Raza Habib Raja
The views presented in this article are solely of the author and should not be contrued? as PTH?s official stance
Pakistan is right now witnessing the battle between judiciary and the executive. Although the apparently the tussle is between Prime Minister and the judiciary yet in reality it is the President Asif Ali Zardari who is the real character.
I am against the selective lynching of the President, and I do think that media is being extremely unfair on some accounts (though not all) but the fact is that whether rightly or wrongly his repute is impinging the party?s repute. As the party has historically identified itself with the Bhutto clan, therefore the current chairman?s repute is completely overshadowing the ideals on which PPP was originally formed.
This difficult situation is due to the legacy politics model on which the PPP has evolved. In this model the party membership is bound to just obey the current ?torch bearer? of the continuing dynasty. The evolution has taken in such a manner that party assumes that if only someone from Bhutto clan (no matter how unpopular or incompetent s/he is) can keep the party intact. The party needs a Bhutto and if one is not ?naturally? available then make Zardari a Bhutto!!
I have nothing against the illustrious Bhutto family members like Benazir and even Asif Ali Zardari as he has led Pakistan ably and has withered all opposition in a smart manner but the fact is that their sole credentials have been their relationship to the founder of the party, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
The PPP is forced to defend its chairman even it is difficult to defend. But the buck does not stop here; the criticism on the chairman is interpreted as criticism on PPP itself. While criticism on the current chairman is often rather fantastic the defense matches it ?brilliantly?. When the chairman is under attack, the supportive elements equate criticism on his persona as criticism on liberal democracy and his persona is actually defended with a genuine zeal. Since the chairman cannot be defended on factual grounds, the PPP supporters have to whip up various analogies equating attack on him as attack on democracy, left wing idealism, Sindh question, common man etc. And yes the President?s supporters won?t hesitate to even call you a Taliban supporter if you are critical of him no matter how liberal your credentials are
This legacy politics model in turn is an extension of personality template. Personality politics is often the characteristic of many developing countries. Here often the electorate starts equating a party with a charismatic individual who is generally also responsible for founding or popularizing the party. In some parties, after the initial phase, the individual though remaining powerful fades into background and allows the party to become more dominant. However, in some cases individual becomes more and more powerful and cult of personality forms. Cult of personality if successfully formed gives the individual unusual power over the party members. Once this develops, the party assumes the nature of ?fuehrer? party with the individual becoming the face, image and the rallying point. The identification of the party emanates from the individual and the personal traits start to dominate the image, direction and the public stance of the party. Generally speaking this personality cult often sets the basis for subsequent formulation of dynasty politics as well. In this scenario, the heir to the leader of the party does not owe his/her position to personal qualities but due to relation with the charismatic founder of the party.
The personality driven politics does have the advantage of ensuring coherence and centralized thrust towards achievement of objectives. In addition, it also ensures relatively diehard ?loyalty? of the voter as politics becomes more personalized if it is centred on an individual. THIS TEMPLATE IS PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE IN THE FOUNDATION STAGE WHERE IT IS EASY FOR THE PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY WITH A CHARISMATIC INDIVIDUAL.
However, the disadvantages of this template in the long run far outweigh the advantages. On the flip side, the personality-driven politics renders the party and at times even its manifesto completely to the whim of the leader. Once such a position is attained then all the second tier leaders, cognizant of the fact that they owe their power and position due to nearness to the cultish leader of the party are forced to further propagate and strengthen ?loyalty?. Another negative element is that majority of the secondary leadership in order to retain the status quo do not show dissent and in the process further augment the position of the leader and inflate an already over inflated ego. Those who show dissent are generally kicked out or simply lose their stature and respect in the party. If the party was originally a progressive party, the emergence of such cult figures have a thoroughly regressive impact as the party become subservient to the leader?s whim. With little to no opposition to the leader due to weak and insecure second tier leadership, it is like a self destructive spiral which continues to take the direction of the party increasingly towards personal interests of the leader. Since the party identifies itself with its leader therefore its outward position develops in such a way that when the leader comes under criticism from outside elements, quickly the party as well as the voter construes that as criticism on the party itself and its original ideals.
Even more problematic is the situation where personality template transforms into dynasty politics. Here a totally incompetent heir can inherit a party with a developed leader obedient culture. If this happens the results are catastrophic as the incompetent heir has virtually ineffective opposition within the party, enjoys the support of the worker and even that of the intelligentsia.
This has actually happened with the PPP which now finds itself trapped in dynasty politics which emanated from Bhutto the founder of the party. Bhutto was a charismatic person who developed a cult like following. By no means is he the creator of this concept as this has been witnessed in many other parts of the world also but in Pakistan it initiated with him and gathered pace subsequently. Apart from the PPP, this also had significant impact on the course of development of other parties. The ?success? of Bhutto in this respect also paved the way for the other parties to follow suit whether deliberately or because this was what seemed to work. Today, MQM, PML (N) and PTI, all are modelled on same personality template.
After an initial phase of uplift this had a regressive impact as it gave Bhutto an unaccountable power over the party affairs and virtually insulated him from all the criticism. Progressive workers like J A Rahim were humiliatingly kicked out of the party and with no effective resistance. Moreover, it extended even after his death to such an extent that once Benazir was accepted as an heir to his legacy she was able to whip the party to her own desires. Unfortunately, the PPP in order to remain ?in? had to constantly whip Bhutto mania and this in the longer run has proven to be catastrophic.
Lets not forget that A PROGRESSIVE PARTY BY ITS VERY NATURE HAS TO BE GEARED AGAINST STATUS QUO AND SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE CHANGING GROUND REALITIES. Conservative parties on the other hand have negative assumption about human nature and try to retain the restrictions and laws which have evolved to control freedom. Conservative parties try to retain status quo while progressive parties in principle challenge it. For conservative parties, legacy politics does not matter much on the ideological front as they are traditionalists. That does not mean that for them it is a good thing either. Dynasty politics can potentially curtail the ability of the progressive parties to evolve and continuously challenge the status quo. Because in case of legacy politics model the change comes from the cultish leadership who may or may not be receptive to such ideas. And even if one generation is, there is no guarantee that the subsequent generation would be. In essence legacy politics is like monarchy through with apparent semblance of ?democratic? popularity.
In addition the personal ?fame? of the leader completely determines the party?s image as well. While this is true for transitional leadership parties as well, but the extent is not that prominent. Moreover in that template the leader can easily be replaced whereas in the legacy template that cannot be. This problem actually negates the argument that dynasty politics is necessary for keeping the party coherent because in case the ?heir? comes with a controversial reputation, ideals of the party are likely to be completely overshadowed by the reputation of the leader. This is why the PPP is in a quagmire.
These are the factors which have to be kept in mind by the liberal intelligentsia before passionately supporting legacy politics particularly in progressive parties such as PPP. The counterargument given is generally on the pragmatic side that without the central legacy leader the party will break apart. The problem is actually that the template itself necessities this logic and once this template is broken the party will quickly readjusts.
One way to gradually dismantle the legacy politics is to ensure elections within the party on a regular basis. This may at least weaken the legacy leader?s power to make discreet appointments. After all let?s not forget that personality template and legacy politics is strengthened by handing over the key positions to the ?favorites?. This explains why all the mainstream parties are today reluctant to hold elections.
For a developing country like Pakistan which is right now reeling under forces of conservatism, the progressive parties have to play a meaningful and active role. Right now the dominance of personality template is seriously hampering their ability and in the process strengthening conservative forces as they are able to make a better case for themselves on the basis of competency and good governance. This personality template needs to weaken and eventually discarded for the progressive parties to play their due role effectively. The media, particularly the liberal segment, needs to exert efforts in this direction rather than spinning facts to absolve the central leaders of their follies. It has to be remembered that mistakes of liberals are the gains of conservatives. Defending leaders and equating them with lofty ideals is only proving counterproductive.
?
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v4N9s8W9C1i2c9NVPAmvZjVmuVj9QMTJV0KxIPjngb0ZnbX5y91GLckS1nYiV5Z5FeZBWFvM100pMryjTYQBzIRGbTudlxKZZDKWDrJ_I=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 2-Apr-2012
Share ] 
The UK has the most Internet-centric economy in the G20 group of industrialised nations according to research by the Boston Consulting Group released in March 2012. It estimates that the UK?s internet economy was worth ?121bn in 2010, more than ?2,000 per person. Couple this with the knowledge that approximately 20 threats per second are discovered on the Internet, and it?s not surprising that UK government lists cyber security as a ?Tier 1 Threat?, alongside terrorism. However, recognising the threat is slightly different from actually doing something about it.
Interestingly the UK and the US are seen as the safest places for Internet based business. This has resulted in several large corporations quietly reversing the recent trend to relocate business to the developing world to reduce costs. Ensuring security has become as important, if not more important, a business driver for governments as cost. When a country loses its AAA credit score for a ratings agency, it makes headlines. I predict it will not be long before similar importance is attached to measures such as the Booz Allen cyber hub index.
A significant difficulty in protecting critical national assets is that the Internet is primarily run by private companies or non-governmental organisations. That?s true even in the case of? critical national infrastructure such as utilities, which are vulnerable to attack via the Internet. Most of the infrastructure and services that underpin national digital infrastructures are run by private companies such as HP, Fujitsu, IBM, Verizon, BT and others. Even the key technologies employed to sit on top of the infrastructure are developed by private companies ranging from Google, to Microsoft, to Apple plus a raft of much smaller start-ups, some of whom you will never have heard. The level of investment produced by these companies dwarfs those made by governments.
For example, the UK?s National Cyber Security Programme is making available a total of GBP650 million (USD1.01 billion) over four years. This money is intended to be part of a programme whereby government works with businesses, as well as protecting governmental assets. But this money is lost when you think, for example, of cyber security company Symantec spending USD862 million in 2011 alone on research and development. Similarly, Microsoft spent USD8.7 billion in 2010 and Google USD3.7 billion. The disparity between individual government spend, and that they are used to procuring systems over many years rather than at the speed at which Internet technologies change, means that governments find it very difficult to engage with private businesses.
For example, you might imagine the all-out attack on Estonia in 2007 would have led to an aggressive response. Instead it led to the formation of the Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE). The purpose of CCD COE is to understand the cyber threat as it develops and thence to prevent those attacks. This is an approach which has received the full backing of NATO. Meanwhile, the EU has created the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) to act as a hub for the exchange of information, best practices and knowledge in the field of information security.
Regardless of style of approach one common theme has emerged: the key to effective defence against the rapidly evolving threat is shared intelligence. The studies conducted by Dr Rogoyski showed that what business wants most from government is Information Sharing and Awareness Raising. And, intelligence is one thing that governments do have.
In the UK, the private sector is not necessarily waiting for government direction. For example, a financial services virtual task force has been formed by several large banks. This task force co-operates with the Metropolitan Police and exchanges information on threats and attacks as rapidly as possible. This has proved to be a very effective approach and has led to a number of successful prosecutions. Another information exchange is being set up by Intellect and ADS, UK hi-tech trade associations.