Course:(545) Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan Semester: Autumn, 2022

 

 ASSIGNMENT No. 1

Q.1 Political Party Is The Basic Component Of Democracy With Reference To This Discuss The Objectives Of Formation Of Political Parties. Explain The Functions Of Political Parties And Also Discuss The Democracy Within Political Party.

 

Answer:

A political party is defined as an organized group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.

 

Parties tend to be deeply and durably entrenched in specific substructures of society in a sustainable and well functioning democracy. They can link the governmental institutions to the elements of the civil society in a free and fair society and are regarded as necessary for the functioning any modern democratic political system.

 

Political parties perform key tasks in a democratic society, such as

 

Soliciting and articulating public policy priorities and civic needs and problems as identified by members and supporters. socializing and educating voters and citizens in the functioning of the political and electoral system and the generation of general political values

balancing opposing demands and converting them into general policies

 

Activating and mobilising citizens into participating in political decisions and transforming their opinions into viable policy options

Channeling public opinion from citizens to government

Recruiting and training candidates for public office

 

Political parties are often described as institutionalized mediators between civil society and those who decide and implement decisions. As such,  they enable their members’ and supporters’ demands to be addressed  in parliament and in government. Even though parties fulfil many vital roles and perform several functions in a democratic society, the nomination and presentation of candidates in the electoral campaign is the most visible function to the electorate.

 

To perform the above mentioned tasks and functions, political parties and citizens need some rights and obligations guaranteed or ruled by constitution or law. These include

 

Freedom of organisation

Freedom to stand for election

Freedom of speech and assembly

Provision of a fair and peaceful competition among parties and candidates

Mechanisms to ensure plurality

Inclusion in the electoral process and contacts with electoral bodies

A level playing field and freedom from discrimination

Media access and fair reporting guarantees

Transparent and accountable political finance

 

The internal functioning of individual political parties is to some extent determined by forces that are external to political parties, such as the electoral system, political culture, and legal regulations. However, internal processes of political parties, such as the personality of leaders and staff, the ideological foundations, party history, and internal political culture are considered to be even more influential on the internal functioning. If a political party would like the democratic principles of electoral politics to be applied within the party, they may consider practices like internal information and consultation processes, internal (formal or informal) rules and structures for the organisation and decision-making within the party, and transparency in the party’s functioning at all levels. Party members may also take on more formal roles in decision-making like participating in internal elections for leadership positions or in selecting the party’s candidate(s) in the upcoming elections. Many parties also work actively to enhance the role of traditionally under-represented groups in their parties.

      

Political parties perform an important task in government. They bring people together to achieve control of the government, develop policies favorable to their interests or the groups that support them, and organize and persuade voters to elect their candidates to office. Although very much involved in the operation of government at all levels, political parties are not the government itself, and the Constitution makes no mention of them. 

The basic purpose of political parties is to nominate candidates for public office and to get as many of them elected as possible. Once elected, these officials try to achieve the goals of their party through legislation and program initiatives. Although many people do not think of it this way, registering as a Democrat or Republican makes them members of a political party. Political parties want as many people involved as possible. Most members take a fairly passive role, simply voting for their party's candidates at election time. Some become more active and work as officials in the party or volunteer to persuade people to vote. The most ambitious members may decide to run for office themselves. 

Representing groups of interests

The people represented by elected officials are called constituents. Whether Republican or Democrat, constituents make their concerns known to their representatives. In turn, elected officials must not only reflect the concerns of their own political party but must also try to attract support from people in their districts or states who belong to the other party. They can attract this support by supporting bipartisan issues (matters of concern that cross party lines) and nonpartisan issues (matters that have nothing to do with party allegiance). 

Political parties represent groups as well as individuals. These interest groups have special concerns. They may represent the interests of farm workers, urban African Americans, small business operators, particular industries, or teachers — any similar individuals who cooperate to express a specific agenda. 

Simplifying choices

The two main political parties in the United States appeal to as many different groups as possible. They do so by stating their goals in a general way so that voters are attracted to a broad philosophy without necessarily focusing on every specific issue. Republicans are known for their support of business, conservative positions on social issues, and concern about the size of government; Democrats traditionally have supported labor and minorities and believe that government can solve many of the nation's problems. The alternative to using the general philosophies of the political parties to sort out candidates is to vote for individuals based on just their own one-or two-issue programs. 

Making policy

Political parties are not policymaking organizations in themselves. They certainly take positions on important policy questions, especially to provide alternatives to the position of whichever party is in power. When in power, a party attempts to put its philosophy into practice through legislation. If a candidate wins office by a large majority, it may mean that the voters have given him or her a mandate to carry out the program outlined in the campaign. Because President Bill Clinton failed to win a majority of the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996, few considered his victories a mandate for any specific policy or ideology.

 

Q.2 Elaborate the elements of pressure groups. Describe in detail the types of different pressure groups in Pakistan and also explain their role in developments of public opinion.              

Answer:

 

§  A pressure group is a group of people who are organised actively for promoting and defending their common interest. It is called so, as it attempts to bring a change in public policy by exerting pressure on the government. It acts as a liaison between the government and its members.

§  The pressure groups are also called interest groups or vested groups. They are different from the political parties, as they neither contest elections nor try to capture political power. They are concerned with specific programmes and issues and their activities are confined to the protection and promotion of the interests of their members by influencing the government.

§  The pressure groups influence the policy-making and policy implementation in the government through legal and legitimate methods like lobbying, correspondence, publicity, propagandising, petitioning, public debating, maintaining contacts with their legislators and so forth.

Techniques Used By Pressure Groups

Pressure groups resort to three different techniques in securing their purposes.

§  Electioneering: Placing in public office persons who are favourably disposed towards the interests the concerned pressure group seeks to promote.

§  Lobbying: Persuading public officers, whether they are initially favourably disposed toward them or not, to adopt and enforce the policies that they think will prove most beneficial to their interests.

§  Propagandizing: Influencing public opinion and thereby gaining an indirect influence over government, since the government in a democracy is substantially affected by public opinion.

Characteristics of Pressure Groups

§  Based on Certain Interests: Each pressure group organises itself keeping in view certain interests and thus tries to adopt the structure of power in the political systems.

§  Use of Modern as well as Traditional Means: They adopt techniques like financing of political parties, sponsoring their close candidates at the time of elections and keeping the bureaucracy also satisfied. Their traditional means include exploitation of caste, creed and religious feelings to promote their interests.

§  Resulting Out of Increasing Pressure and Demands on Resources: Scarcity of resources, claims and counterclaims on the resources from different and competing sections of the society leads to the rise of pressure groups.

§  Inadequacies of Political Parties: Pressure groups are primarily a consequence of inadequacies of the political parties.

§  Represent Changing Consciousness: For instance the increase in the food production or industrial goods does bring a change in the way individuals and groups look at the world. The stagnation in production leads to fatalism but increase in production leads to demands, protests and formation of new pressure groups.

Types of Pressure Groups

Institutional Interest Groups: These groups are formally organised which consist of professionally employed persons. They are a part of government machinery and try to exert their influence.These groups include political parties, legislatures, armies, bureaucracies, etc. Whenever such an association raises protest it does so by constitutional means and in accordance with the rules and regulations.

o    Example: IAS Association, IPS Association, State civil services association, etc.

§  Associational Interest Groups : These are organised specialised groups formed for interest articulation, but to pursue limited goals. These include trade unions, organisations of businessmen and industrialists and civic groups.

o    Some examples of Associational Interest Groups in India are Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Indian Chamber of Commerce, Trade Unions such as AITUC (All India Trade Union Congress), Teachers Associations, Students Associations such as National Students Union of India (NSUI) etc.

§  Anomic Interest Groups: By anomic pressure groups we mean more or less a spontaneous breakthrough into the political system from the society such as riots, demonstrations, assassinations and the like.

§  Non-Associational Interest Groups: These are the kinship and lineage groups and ethnic, regional, status and class groups that articulate interests on the basis of individuals, family and religious heads. These groups have informal structure. These include caste groups, language groups, etc.

 

Q.3 Discuss in detail the interaction and interrelation process between the political parties and pressure groups during 1956-1977.

Answer

One might think that casting a vote might make them a responsible citizen. However, this is only partly true because healthy democracies rely on voters who regularly question their government and express views on its policies or become involved in pressure groups or political parties.

Pressure groups and political parties are co-dependent for achieving their goals. Pressure groups consider the parties to be an important method of gaining access to those in power and political parties need the support of groups of people who share one or more interests and influence each other to get elected and maintain themselves in power. The nature of the federal system fosters a chain of a continuous relationship between the two bodies

Pressure Groups 

In your daily life, you might have come across news like “RSS’s statement on Tablighi Jamaat” or “FICCI’s call for government support in the Aviation industry”. Maybe, you would have wondered like me about what these associations actually are, what are they trying to do, why the media is covering them, etc.! So, these associations which have a group of people with a common interest that try to secure their interests by influencing the formulation and working of public policies can be understood as examples of Pressure Groups. Pressure Groups always have people with the same ideology. Pressure Groups are also known as Interest Groups

The term ‘Pressure Groups’ originated in the USA which means a group of people who are organised actively for promoting and defending their own interest. Their activism influences public policy. In India, the pressure groups have been active even during the colonial period. The All India Trade Union Congress was the first pressure group of India.

Role

The role of the pressure groups is very important for the administrative, legislative, executive, bureaucratic, and political system. They are like a living public behind the parties. Their role is indirect yet effective. The various roles of pressure groups are as follows:

1.     They try to introduce their candidates into the legislature. They help political parties to win an election by preparing manifestos and mobilizing voters.

2.     Pressure Groups try to fill high executive posts with men who can fulfill their interest i.e. selection of cabinet and selection of PM in a coalition government, etc. which affects the policy implementation process.

3.     Bureaucrats are politically neutral and hence, the pressure groups try to bend them in their manner by putting good remarks on them. Bureaucrats have a long tenure of service and therefore, they oblige to them.

4.     Pressure groups play as a vital link between the government and the governed. They keep governments more inclined towards their interest.

5.     Pressure groups help in expressing the views and needs of the minority communities who otherwise may remain unheard.

6.     Pressure groups provide expertise to the government with various information which might be applicable to issues such as indigenous reconciliation.

7.     Pressure groups promote opportunities for political participation without joining a political party.

 

Advantages

·         Promotion of authentic freedom of expression-

By joining an interest group as an individual, you can add your ideas to the collective expression of everyone who shares the same opinion. It is like joining a workers union. This advantage gives you an opportunity to make changes that will impact your life in some way.

·         Exploration of new perspectives-

Interest groups give all of us the chance to look at new thoughts and perspectives which makes it easier for us to see beyond our echo chambers. When legislation goes through the preparation process, the drafters look at the impact on any specific and identifiable group. Then, there is the consideration of what will happen with the population as a whole. When you are a part of this process, you get to see what others think about these specific subjects.

·         Balancing the impact of governance-

By coming together to speak with a collective voice, you get the chance to hold the powerful few in the positions of authority to be accountable for their actions. The interest groups serve a system of checks and balances. You get the chance to limit their governance by speaking to them about issues and even vote them out of office if they aren’t satisfactory enough.

·         Usable platforms that facilitate change-

Joining a group can make you be the change that you want to see. You along with the like-minded people around you can create opportunities to put enough pressure in the decision-makers in society to do something in your interest. Policies, rules, regulations can be moulded if a group of voices speak about it because it is pretty challenging to ignore a group of voices with the same voice rather than a single person who is trying hard to be heard.

·         Emphasis on fairness at the local level-

Fairness can be seen as a difficult concept to balance an on-ground reality. There are chronic problems of poverty, illness, food scarcity, corruption and many more which affect people seriously. This deprives them of having a chance at all the opportunities fairly. By the time they can do something about it, their chances are long gone.

Interest groups work toward equalizing income opportunities in society. They support each member to create a platform where everyone can start working towards a similar goal.

·         Creates opportunities for becoming community leaders-

Interest groups promote leadership in a community by influencing people to become part of an organized movement that can communicate the need for specific changes required. In modern times, you don’t have to get out of your home and contribute to it. Sharing information on social media and making a few phone calls can also do the work.

·         Access to more information-

When you join an interest group, then you have access to their resources which might lead you to get a chance to speak with your elected officials directly instead of sending them a letter. 

·         Lobbying for new legislation anytime

Interest groups play an important role in spreading information. With all the data, they make efforts to turn it into usable laws, rules, or regulations. Every interest group tries to influence elected officials to move toward desired legislative changes. 

Disadvantages

·         Loudest voices usually win-

One thing about interest groups is that size doesn’t matter. The ones who are more active usually generate more attention and get to play a part in modern politics. One can say that money speaks loudly in this arena, so there may be advantages to those who are wealthy.

Both sides in Indian politics tend to blame each other for the ills of society. Any group can assimilate a small number of people and sound like the majority which can come under the banner of disadvantage.

·         An easy way of stalking all legislative processes-

The reason why this disadvantage is such a problem is that each group tries to seek what is in their best interest without considering others. There is no desire to find a compromise.

·         Offensive views-

There is a democratic right to freedom of speech and expression. Some pressure groups still have unsecular and offensive views which stir up communal tensions. These groups whether small or large in number, tend to get a disproportionate amount of attention from the media. E.g. RSS, Bajrang Dal, etc.

·         Opposition-

There can be direct opposition between pressure groups which can probably lead to some serious civil disruptions. An example can be taken from the incident of clashes between ABVP and JNU Students Union.

·         Disobedience-

Pressure groups can sometimes become aggressive and get involved in militancy to get their demands heard. They can pull out publicity stunts and protests for attention which can disrupt public life and property.

E.g. JKLF and ULFA 

·         Governing systems can change-

When an interest group grows large enough, then their activities can alter the way a nation governs itself. This disadvantage is problematic because it forces everyone outside that core group to either conform to the “new normal” or risk the consequences of being on the outside. The BJP party backed by the RSS in India has got the chance to run the government. Their islamophobic and radical sentiments which are found in the parent wing RSS is hurting the secularism and integrity of this nation. This is an indication as to how quickly they can become adverse.

·         Unstable-

Pressure groups lack stability and commitment. This might result in their loyalties changing according to changing political situations.

·         Non-legitimate power-

Leaders of pressure-groups are not elected like conventional politicians, therefore they can’t be held publicly accountable. The influence they exert is not democratically legitimate. Very few pressure groups work on the basis of internal democracy. There has been a trend for pressure groups to be dominated by a small number of senior professionals.

 

Q.4 Identify the elements of public opinion. Elaborate the role of public opinion in developments of democracy.

Answer:

The term "public opinion" was derived from the French opinion publique, which was first used in 1588 by Michel de Montaigne in the second edition of his Essays (ch. XXII).

The French term also appears in the 1761 work Julie, or the New Heloise by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Precursors of the phrase in English include William Temple's "general opinion" (appearing in his 1672 work On the Original and Nature of Government) and John Locke's "law of opinion" (appearing in his 1689 work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding).

History

The emergence of public opinion as a significant force in the political realm dates to the late 17th century, but opinion had been regarded as having singular importance much earlier. Medieval fama publica or vox et fama communis had great legal and social importance from the 12th and 13th centuries onward. Later, William Shakespeare called public opinion the "mistress of success" and Blaise Pascal thought it was "the queen of the world".

In his treatise, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding c, John Locke considered that man was subject to three laws: the divine law, the civil law and most importantly in Locke's judgement, the law of opinion or reputation. He regarded the latter as of the highest importance because dislike and ill opinion force people to conform in their behaviour to social norms, however he didn't consider public opinion as a suitable influence for governments.

In his 1672 essay On the Original and Nature of Government, William Temple gave an early formulation of the importance of public opinion. He observed that "when vast numbers of men submit their lives and fortunes absolutely to the will of one, it must be force of custom, or opinion which subjects power to authority". Temple disagreed with the prevalent opinion that the basis of government lay in a social contract and thought that government was merely allowed to exist due to the favour of public opinion.

The prerequisites for the emergence of a public sphere were increasing levels of literacy which was spurred on by the Reformation, which encouraged individuals to read the Bible in the vernacular, and the rapidly expanding printing presses. During the 18th century religious literature was replaced with secular literature, novels and pamphlets. In parallel to this was the growth in reading societies and clubs. At the turn of the century the first circulating library opened in London and the public library became widespread and available to the public.

Coffee-houses

An institution of central importance in the development of public opinion, was the coffee-house, which became widespread throughout Europe in the mid-17th century. Although Charles II later tried to suppress the London coffeehouses as "places where the disaffected met, and spread scandalous reports concerning the conduct of His Majesty and his Ministers", the public flocked to them. For several decades following the Restoration, the Wits gathered round John Dryden at Will's Coffee House in Russell Street, Covent Garden. The coffee houses were great social levellers, open to all men and indifferent to social status, and as a result associated with equality and republicanism.

More generally, coffee houses became meeting places where business could be carried on, news exchanged and The London Gazette (government announcements) read. Lloyd's of London had its origins in a coffeehouse run by Edward Lloyd, where underwriters of ship insurance met to do business. By 1739, there were 551 coffeehouses in London. Each attracted a particular clientele divided by occupation or attitude, such as Tories and Whigs, wits and stockjobbers, merchants and lawyers, booksellers and authors, men of fashion or the "cits" of the old city center. Joseph Addison wanted to have it said of him that he had "brought philosophy out of closets and libraries to dwell in clubs and assemblies, at tea tables and in coffee houses". According to one French visitor, Antoine François Prévost, coffeehouses, "where you have the right to read all the papers for and against the government", were the "seats of English liberty".

Gentleman clubs

Gentlemen's clubs proliferated in the 18th century, especially in the West End of London. Clubs took over the role occupied by coffee houses in 18th century London to some degree and reached the height of their influence in the late 19th century. Some notable names were White's, Brooks's, Arthur's and Boodle's which still exist today.

These social changes, in which a closed and largely illiterate public became an open and politicized one, was to become of tremendous political importance in the 19th century as the mass media was circulated ever more widely and literacy was steadily improved. Governments increasingly recognized the importance of managing and directing public opinion. This trend is exemplified in the career of George Canning who restyled his political career from its aristocratic origins to one of popular consent when he contested and won the parliamentary seat in Liverpool, a city with a growing and affluent middle class which he attributed to the growing influence of "public opinion".

Jeremy Bentham was an impassioned advocate of the importance of public opinion in the shaping of constitutional governance. He thought it important that all government acts and decisions should be subject to the inspection of public opinion, because "to the pernicious exercise of the power of government it is the only check". He opined that public opinion had the power to ensure that rulers would rule for the greatest happiness of the greater number. He brought in Utilitarian philosophy in order to define theories of public opinion.

Concepts

The German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, by using the conceptional tools of his theory of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, argued (Kritik der öffentlichen Meinung, 1922), that 'public opinion' has the equivalent social function in societies (Gesellschaften) which religion has in communities (Gemeinschaften).

German social theorist Jürgen Habermas contributed the idea of public sphere to the discussion of public opinion. According to Habermas, the public sphere, or bourgeois public, is where "something approaching public opinion can be formed". Habermas claimed that the Public Sphere featured universal access, rational debate, and disregard for rank. However, he believes that these three features for how public opinion are best formed are no longer in place in western liberal democratic countries. Public opinion, in western democracy, is highly susceptible to elite manipulation.

 

The American sociologist Herbert Blumer has proposed an altogether different conception of the "public". According to Blumer, public opinion is discussed as a form of collective behavior (another specialized term) which is made up of those who are discussing a given public issue at any one time. Given this definition, there are many publics; each of them comes into being when an issue arises and ceases to exist when the issue is resolved. Blumer claims that people participate in public in different capacities and to different degrees. So, public opinion polling cannot measure the public. An educated individual's participation is more important than that of a drunk. The "mass" in which people independently make decisions about, for example, which brand of toothpaste to buy, is a form of collective behavior different from the public.

 

Public opinion plays an important role in the political sphere. Cutting across all aspects of relationship between government and public opinion are studies of voting behavior. These have registered the distribution of opinions on a wide variety of issues, have explored the impact of special interest groups on election outcomes and have contributed to our knowledge about the effects of government propaganda and policy.

Contemporary, quantitative approaches to the study of public opinion may be divided into four categories:

1.   Quantitative measurement of opinion distributions.

2.   Investigation of the internal relationships among the individual opinions that make up public opinion on an issue.

3.   Description or analysis of the public role of public opinion.

4.   Study both of the communication media that disseminate the ideas on which opinions are based and of the uses that propagandists and other manipulators make of these media.

The rapid spread of public opinion measurement around the world is reflection of the number of uses to which it can be put. Public opinion can be accurately obtained through survey sampling. Both private firms and governments use surveys to inform public policies and public relations.

Formation

Numerous theories and substantial evidence exists to explain the formation and dynamics of individuals' opinions. Much of this research draws on psychological research on attitudes. In communications studies and political science, mass media are often seen as influential forces on public opinion. Additionally, political socialization and behavioral genetics sometimes explain public opinion.

Mass media effects

The formation of public opinion starts with agenda setting by major media outlets throughout the world. This agenda setting dictates what is newsworthy and how and when it will be reported. The media agenda is set by a variety of different environmental and newswork factors that determines which stories will be newsworthy.

Another key component in the formation of public opinion is framing. Framing is when a story or piece of news is portrayed in a particular way and is meant to sway the consumers attitude one way or the other. Most political issues are heavily framed in order to persuade voters to vote for a particular candidate. For example, if Candidate X once voted on a bill that raised income taxes on the middle class, a framing headline would read "Candidate X Doesn't Care About the Middle Class". This puts Candidate X in a negative frame to the news reader.

Social desirability is another key component to the formation of public opinion. Social desirability is the idea that people in general will form their opinions based on what they believe is the prevalent opinion of the social group they identify with. Based on media agenda setting and media framing, most often a particular opinion gets repeated throughout various news mediums and social networking sites, until it creates a false vision where the perceived truth can actually be very far away from the actual truth. When asked for their opinion on a subject about which they are uninformed, people often provide pseudo-opinions they believe will please the questioner.

 

Public opinion can be influenced by public relations and the political media. Additionally, mass media utilizes a wide variety of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the minds of people. Since the 1950s, television has been the main medium for molding public opinion. Since the late 2000s, the Internet has become a platform for forming public opinion. Surveys have showed that more people get their news from social media and news websites as opposed to print newspapers. The accessibility of social media allows public opinion to be formed by a broader range of social movements and news sources. Gunn Enli identifies the Internet's effect on public opinion as being “characterised by an intensified personalisation of political advocacy and increased anti-elitism, popularisation and populism”. Public opinion has become more varied as a result of online news sources being influenced by political communication and agenda setting.

 

Role of influentials

There have been a variety of academic studies investigating whether or not public opinion is influenced by "influentials", or persons that have a significant effect on influencing opinion of the general public regarding any relevant issues. Many early studies have modeled the transfer of information from mass media sources to the general public as a "two-step" process. In this process, information from mass media and other far-reaching sources of information influences influentials, and influentials then influence the general public as opposed to the mass media directly influencing the public.

 

While the "two-step" process regarding public opinion influence has motivated further research on the role of influential persons, a more recent study by Watts and Dodds (2007) suggests that while influentials play some role in influencing public opinion, "non-influential" persons that make up the general public are also just as likely (if not more likely) to influence opinion provided that the general public is composed of persons that are easily influenced. This is referred to in their work as the "Influential Hypothesis". The authors discuss such results by using a model to quantify the number of people influenced by both the general public and influentials. The model can be easily customized to represent a variety of ways that influencers interact with each other as well as the general public. In their study, such a model diverges from the prior paradigm of the "two-step" process. The Watts and Dodds model introduces a model of influence emphasizing lateral channels of influence between the influencers and general public categories. Thus, this leads to a more complex flow of influence amongst the three parties involved in influencing public opinion (i.e. media, influencers and general public).

---

             

 

Q.5 What were the causes of formation of Pakistan National Alliance against the Bhutto government?                

Answer:

The Pakistan National Alliance, was a populist and consolidated right-wing political alliance, consisting of nine political parties of the country. Formed in 1977, the country's leading right-wing parties agreed upon to run a political campaign as a single bloc against the left oriented PPP in the 1977 general elections.

Despite each parties standing with a different ideology, PNA was noted for its large physical momentum and its right-wing orientation, originally aimed to oppose Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the PPP. Despite its right-wing populist agenda, the alliance performed poorly in the 1977 general election and levelled accusations of rigging the elections. After months of spontaneous violent political activism, the martial law came in effect under chief of army staff General Zia-ul-Haq who made call for a political retribution. By 1978, the alliance met its end when parties diverged in each of its agenda. The left-wing parties later would form the MRD alliance under PPP to oppose President Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s and the right-wing forming the IDA alliance under PML.

The PPP came in power politics after the loss of East-Pakistan in 1971. After uplifting the martial law in 1972 and promulgating the constitution in 1973, the PPP made slow efforts to advance the "Islam and democracy" in the country, but intensified the socialism with a vengeance. First and foremost, the nationalisation program was carried out to centralised the large-scale industries, private-sector and commercial corporation to set up the strong state sector. Resentment and heavy disapproval came from the elite corporate sector and PPP intensified its public programs at the social circles. Although the general elections were to be held on half of 1977, Bhutto made a move and called for holding the general elections on 7 January 1977.

Early calls for the elections was an idea to not to given time to the opposition to make decisions and arrangements for the forthcoming elections. Immediately after the announcement, Bhutto started his election campaign and began allotting party tickets to party's candidates. Sensing the difficulty of facing PPP alone, the conservative mass began to consolidate when JeI contacting the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and TeI. The other small nine parties too joined the alliance and initially called for ending the era of stagflation in the country and its manifesto was to bring back the 1970 prices.

Right-wing populism and violence

At this platform, the modern European style-influenced forces formed an alliance with totally opposite of hard-line Islamist forces. The alliance decided to contest the elections under one election symbol "plough" and a green flag with nine stars as its ensign.

Contesting the 1977 elections jointly the PNA launched a national campaign against the government after the controversial and allegedly rigged results showing the Peoples Party as an overwhelming victory in the general elections. The agitation caught the Peoples Party and its political scientists, by surprise and after several months of street fighting and demonstrations. Under advised by his advisers, Bhutto opened negotiations with the then PNA leadership but whether or not it would have been signed by all PNA parties or by Bhutto remains open to speculation. In a single unusual anti-Bhutto bloc, the alliance seemed to be effective when tapping a wave to remove Bhutto from government.

Meanwhile, Bhutto's trusted confident and a lifelong companion dr. Mubashir Hassan tried to handle the situation on behalf of Bhutto by bringing the alliance on a table to reach an agreement of co-existence and a vital political solution. On other hand, Hassan advised Bhutto to not to rely either on establishment or use the force to curb the alliance. An agreement was eventually reached in June 1977 and Bhutto was to sign it on 5 July. However, despite the enthusiasm of the negotiating team, other PNA leaders had reservations about the agreement. In response, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto also tried to crush the power of this alliance, with the help of his agencies such as FSF and Rangers and for this reason was also considered for the cause of Bhutto's hanging on 4 April 1979. In a coup staged by General Zia, Bhutto was removed from office with majority of his colleagues.

Authoritarianism and PNA split

The conservatives and Islamist fronts went to General Zia-ul-Haq, Chief of Army Staff and Admiral Mohammad Shariff, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and convinced them to remove Bhutto and no other agreement is reached with Bhutto and his colleagues remained stubborn.The absence of a formal agreement between the government and the PNA was used as an excuse by the Pakistan Defence Forces under its chairman Admiral Mohammad Shariff which led to stage a Coup d'état (see Operation Fair Play) by General Ziaul Haque to break the impasse. Those justifying the coup, argue that no agreement had been reached between the two sides.

Controversy regarding foreign support

Main article: Pakistan-United States relations

On 5 July 1977, the PPP accused the United States of plotting the coup and maintained that the coup had tacit consent from the United States. A few before the martial law, Bhutto had indicated that few foreign powers had been engineering his downfall, though he did not name which foreign powers. Several Pakistani scholars and researchers have given credence to Bhutto's claim. The veracity of these claims are difficult to verify since the United States has strongly rejected any claims of their involvement in downfall of Bhutto. Though, former American Attorney General Ramsey Clark did questioned the "knowledge, hence the tacit approval" of the coup staged against the PPP.

Further media investigative research showed that one of PNA's leading politician, Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan who was perhaps closer to the secret establishment, had received millions of Rupees from the establishment account to fight against the PPP. Reportedly, it was Asghar Khan who ultimately called for military take over and hanging of Bhutto. After imposition of martial law, the retired air marshal withdrew himself from the front line of the PNA and took a back seat.

In 1998, Benazir Bhutto publicly announced her belief that her father was "sent to the gallows at the instance of the superpower (most believe it to be USA) for pursuing the nuclear capability, though she did not disclosed the name of the foreign power.