Issues in national politics, that dominate debates and discussions all around, are drowned out in the election season

Structural issues rarely take centre stage during poll campaigns in the rural hinterland, which is where most parliamentary seats are concentrated. Unlike their party’s top leaders, who indulge in highfalutin rhetoric about legal and constitutional issues, the candidates quickly narrow their focus on the more mundane but nevertheless practical issue of state patronage in the run-up to the elections.

Now that the poll drive is beginning to gather steam after an abrupt and month-long halt caused by Benazir Bhutto’s tragic death – and subsequent postponement of elections – this is what is happening on the campaign trail. The candidates are touching upon issues they know are close to the hearts of their electorate, and not ones they know the electorate is unconcerned about.

In keeping with the mood of their electors, the candidates had, in fact, drifted far away from legal and constitutional questions right from the start of the campaign in December for the previously-scheduled polls.

For instance, they were indifferent about General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s sacking of 50 judges from the superior courts, the suspension of the Constitution and imposition of emergency rule, or his earlier unconstitutional actions. Some political leaders got a sense of what mattered most to the voters when they began touring the rural areas of the country. Though others such as Nawaz Sharif still concentrated on structural issues in their speeches, a shift in focus was discernible as the other main contenders at the national level broached local issues.

The national issues were further shunted to the sidelines after the assassination of Bhutto. “The event had a dampening effect on the campaign. This is why we don’t see much debate on national political issues,” says Dr Mohammad Waseem, a prominent political analyst.

Nearly all the major parties had issued their manifestos by the first week of December. As usual, voters were promised a glut of favours, which political analysts viewed as clear assurances of state patronage. In their campaign speeches, too, candidates promised schools, jobs and poverty alleviation measures, as well as development work in remote areas. A recurring theme in the manifestos of different parties was the pledge to introduce true democracy in Pakistan. Both the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PMLN) explained in practical terms what that entailed: restoration of the Constitution, abolition of the extra-constitutional powers enjoyed by the president and the reintroduction of a proper parliamentary system of government. Unlike its rivals, the Pakistan Muslim League – Quaid-e-Azam (PMLQ) made no mention of constitutional reforms and indicated instead that it intended to downsize the Prime Minister’s Secretariat and further decentralise power. The grouping also wants the electorate to forget the rumpus over emergency rule in the country.

Adopting ‘national reconciliation’ as an election slogan, the PMLQ leadership spent millions of rupees on a television advertising campaign boasting of massive development works during their five-year stint. Other pro-Musharraf parties also ignored the 45-day emergency. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement, for instance, waxed lyrical about the struggle against feudalism and its claim to represent the country’s oppressed masses. But as much as these parties tried to avoid talk of post-emergency political and legal issues, the opposition parties kept these issues on the front burner, believing that a firm position on the removal of judges would win votes. PMLN chief Sharif made the restoration of the deposed judges a precondition for his participation in the future political set-up.

When Musharraf first tried to suspend Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on March 9, 2007, he became the unwitting catalyst for the emergence of a powerful pressure group in the form of the legal fraternity. The protest movement mounted by lawyers gained considerable public sympathy and galvanised students and other groups. However, these issues will not influence voting patterns, especially in the rural areas, according to experts. “These political issues don’t really influence the election’s outcome or voting patterns. But that doesn’t mean that these issues are not important for the masses,” says Ijaz Shafi Gilani, president of the Gallup Pakistan.

And it seems that the candidates out campaigning in their constituencies do realise that. In fact, food prices and state patronage are the biggest issues at the local level. “For us the biggest issue is the availability of two square meals a day. Political issues on the national front hardly affect us,” says Sajid Bhatti, a local councillor in the Sadiqabad area of Rawalpindi.

As the polling day approaches, such basic issues and questions about state patronage become the central focus of campaign speeches. With many voters wary of the election promises of political parties, candidates try to lure individual voters and opinion makers with promises of state patronage. Such endorsements can often guarantee the support of large blocs of voters, particularly in the rural areas. “For the client voter, patronage-oriented issues are much more important than national political issues,” says Dr Waseem.

The situation in towns and cities is somewhat different. “Voters in the urban areas are conscious of political concerns and they give importance to issues such as the legitimacy of the election, allegations that the caretaker government is partisan and that the Election Commission is not independent,” he adds.

The political parties were also sensitive to localised political and religious concerns. For instance, Sharif, in a speech in Jaranwala, Punjab, branded the Lal Masjid operation as one of the government’s ‘black deeds’, aware that many of the Lal Masjid madrasah students were from northern Punjab.

Anti-Americanism is not as big an election issue as it was in 2002. In the 2008 campaign, political leaders such as Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Sharif have made only the occasional jibe at certain US policies in their home constituencies and beyond. Instead, most of the opposition’s rhetoric has been directed against the person of General (retd) Musharraf.

Noticeably, the PMLQ and other pro-Musharraf groups have made little or no attempt to defend the president. This is a clear sign that the PMLQ has distanced itself from its patron. None of the party’s candidates are using Musharraf’s image in their campaigns. PMLQ leaders have steered clear of the topic of extremism in their speeches. Such differences only continue to highlight the confusion in Pakistan’s polity.