I Opyne

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, PTI and 2018

leave a comment »

In the aftermath of the by-elections of NA-4 in Peshawar, many have predicted PTI’s victory to be an indication of a possible second term for PTI in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). However, in my opinion this assessment doesn’t hold to scrutiny when seen in the norms surrounding by-elections in Pakistan, as well as the regional voting patterns within KP.

In the follow up to General Elections (GE) 2013, a total of 19 National Assembly (NA) by-elections were held across all the four provinces on seats which, like NA-4, were won by provincial incumbents in 2013. The results show that provincial incumbents won 16 of these 19 seat. It is likely that incumbency becomes a disadvantage only after it is over, not before that. The predictive power of by-election wins could be seen in ANP’s win of NA-9 Mardan in the 2012 by-elections, i.e. just one year before ANP’s electoral rout out.

Now to the electoral results in KP, which like most things KP are often subjected to some very orientalist interpretations; where the province is portrayed as a united entity that always punishes bad governance. This fits perfectly with the vengeful and righteous “Khan saab” stereotype of Pakhtuns that seems to be popular in Pakistan.

However, the regional voting patterns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa paint a more nuanced picture. KP is usually divided into four regions, each with its own voting behavior. The anti-incumbency voting backlash exists but is limited to Peshawar valley (districts of Peshawar, Nowshera, Charsadda, Swabi and Mardan), a region that accounts for 36 of the 99 seats in KP’s provincial assembly. In the northern districts (Malakand, Swat, Chitral, Bunair, Shangla, Dir upper and Lower) only Swat votes in a manner that is similar to Peshawar valley, the rest of the districts usually give an overall fractured mandate. The Hazara division has always been a stronghold of the dominant brand of Muslim League, and the Southern Districts (Kohat, Karak, Hangu, D.I. Khan, Bannu, Lakki Marwat, and Tank) lean more towards JUI-F. Both Hazara and the Southern districts also account for a majority of KP’s independent candidates; after the 2013 elections, of the 14 independents, 11 were from these two regions.

These regional voting patterns have created a situation where it is highly unlikely for one party to hold a majority in KP; as is the case in Sindh and Punjab. Therefore, since 1988, provincial governments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (former NWFP) have almost always been formed by parties winning the center, as federal ministries and committees give them a powerful leverage when parlaying for alliances.

Since 1988, both PPP (1988, 1993) and IJI/PML-N (1990, 1997) formed governments in NWFP during their federal terms, a similar arrangement took place in the 2008 ANP-PPP government. It is likely that had Islamabad seen a PM return for a second consecutive term during this time, Peshawar might have seen a CM return as well.

However, there have been three exceptions to this pattern; first was the short lived government of PML-N’s Pir Sabir Shah in 1993, when PPP had won the federal government. Mr. Shah was brought down within five months and replaced by PPP’s Aftab Sherpao.

The second exception were the controversial elections of 2002 when the MMA broke through traditional voting patterns and secured 48 out of 99 seats in the KP assembly, thus able to form the government on its own.

The third exception was in 2013 when PTI formed the Government in KP. However, this wasn’t because of an overwhelming mandate; KP’s seat distribution could have been manipulated to bring a PML-N backed CM, for which JUI-F had tried very hard. But many believe that PML-N wanted to take the wind out of the “tabdeeli” promises of PTI, and therefore allowed PTI to govern KP.

Goes without saying that if the electoral results of 2013 are exactly repeated in 2018, PML-N is not likely to allow PTI a second term. Therefore, the two most probable scenarios for PTI to win a second term in KP are; 1- PTI wins the center and at-least 15-20% of the seats in KP, 2- PTI pulls an MMA and gains a majority in KP.

Pulling an MMA would be difficult because PTI’s support base lies mostly in the incumbency punishing districts of Peshawar valley and Swat; 27 out of PTI’s 35 seats are from this region. To get an idea of the reliability of these seats, consider the fact that 13 of these 27 constituencies that opted for PTI in 2013, also opted for ANP in 2008 and MMA in 2002.

In terms of development spending, Pervez Khattak’s government has largely prioritized its Peshawar valley support base at the expense of other regions. But history suggests that such positive biases towards Peshawar valley have not yielded results come re-election time. Both Aftab  Sherpao and Haider Hoti, were known for their preference for Peshawar valley and more specifically their home districts. But that didn’t mean much for their parties on their re-election days. PPP’s Peshawar valley results in 1990 and 1997 were not that different from that of ANP in 2013.

This is at a contrast to how southern districts responded to Akram Durrani’s prioritization of the South. In 2008, When MMA was being wiped out from the rest of the province, it won 6 out of 18 contested seats in the South. And in 2013 when PTI was sweeping Peshawar valley, JUI-F increased its share in the South from 6 to 9 seats. Similarly, PML-N’s favorable bias towards Hazara during their terms might explain why the region has been a consistent stronghold for PML-N.

PTI’s challenge is to not only maintain its incumbency-punishing support base, but to also break into the strongholds of both PML-N and JUI-F. Pervez Khattak’s prioritization of Peshawar valley is likely to make it difficult for his party to do the latter, but one can only wonder if it would be of any help with the former either.

This piece was published in the The News on 22nd November 2017



Written by Imran Khan

November 22, 2017 at 7:50 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: