In a recent interview conducted by NHS Media, Dr Niloufer Siddiqui, an Assistant Professor at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany, shared insights from her book titled “Under the Gun: Political Parties and Violence in Pakistan.” Dr Siddiqui’s research revolves around the complex relationship between political parties, violence, and voter behaviour in Pakistan.
Key Points
- The reasons behind violence within political parties reveal complex motivations and voter responses.
- Ethnic polarization often shapes voting behaviour, where violence can become an accepted means to secure representation and benefits.
- Parties lacking organizational strength turn to local influencers for votes, even if they have connections to local disputes or violence.
- While the military’s role is acknowledged, voter decisions are shaped by various factors beyond military influence in Pakistan’s political landscape.
- Examining coercion and manipulation within the political system provides insights into Pakistan’s broader political dynamics.
Dr Siddiqui’s said that her interest in understanding the phenomenon of violence within political parties in Pakistan was sparked during her time in the country between 2007 and 2008. During this period, Karachi witnessed a surge in violence, particularly among parties with ethnic bases of support. Her aim was to unravel the motivations behind parties employing violence as a strategy and explore how voters responded to this behaviour.
Contrary to the conventional notion that voters tend to disapprove of violence, Dr Siddiqui’s research explored the circumstances under which voters hold political parties accountable for their violent actions. She aimed to identify situations in which voters might overlook violence or prioritize other factors over it. Dr Siddiqui acknowledged that while voters generally dislike violence, factors such as limited alternatives and the promise of benefits can lead them to support parties that engage in violence.
Discussing violence along ethnic lines, particularly in Karachi, Dr Siddiqui noted that ethnic polarization can influence voting behaviour. In Karachi, where ethnic polarization was high, voters often felt that supporting their respective ethnic party was crucial for obtaining goods, services, representation, and jobs. The introduction of a new alternative in the form of the PTI in the 2018 elections led to a shift in voting patterns, indicating a break from traditional ethnic voting.
Dr Siddiqui emphasized that violence in Punjab was driven by dynamics different from those in Karachi. In areas where political parties lacked organizational strength, they often turned to local power players or “electable” to secure votes. These electables, sometimes involved in local disputes or violence, were brought onto party tickets to ensure electoral success. Dr Siddiqui highlighted that this trend emerged due to the weak organizational capacity of parties rather than just ethnicity or other factors.
While acknowledging the role of the military establishment in Pakistan’s political landscape, Dr. Siddiqui’s research primarily focused on the interplay between political parties and voters. She suggested that the relationship between political parties, voters, and the state is complex and cannot be solely attributed to military influence. While acknowledging the influence of state coercion, she highlighted that various factors shape voter decisions beyond military involvement.
Although Dr Siddiqui’s research primarily explored the interaction between parties and voters, she recognized the importance of investigating coercion and manipulation within the electoral system and legislative assemblies. She acknowledged the significance of studying these dynamics but noted that her research mainly centred on the broader interactions between parties, voters, and violence.
Conclusively Dr Niloufer Siddiqui’s research sheds light on the intricate connections between political parties, violence, and voter behaviour in Pakistan. Her book “Under the Gun: Political Parties and Violence in Pakistan” offers valuable insights into the motivations behind the violence, the role of ethnicity in voting patterns, and the interplay between political parties and the state. While addressing some aspects of state influence, the primary focus remains on the dynamics at play between parties and voters.
