WAQAS119
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 5,426
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
If incumbent control on government is so vital then how come PPP and PMLN governments alternated in 1990s?
Via Moeed Pirzada's Official Facebook Page
Salman Bakthyar, a member of this page questions that if incumbent control on government is so vital then how come PPP and PMLN governments alternated in 1990s? - This needs an explanation. PPP was kicked out of office in 1990 on corruption charges by President Ghulam Ishaq and the in the subsequent elections the interim set up was all working to make PMLN win the elections. Again when Nawaz was kicked out in 1993, the Moeen Qureshi Interim set-up supported by the military was inclined to bring in Benazir Bhutto back. This story was repeated in 1997 when BB was kicked out and Interim setup wanted to bring Nawaz back. In 2002, Musharraf wanted PMLQ and Chaudries and in 2008 Musharraf had to ensure that PPP wins, because he had commitments with the Americans to transfer power to PPP, and he actually worked to reduce the PMLQ seats (though popular narrative is otherwise).
Bottom line is that in Pakistan - unlike India - incumbency and control on government machinery helps to win elections. If we carefully look at the last 20-25 years, then it is easy to see - as pointed out above - that only those parties or leaders win who are being supported by a sitting government machinery. The only exception that confuses people - because of change of governments in 1990's- is due to the military/establishment interventions who then worked to defeat the party they had deposed (PPP in 1990, PMLN in 1993, PPP in 1997) and worked behind the scenes to ensure election victory for the party they had a deal with (PMLN in 1990, PPP in 1993, PMLN in 1997 and PMLQ in 2002). 2013 may look different since PPP at the center has been replaced by PMLN, however a more careful look will reveal that PPP has maintained its hold in Sindh where it could influence government machinery and PMLN could easily win from Punjab where it had influence over the government machinery. Only ANP lost because of less influence over machinery (and also Pashtun culture is more equal and egalitarian than the Punjabi and Sindhi social system. Pashtuns generally are less impressed by power of the state organs and are far more independent in mind and spirit and also their "family" is nuclear and small unlike the "biradaris" in Punjab and Sindh.)
The central argument is that Pakistan has still not discovered a mechanism whereby an incumbent controlling government (in a province, which actually controls the police and coercive apparatus) can actually be dislodged through elections. And 2013 has merely confirmed this reality. Lets hope for 2018!
Via Moeed Pirzada's Official Facebook Page
Salman Bakthyar, a member of this page questions that if incumbent control on government is so vital then how come PPP and PMLN governments alternated in 1990s? - This needs an explanation. PPP was kicked out of office in 1990 on corruption charges by President Ghulam Ishaq and the in the subsequent elections the interim set up was all working to make PMLN win the elections. Again when Nawaz was kicked out in 1993, the Moeen Qureshi Interim set-up supported by the military was inclined to bring in Benazir Bhutto back. This story was repeated in 1997 when BB was kicked out and Interim setup wanted to bring Nawaz back. In 2002, Musharraf wanted PMLQ and Chaudries and in 2008 Musharraf had to ensure that PPP wins, because he had commitments with the Americans to transfer power to PPP, and he actually worked to reduce the PMLQ seats (though popular narrative is otherwise).
Bottom line is that in Pakistan - unlike India - incumbency and control on government machinery helps to win elections. If we carefully look at the last 20-25 years, then it is easy to see - as pointed out above - that only those parties or leaders win who are being supported by a sitting government machinery. The only exception that confuses people - because of change of governments in 1990's- is due to the military/establishment interventions who then worked to defeat the party they had deposed (PPP in 1990, PMLN in 1993, PPP in 1997) and worked behind the scenes to ensure election victory for the party they had a deal with (PMLN in 1990, PPP in 1993, PMLN in 1997 and PMLQ in 2002). 2013 may look different since PPP at the center has been replaced by PMLN, however a more careful look will reveal that PPP has maintained its hold in Sindh where it could influence government machinery and PMLN could easily win from Punjab where it had influence over the government machinery. Only ANP lost because of less influence over machinery (and also Pashtun culture is more equal and egalitarian than the Punjabi and Sindhi social system. Pashtuns generally are less impressed by power of the state organs and are far more independent in mind and spirit and also their "family" is nuclear and small unlike the "biradaris" in Punjab and Sindh.)
The central argument is that Pakistan has still not discovered a mechanism whereby an incumbent controlling government (in a province, which actually controls the police and coercive apparatus) can actually be dislodged through elections. And 2013 has merely confirmed this reality. Lets hope for 2018!
