In a national sample, 60 per cent favour restoration of Justice Chaudhry, 18 per cent oppose and 22 per cent are undecided.
Majority oppose governor’s rule, back restoration of Iftikhar
Sunday, March 08, 2009
By Dr Ijaz Shafi Gilani
Long-term historical trends are hard to forecast and easier to explain through hindsight. For one, because while they are taking shape, the range of possibilities present many paths and often accidents help unfold the ultimate choice. Yet, it is interesting to discuss and deliberate on them as they appear on the horizon. In trying to give an assessment of the year after the February 2008 elections, I have poured through hundreds of pages of public opinion and events data for the period and come to notice an interesting trend. Those of us living in Pakistan are beginning to experience a weaker state but perhaps a stronger nation. The capability and authority of the government and by extension the state has faced serious setbacks. Alongside, however, the society is showing signs of greater cohesiveness through shared concerns and threat perceptions, as well as higher capability for social action resulting from a more vibrant civil society which is led somewhat amorphously by persons who are more numerous than in the past and come from a wider range of backgrounds and perspectives. At the same time, they appear to be men and women of higher ability and integrity than the Pakistani society has seen in the recent past.
Interestingly, the latest episode on our ëtroubledí political scene, the disqualification of the Punjab chief minister and the imposition of governorís rule is a useful example. The episode reflects poorly on the state and its institutions. The disqualification debate arose from the failure of the state to deal with fairly normal public functions. Every step along the line thereafter, including November 3, 2007 and the legal structure resulting from it, provides ample evidence that the state is in a terrible mess. Legalistic arguments on “unlawful realities’ seem to insult commonsense and seriously undermine the legitimacy of the state. That this has continued from one government to the next makes one despair about both the government and the larger apparatus of the state on which it rests as its custodian. This is disappointing but only one half of the story. The other half is the popular reaction to the disqualification episode.
The decision has turned out to be vastly unpopular but more importantly this public view runs across traditional divides or cleavages in the society. A majority among almost all segments, provincial and linguistic, income and class, age and gender and strikingly political affiliations, have expressed the same view. And this is not the lone case. For the last two years, we have witnessed in our surveys identical behaviour on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues. When it comes to what the Pakistani society considers as core issues, its members rise above traditional divides and express a remarkable sense of national cohesion.
On the specific issue of disqualification of the Sharif Brothers and governorís rule in the Punjab, the disqualification decision was disapproved by 77 per cent and governorís rule approved only by 14 per cent of a national sample of men and women across the rural and urban areas of all the four provinces of the country (sample of 2643 men and women adults selected randomly and representing socio-economic crossñsections, interviewed face to face on March 1-2, 2009; error margin + 3-5 per cent at 95 per cent confidence level).
Due to the partisan nature of the issue one would expect views to be polarised along political party lines. Survey results are to the contrary: 58 per cent of those who intend to vote for the PPP if elections were held in the near future are opposed to the disqualification decision; only 32 per cent approve of governorís rule. These figures are not very far from the national averages and suggest that a majority among the PPP voters shares the mainstream view on the subject. Ninety-one per cent of ANP voters, 90 per cent of PML-N voters, 72 per cent of PML-Q voters and 74 per cent of all other smaller party voters are opposed to the disqualification decision. As an exception, a majority of MQM voters, 66 per cent, favours the disqualification decision; nevertheless a sizable number, 34 per cent, are opposed to it. It is also revealing that 72 per cent of those who describe their mother tongue as Urdu in the national sample are opposed to the decision which is likely to have some influence over MQM voters. It is socially healthy, we are informed by the experiences of others nations, if natural and deeper cleavages such as language, religion, sect or class on the one hand and political party affiliations on the other do not reinforce but cross-cut each other.
Take another example of the lawyersí movement and the restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry. In a national sample, 60 per cent favour restoration of Justice Chaudhry, 18 per cent oppose and 22 per cent are undecided. Again support for restoration cuts across traditional divides. A majority in all language groups: 63 per cent among those who describe their mother tongue as Punjabi are in favour; comparable figures among other major language groups are a majority in each, considerably outnumbering the opposition: Sindhi 47 per cent; Pushto 64 per cent; Urdu 56 per cent. In terms of political affiliation, as many as 46 per cent of PPP voters favour the restoration of Justice Chaudhry; the comparable figures among voters of other parties are: PML-N 69 per cent; PML-Q 70 per cent; ANP 60 per cent; JUI/MMA 74 per cent and MQM 33 per cent. Except for MQM voters, a majority favours restoration suggesting a broad national consensus overriding demographic, social and political divides. Most interestingly, when asked to assess the performance of various political parties on the judgesí issue, the voters are remarkably generous to political competitors. 58 per cent of PPP voters give very good and good ratings to the PML-N and only 49 per cent to their own party on this issue. 61 per cent of the ANP, 74 per cent of the JUI/MMA and 83 per cent of the PML-Q gave high rating to the performance of the PML-N on the judgesí issue. When asked whether they supported or opposed the continuation of the lawyersí movement, 72 per cent favoured, 26 per cent opposed and only 2 per cent did not give an answer. This included 62 per cent of PPP voters who supported the continuation, as opposed to 37 per cent who opposed.
To return to the main theme of reviewing the events and developments of the last one year and identifying the dominant trends, I cannot escape to notice a rising sense of personal empowerment which enables individuals to hold views at odds with authority. I would link it with higher access to new means of communication. Million of individuals are getting connected to other individuals through the mobile phone, as nearly 80 million connections have been sold in the last few years; compare this with the fact that the total number of landlines available for domestic use were barely three million five years ago. Motorcycle sales and road networks have risen dramatically. Television viewership has risen to nearly 80 per cent of all households totalling to 86 million television viewers among Pakistanis over the age of ten years. Nearly half of them can now access satellite TV providing a range of political and social views. Together a rising sense of personal empowerment, greater connectivity across the country and a higher level of cohesion across traditional divides, provides remarkable resilience to a nation despite rising hostility from those they see as wielding power at home and abroad. It also explains the prevailing turmoil and political instability. An increasingly empowered and more cohesive society finds itself at odds with the authority of the state. Trust in state institutions has declined while trust in civil society institutions including independent media has risen.
As I look at it, the trouble is not so much with the weakness of the structure of the state as with the legitimacy and trust in its custodians. Our problem is not of a failing state as our society is increasingly vibrant and our state structure is fairly elaborate and kick starts to function quite effectively when its physical and emotional parts click together. We need to bridge the widening distrust between the society and the state. The year under the stewardship of Zardari can perhaps be described as the one that produced a ìweaker state, stronger nationî. If Zardari has a future in his present role, it would lie in his ability to join the national mainstream of those who voted for his party and identify with the rising trend of shared concerns and shared interests in a civil society which is keen to put political polarization behind it and is beginning to ask of its leadership to demonstrate ability and integrity. That is the lesson I can extract from opinion polling during the last one year.
The writer holds a doctorate from MIT in Politics and International Relations and is a specialist in public opinion research.
