Why we need continuity of democracy

[Solomon2]

Why we need continuity of democracy
By Dr Raza Khan
Published: February 10, 2018

The writer is a political, economy and security analyst and a governance and public policy practitioner. He can be contacted at razapkhan@yahoo.com

This is the election year in Pakistan and for the second time on the trot an elected dispensation is apparently going to complete its constitutional tenure. This is an unprecedented development in our checkered political history. However, there has been a widespread debate in the public sphere regarding the need of a democratic political system and its benefits. While a lot of questions could be raised on the quality of democracy and governance in the country, there can be no denying the fact that howsoever weak and substandard democracy may be, the system needs to continue as there is no other viable option for the state and people.

Democracy is a process and a culture. This process would go and the culture would get entrenched and flourish when at the structural level the umbrella is there to protect it and provide it a conducive environment to grow. However, when at the structural and systemic levels the political system and governance is not democratic it is well nigh impossible that the process of democratisation would catalyse and the culture of democracy would thrive.

The fundamental issue with the non-flourishing of democracy in Pakistan has been the incompatibility of its social structure with the essence and values of a democratic culture. The nature of social structure, which comprises the social institutions, social values, social roles and social statuses, of Pakistan is largely undemocratic. Democratic culture has its peculiar values which inter alia include equality, equity, justice, freedom and individualism (together creating a culture of merit, inventiveness and amity). Against this backdrop having a democratic political system is important. It is under this systemic structure that a democratic structure could be anticipated to evolve.

The social structure is profoundly and extensively tribal and ultraconservative. Such social structure primarily functions on the institutionalisation of traditional authorities and primordial ties. That is the fundamental reason that symbols of traditional authorities like Khan, Malik, Chaudhry, Wadera and Sardar on the one hand and imam on the other have been dominating the society through their societal power and influence to the exclusion of the masses, and their consciously and freely-elected democratic and liberal leaders. In this scenario, liberal leadership would have a fair chance of play if the democratic political institutions are there and sustainable. On their part, members of the traditional authorities and elites have been successful in manipulating the democratic political system and have had prevented the evolution of a democratic structure by infiltrating and dominating the institutions of democracy like parliament, political parties and elected governments.

Thus the very institutions of democracy which could otherwise have been a guarantee of flourishing of democracy in Pakistan have served as stumbling blocks for the evolution of democracy. Still Pakistani people and democrats have no other option but to stick to the democratic political system as it is the best mechanism to produce forward-looking, visionary, non-traditional leadership. Such leadership is critically needed for two fundamental objectives of the state and society: to provide multi-dimensional security to the citizens and to ensure all encompassing development of the people and society. This includes economic, political, ecological and human security as well as social, economic, infrastructure and human development.

Institutions of a tribal culture intrinsically operate on the principle of inequality and top-down flow of power and authority. Therefore, the values of a tribal culture, like that of Pakistan, are incompatible rather in conflict with the values of democracy. A society like Pakistan which is based on tribal principles where equality and equity are hard to be attained or ensured, whereas democracy functions on the very principle of equality to all members of society and citizens of the state. For instance, every member of society and citizen of the state have only one vote to exercise and are expected to have equal opportunity of social and economic mobility. At least in letter the Pakistani political system, which is outwardly democratic but inwardly not, operates on the principle of one-person-one-vote but most of the people cannot use vote freely either because of the pressure of the respective traditional authorities or bonds or because of their lack of education and information. Resultantly, the government which gets elected is based on what German political-thinker-cum-sociologist Noelle Neumann called ‘loud minority’ while the majority become ‘silent’. This theoretical democratic base of the Pakistani political system is indeed good because it at least provides the framework for the evolution of a democratic system and culture. Therefore, this needs to be sustained as the system does have a self-rectification mechanism. The present political system must continue as this would increase the capacity of the politicians and citizens to govern. Any derailment of democracy would further entrench the power of institutions like bureaucracy without any inhibition.

As the state and its people have been encircled by forces that are undemocratic and conservative, the way forward is continuity of the political system with the intelligentsia also having to play a pronounced role instead of working for personal interests.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 10th, 2018.

 

[Solomon2]

A decade of democracy
February 11, 2018
Hassan Javid

When people look back on the decade of democracy Pakistan has experienced since 2008, they will probably see that the experience was a mixed bag. On the one hand, much like the 1990s, this period was characterized by a constant focus on civilian corruption and alleged misdeeds; from Memogate and the Swiss Letter to electoral rigging and the Panama Leaks, the governments and leadership of the PPP and the PML-N have both been subjected to considerable scrutiny and have ultimately come to be associated with precisely the kinds of venality that has discredited Pakistan’s democratic regimes in the past. It might also be fair to claim that not much has actually been accomplished by these governments; corruption might be more palatable if those engaged in it were actually good at performing their duties, but many would argue that both the PPP and the PML-N, despite making a lot of noise about their accomplishments, have failed to actually generate any kind of substantive improvement in the areas that matter most, such as health, education, and the provision of public services.

These and other criticisms are not unfounded, nor do they apply solely to the two parties that have been at power at the federal level. Indeed, parties like the MQM and the PTI are not without their own share of detractors, many of whom would echo the sentiments expressed about the PPP and PML-N. However, a more balanced view of the past few years would show that Pakistan’s tumultuous, halting, and sometimes painful transition to democracy has not been all bad. For example, it is pertinent to note that the kind of ‘accountability’ that has been deployed against the PPP and PML-N – resulting in the resignation or dismissal of at least three Prime Ministers – has not resulted in the broader destabilization that resulted from some actions in the 1990s. Moreover, it would be against the spirit of democracy to suggest that those accused of corruption should not be tried and punished as necessary and while it is certainly possible to question the motives and the methods through which the PPP and PML-N have been targeted, particularly in a context where the shadow cast by the military establishment over politics remains a long one, bringing the leaders of these parties before courts has set an important precedent for the future. It can only be hoped that the arbitrary dismissals of the past will become a distant memory, and that the institutional clashes between parliament, the judiciary, and the executive will ultimately yield a durable balance of power that can underpin a more just and impartial democratic order. Put differently, even if the reasons behind the dismissal of Nawaz Sharif are, for example, dubious, the manner in which he was removed from power could conceivably be used to hold other leaders accountable in a context where the motivation for such action is less suspect.

When considering what has been achieved by ten years of democracy , it is again possible to point towards some positive developments amidst the general sense of despair. The PPP government was able to pass the 18th Amendment, perhaps the most significant legislative achievement in Pakistan in recent memory, and also managed to preside over the passage of the 20th Amendment and the formation of the most consensus-based, if still problematic, Election Commission in Pakistan’s history. Both the PPP and the PML-N have also made small but not insignificant changes to other aspects of the law, moving in the right direction in important areas like preventing violence against women. Similarly, while the PPP might not fare well in an assessment of its economic performance, the PML-N might reasonably be able to claim that while it may not have been able to properly address the structural issues that continue to plague the economy, it has also not driven it into the ground. The same is true for infrastructural development, where the PML-N and even the PTI would not be wrong to state that their initiatives, contentious as the might be, have resulted in improvements to some areas of public service delivery in large parts of the country.

Bringing all of this up is not intended to induce a particularly rosy view of democracy in Pakistan, nor is it an attempt to insulate the mainstream parties and their leaders from the many criticisms that are rightly directed towards them. Instead, the aim is to simply point out that democracy has not been anywhere near as bad as its many detractors make it out to be, especially when comparing it with the only alternative on offer in Pakistan, namely military rule. More importantly, it also serves as a reminder that democratization is a process, not an event, and that it takes time for democratic institutions, from parties to parliament and from the courts to the bureaucracy, to mature and become more representative, accountable, and efficient entities.

Having said all of this, there are some areas of genuine concern that continue to undermine democracy in Pakistan, and which currently show no signs of being addressed in any meaningful way. It is clear, for example, that there is little appetite for, or ability to, tackle the serious grievances that continue to be expressed by the smaller provinces and the country’s ethnic minorities. The situation in Balochistan appears to be no closer to resolution than before and, as the Pashtun sit-in in Islamabad over the killing of Naqeeb Masud shows, the racist stereotyping and scapegoating that has led to many Pashtuns and Afghan refugees being labelled as fanatics and terrorists continues unabated. At a more general level, the conduct of the security services remains a matter of great concern, with the routine disappearance of activists and the arbitrary use of force to silence dissent flying in the face of any concern for human rights or democratic norms.

Elsewhere, the elite domination of the economy and politics also continues unimpeded; Pakistan’s political parties are hubs of dynastic privilege, and it isabundantly obvious that the gains made by the economy in recent years have been disproportionately accruing to the wealthiest sections of the populace. A consequence of this has been the continuation of a mode of politics that, despite some improvement, remains most unresponsive to popular demands and concerns. This problem is exacerbated by the continued existence of a state apparatus that, for all its reach and capacity, remains woefully unsuited to the task of actually governing the country. Polices may be good or bad, but the distinction becomes moot when their implementation is simply not possible.

Finally, while the democratic system has been able to weather some arguably existential storms, persistent political conflict remains a significant threat to democratic continuity and institution-building. Again, inasmuch as this is reflective of the continued influence of the military establishment and a long legacy of authoritarian rule, there is little reason to believe Pakistan’s civilian leaders have been able to do much to alter the civil-military balance of power. Until this particular conflict is resolved, it is likely that democracy in Pakistan will continue to be rocked by crises and instability.



The writer is an assistant professor of political science at LUMS.

hassan.javid@lums.edu.pk

 

[MultaniGuy]

no one is against democracy, genius.

 

[El Sidd]

Democracy based on merit is key to success. Give the people what they want

 

[Shani Ali]

Pakistan needs democracy because of without democracy and democratic government we cant grow. any Pakistani has rights of talk and give their opinion on matters of Pakistan.
in Pakistan Politics, we can see a clear concept of democracy.

 

[MBT 3000]

Yeah nahel League is democracy