Global Democracy Day.

[RabzonKhan]

It’s amazing to see what a visionary he was, I wish he could have lived little longer!

“Never forget that you are the servants of the state. You do not make policy. It is we, the people’s representatives, who decide how the country is to be run. Your job is to only obey the decisions of your civilian masters.”
Quaid-i-Azam.


In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians and Parsis -- but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan." Quaid-i-Azam, Feb. 1948


“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State... I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in due course Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” August 11, 1947 address of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to the members of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.


UN International Day of Democracy

United Nations adopts September 15th as International Day of Democracy

On November 8th 2007 UN declared 15th of September International Day of Democracy and invites all Member States, organizations, non-governmental organizations and individuals to commemorate the International Day of Democracy in an appropriate manner that contributes to raising public awareness.

UN also invites member states to make sure, that parliamentarians and civil society organizations are given appropriate opportunity to be involved in, and contribute to, the celebration of the International Day of Democracy.

UN states that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of life.” And that “While democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy and that democracy does not belong to any country or region.”

As it is positive that UN acknowledges the importance of an international day of democracy, it is also central to stress that it is not enough just to promote democracy - it is imperative also to discuss, evaluate and explore the realms of democracy.

It is also essential that civil society organizations take responsibility and action to influence the agenda of the International Day of Democracy, making sure that the debate reflects issues relevant to the various parts of the population, including the marginalised and poor people.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Mily must work under civil admin: speakers

Source: OUR STAFF REPORTER submitted 15 hours 25 minutes ago

LAHORE - The military should work under the civilian elected administration, while the former must function within the ambit of rules, which is only possible through strengthening of the political institutions at every level, and Pakistan needs to learn lessons from international and regional best practices for improving its civil-military relations while moving towards democratic consolidation after establishing civilian and democratic control over the armed forces.

Speakers maintained this here on Tuesday at the inaugural day of the PILDAT International Conference on the Civil-Military Relations. On the first day, four sessions were held, which were chaired by well-known political analysts, and addressed by both local and international political experts.

Special Advisor to Chief Minister Punjab Sardar Zulfiqar Khosa reiterated the position of the PML-N on civilian supremacy over the army and underlined the need for the strengthening of institutions. “Martial law is responsible for the debacle of Dhaka, which put a question mark on the sustainability of democracy in Pakistan. Now democracy empowers state economy, while the military ruins it after showing lack of respect to the constitution,” he maintained.

Former Governor Sindh Lt.-Gen. (r) Moinuddin Haider traced the history of military’s intervention into politics. “Military has no political orientation, but is sucked in when political institutions do not perform. It has interests and worries for Pakistan, but it should be subservient to civil administration for a democratic and prosperous country,” he maintained.

While discussing ‘Comparative Overview of Civil-Military Relations around the World’ Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi said there had been a considerable decline in direct military rule in the first decade of the 21st Century and the trend was towards some kind of participatory governance.

“The military top commanders know that they cannot hold on to power and have to transform military rule into an acceptable civilian rule, while a few military rulers do not intend to give up power altogether either due to self cultivated ‘saviour’ complex or they develop power ambition,” he added.

Addressing Session-II ‘Closer Home: Civil-Military Relations in India’ former Secretary Defence India and currently Director Institute of Defence Studies Narendara Singh Sisodia said a combination of favourable historical circumstances, the committed and visionary leadership in the formative years of India and a strong infrastructure of democratic institutions, together with a professional and apolitical military, had ensured an effective democratic oversight of defence forces in India.

Concluding the Session Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Defence Senator Nisar A. Memon said politicians in Pakistan, alongside the military, need to work closely together towards carving out a future of Pakistan in which both sides could serve within their established domains.

In Session-III ‘Establishing Democratic Oversight of Defence Sector’ Dr. Volkan Aytar shared the Turkish case study and said discussing security issues and advancing the agenda of the civilian and democratic oversight of the security sector had always been difficult in Turkey. “Human rights associations faced tremendous pressures and difficulties, and even social stigma, and had to fight against claims that they have ‘hidden agendas’ to demoralise the Turkish security forces and undermine the secular and republican roots of the regime,” he said. Sharing the work of Geneva Centre of Democratic Control of Armed Forces Roland Friedrich said the DCAF experiences of different countries had shown that there was no one-fits-all approach for moving security sector governance into a more democratic direction.

Concluding the Session, Justice (r) Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui said there was a dire need to learn from international experiences to put Pakistan’s own house in order.

 

[RabzonKhan]

IRI award for Sherry Rehman

ISLAMABAD: International Republican Institute (IRI) has awarded Federal Minister for Information Sherry Rehman the title of ‘democracy’s hero’ for her struggle for democracy in the country.

According to IRI, Sherry worked diligently to initiate democratic reforms and was the architect of several bills in support of press freedom and women’s empowerment.

She worked closely with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to campaign for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, and braved tear-gassing and confinement by security agencies on several occasions. app

 

[RabzonKhan]

“Democracy, like liberty, justice and other social and political rights are not given. They are earned through courage, resolution and sacrifice.” - Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma



Analysis: Revival of democracy

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
February 15, 2009

South Asia experienced a historical shift towards democracy in 2008 as general elections were held in Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh. In addition, the Maldives held its presidential elections. Nepal also replaced monarchy with a republican system in May 2008.

These are positive signs that demonstrate the acceptability of elections and representation as legitimate methods of governance and political change.

However, if these developments are examined in a historical context, both democracy and authoritarianism, in various overlapping shades are found in South Asia.

Political systems have tended to change even within countries over time, oscillating between democracy and authoritarianism. Pakistan has experienced this cycle as well; its current democratic dispensation is one-year-old and there is widespread sympathy for the democratic process in political and societal circles. However, it is difficult to suggest that democracy has become non-reversible in Pakistan.

Bangladesh returned to democracy after a gap of two years (2007-2009), during which it experienced technocratic-bureaucratic-military hybrid authoritarian rule. The future of democracy in Bangladesh now depends largely on the capacity of the two major political parties to develop consensus on strengthening democracy and working together in relative harmony.

Nepal is now experimenting with republican democratic order. However, the inadequacies of the political players during the phase of constitutional monarchy under the 1990 Constitution are a cause for concern. It remains to be seen if Nepalese political elite can now function differently.

Democracy and authoritarianism do not always function in an exclusive manner and can co-exist. Democracy can adopt some authoritarian characteristics and vice versa. Invariably, democracies have special and emergency provisions in the constitution and law to use authoritarian techniques for dealing with a specified situation. At times, such provisions are used in a highly partisan manner.

Similarly, authoritarian military regimes and monarchical governments have not always been repressive. At times, they allow limited dissent, give some space to political parties and groups, and some freedom to the media.

Authoritarianism is associated with arbitrary authority whose political legitimacy is dubious. It is marked by an overwhelming and intolerant disposition towards individuals and socio-political groups that attempt to function autonomous of the government. The space available to autonomous group activity is limited, and it can change on the whims of the ruler and his close associates.

Authoritarianism assigns a high premium to obedience and low tolerance to open dissent, especially if it challenges the basic features of the authoritarian political and social order. It can manifest under civilian as well as military rule. Invariably, bureaucratic-military regimes have an authoritarian disposition and emphasise hierarchy, firm control, discipline, and absence of ambiguity instead of participation and socio-economic egalitarianism.

Democracy, on the other hand, is the most cherished political system. The minimalist notion of democracy emphasises open and competitive elections, universal adult suffrage and civil liberties. The comprehensive and liberal notion of democracy underlines a number of conditions in addition to elections. These include constitutionalism, the rule of law and basic freedoms at the operational level.

There is no exclusive domain of power for leaders and state institutions that are not accountable to the elected parliament and the electors. An overwhelming role for the military or the bureaucracy is anathema to democracy.

Democracy recognises political, social, cultural and religious pluralism based on individual and group freedoms and a non-discriminatory environment for disadvantaged sections of the population, especially ethnic, regional and religious minorities. There is recognition of an autonomous domain for societal and political activity that enriches democracy.

Democracy also calls for socio-economic equality and equity in theory and practice irrespective of religion, caste, creed, religion and gender, and works towards consensus building through dialogue and accommodation among competing interests rather than insisting on majority rule.

Independence of judiciary and civil and political rights, including freedom of press, expression and association, are also basic pre-requisites of democracy.

In South Asia, democracy has faced challenges from three main sources. First, democratically elected governments pursue policies that undermine the essence of democracy. Overplay of majority rule can easily cause sharp divisions in the polity and undermine democracy in the long run. Unless the political majority recognises that the political minority must stay on board, democracy is threatened. The latter should not lose the hope of political change through constitutional and legal means. Similarly, the opposition or political minority needs to acknowledge the majority’s right to rule, albeit within a constitutional and legal framework.

Second, organised groups threaten democracy. This is more likely if the government violates constitutionalism and rule of law by strictly controlling and manipulating access to state power and the channels of social mobility and political recruitment for new political aspirants.

The rise of religious and ethnic intolerance and extremism is a major threat to the future of democracy These groups use indiscriminate violence to pursue their narrow partisan agendas that in turn threatens civic order and societal stability.

However, terrorism is the most potent threat to democracy, peace and stability in South Asia. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other South Asian countries are threatened by terrorism in varying degrees. The Mumbai attack of November 2008 shows that terrorism also causes serious distortions in inter-state relations in South Asia from time to time.

The third, and perhaps most serious, challenge to democracy in South Asia is the individual’s lack of confidence in political and societal systems. If a large number of people come to the conclusion through their political experience that they cannot bring about any change in power structures and policy, they lose interest in the political system. If such alienation becomes widespread in society, democracy cannot be sustained. Either authoritarian or dictatorial forces take control or the alienated people become vulnerable to extremists.

The challenges to democracy can also be traced to the non-egalitarian socio-economic order in South Asia. Some vestiges of inequality and discrimination can be traced to religious and traditional practices that hinder democracy. Further, acute poverty, underdevelopment and lack of awareness of rights also sustain non-egalitarianism and authoritarian tendencies.

Democracy and authoritarianism will continue to exist in South Asia. This is a struggle for socio-economic equality and participatory governance with constitutional liberalism. The recent revival of democracy in the region has shifted the balance decisively in favour of democracy, but authoritarian trends continue to dilute the reforming impact of democracy. The possibility of setbacks to democracy cannot be ruled out.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst