionally committed to democratic government equally marked by the poverty of genuine democratic practices, was deeper cause of a nation; fell into the abyss of out-and-out totalitarianism in 1999. During democratic period there was gradual weakening of democracy by those elected to lead it.

Though elected through democratic means, both democratic rulers cherished to rule in an autocratic manner for indefinite period with absolute power by liquidating opponents. The Absence of strong presence of political marketing was due to absence of democracy in democracy.

Both tenures of both leaders were marked by the failure to curb inflation and maintain law and order. Economic plus physical insecurity_ the strongest ally of the latent regressive trend to go back to the Garden of Eden_ haunted everyone in democratic periods and accounted for jubilation that greeted dismissal of democratic governments. Declined in the number and quality of ads seemed as the response to general aspiration for such authoritarian system that requires only obedience, but in return offers full security.

Election campaign is launched at end of the tenure of party in office. Ruling party and party in opposition wait for time and when time comes, government highlights its achievements and parties in opposition its failure while urging voters to seek alternative. Sacking never allows that time to come. All of sudden, government is gone, and 90 days are left to run for election. Furthermore, when government throughout its tenure remains committed to destroying opponents and opposition to do likewise; neither has anything to highlight. The ads of PPP in 1988 drew on the charisma of Z.A. Bhutto and of IJI tried to tap the resentment against Bhutto.

Benazir and Nawaz could not become the leader in their own right; and due to paucity of substance; ads of these two parties had to repeat the same ideas and due to thread bareness of substance number of ads declined. Ads are the part of election campaign, and election campaign is part of the democratic process. There was the large number of ads from PPP in 1988 ‘invoking democratic ideals’ and emphasizing ‘commitment to them’ but when democracy proved to be another empty concept in its rule, the number of them declined.

In democracy, government draws its power from people to get elected and sustain itself in power, but in Pakistan when dwindling of public support occurs not because failure of attempt to deliver but because of failure to make any such attempt, both democratic government of Benazir and Nawaz turned into Fascist state, it saw the ruthless application of power important for their survival. And when they were sacked they found themselves on desperate search of substances for ads.

Different opinions exist to approach problems. Government demonstrates through action justification of its opinion and runs media campaign to highlight the achievement of ‘this action’, thus counter opinion is countered. But if government prefers to suppress than counter dissension, then it will prefer state apparatus not media and that preference will spell the end of government itself.  As no ‘achievement of action’ exists ads have only one subject to protest the action of deposing. The non availability of subject not only reduced the number of ads but also deprived ad of any appeal.

Democracy was developed through trial and error to suit the genius of European nations. It was gradual betterment of system thought to be better alternative right from beginning to dictatorship. But in Pakistan democracy was imported system imposed on nation, and nation had to undergo the process of trial and error to indigenize it; but leaders were indifferent to practice even Western democracy let alone develop it through trial and error.

If democratic system delivered, and people found stake in it; the sense of belonging to democracy could develop, but existence of democracy as a shell, an empty concept during democratic period never allowed nation to take democracy as better alternative to dictatorship. Absence of this sense rendered people apathetic to the election and understandably to all activities associated with it.