Are we eventually not back to the square one? The ever so familiar situation repeating itself every so often _ the civil military stand off and the government and judiciary finding themselves at loggerheads yet again feeding ample fodder to the insatiable milling machine of media thankfully to sensationalize and spice things up to their liking, churning out conspiracy theories by creating an unnecessary hype at times while acting irresponsibly by neglecting the imperative developments and details at others to mislead ( read to keep informed) the public at large but to keep their business and entertainment (talk) shows going round the clock.
The history is perhaps tired of repeating itself over and over again but we are not. While the cynical circular spectrum of events continue to go round and round statically with no linear development over the six decades, interestingly the question remains who is actually at fault?
Was the judiciary at fault when ZAB riding the crest of a mammoth tide of popularism was hanged? Certainly! Was the judiciary at fault when the over zealous Sultan Muhammad Nawaz Sharif stormed the supreme court overwhelmed by his lust of power? Certainly not! Is the judiciary at fault now when it is taking government to task over a couple of security and political issues? Anybody’s guess!
More? Was it democratically elected Nawaz Sharif at fault when he dismissed the then COAS Musharraf or was the military takeover a logical reaction to Sharif’s voracious desire for omnipotence while undermining the freedom of various state institutions?
While it appears deceptively simple to single out Army as the most criminal force and factor in the equation that has arguably rooted out seeds of democratic culture that have been sown time and again but haven’t the democratic institutions failed time and again and caved in owing to their intrinsic weakness, imbalance, disharmony and reckless measures? I am certainly not for khakis to step in or marching boots to trample the constitution at their own free will. There are far too many lessons to learn from the autocratic Islamic revolution led by Hazarat General Muhammad Zia ul Haq and later, in stark contrast, the radiant era of “Renaissance” unleashed by enlightened moderator Mush__ both reminding us of the ages of darkness ironically in one way or the other. But the fact remains that unlike the rest, Military is the only disciplined and organized institution of the state with supposedly far less public dealing and external influence. In all fairness, doesn’t Military get more than its due share of blame for the failure of state or democratic process or institutions? Again, even if for the argument’s sake, Military is the mother of all ills, isn’t failure of a major state institution to understand its due role and to overstep its limits or jurisdiction blatantly time and again be deemed as the failure of democracy or system itself?
If so, this brings us back to the million dollar question, how in the world do the tenets of western democracy offer the best solution to our typical political, social and economic problems that have failed to grab roots in sixty four years?
If going to the polls with 35 million bogus registered votes every now and then and casting our vote in the favour of the candidate solely on the basis of birardari or “kinship” as Anatol Lieven ( Pakistan a hard country) puts it earns us the licence to be a democratic state, who are we fooling by expecting a change to take place simply by sticking to this ritual? Not to undermine our society, but have we got the literacy, awareness, religious and social freedom and justice, tradition and maturity to inculcate that culture of expression of freedom, tolerance, mutual respect, equal rights for all human beings that constitute the spirit of democracy together?
If not, then why are we obsessed with the secular models of western democracy that will never work for us or has never gained roots in the sixty four years of the existence ofPakistanas a state?
My dear friends and intellectuals who cannot see beyond the dazzling virtues of democracy and exist as if only to keep on harping about it, let us be honest and analyze is democracy the only system that has brought about change coupled with social and economic upliftment round the globe or region? We may snub China for poor human rights standings but what has brought about that magnificent rise in its economic power and splendour? Democracy? Why forget the Asian tigersSingapore? While the state has remained a kingdom with no natural resources of its own (even the drinking water is to be imported from the neighbouring Malaysia), who can deny the remarkable turn around in its stature and economic fate that has earned it the informal title of the ‘Most orderly state” in the world just in a few decades?
Call it our mindset but name a single mainstream political party that has nurtured democratic culture within its rank and file. Does passing the leadership on to the next generation or the memebers of the family like personal fiefdom or heritage does not negate the spirit of the democracy itself? Or is it perfectly cool to build on a monarchy of Sharifs, Bhuttos, Zardaris & Madaris while harping about democratic traditions and process?
To cut it short, there may well be countless virtues and democracy may still be the best form of governance but what good is it if it does not deliver but rather dis-enfranchise the masses to the point where the state is brought to the brink of its existential threat?
To me, democracy is after all a means or mode to deliver!
Adnan, there are shades of selection bias (selected view of history) as well as gross generalization in the name of utopian world in your writeup.
First, selected use of China and Singapore as examples of success of lack of democracy overlooks far more examples where the lack of democracy has turned out to be complete disaster. Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe is replete with these examples where well-intentioned experiments in controlled democracy (to make them more palatable to the masses) or outright autocracies have resulted in social and economic ruin.
Your example of China doesn’t account for the terrible atrocity that was committed by an equally (if not more) undemocratic government in 1960s and 1970s in the name of Mao Cultural Revolution where up to 20 Million people (some historians think it was more) perished. The selected eulogies of Chinese miracles often overlook the great failure of the previous Chinese lack of democracy. Without renouncing communism, China experimented with probably the only option they had available; a controlled experiment in capitalism. They have built this experiment around a strict price of individual liberty, a police state with a culture of censorship and suppressing political dissidence. Eventually China will have to face they day of reckoning when the middle class will ask for the civil rights they don’t have at the cost of the current economic growth. But over a long term basis, a tightly guided Chinese economic progress will likely prove inferior to Indian growth story, which still is wrapped inside a well established and embraced political process.
Second, in Pakistan democracy has been uprooted so many times in the name of imposing stability and getting the state back on its footing. Read Ayub’s revolution speech, Yahya’s speech to get things in East Pakistan back in order, Zia’s speech to right the country and Musharraf’s vows to set things right. They were all exactly the same: politicians are corrupt, common man is suffering, country is unstable. This time it is different, they promise. Western democracy is not suited for Pakistan, they thundered (your words as well).
Each and everyone of them was in treasonous violation of the constitution of Pakistan and got away only because gullible Pakistanis bought the same snake-oil again and again. Each one of them was a disaster to the nation. They imposed short term stability in the nation but set back the political process decades back. Most importantly, they invented and toyed with the orientation of the state itself to further their rule, by suppressing the political evolution that builds a national dialogue and removes far right or far left players in the long run.
This evolution is the biggest beneficiary of a sustained democratic process, which is anything but smooth. Democracy brings out the chasms in the society. But by its definition, democracy works with the chasms. It does not suppress dissent in the name of stability. Only when all voters engage with the political process on a sustained basis, they begin selecting the best among the lot available and weed out to the empty ones. Too bad, this process takes up decades, not years (see Indian example below). The best among the available lot means that political process still throws up less than ideal people (whatever that means), but by participating in the process the population continues to have a steam valve that precludes mass marginalization of a sizeable section of the population.
Herein lies three most important points that in my opinion you overlook again and again in your writings:
a) Democracy does not throw up perfect upstanding human beings as leaders. It simply picks the best among the lot. The process is refined again and again in an environment where people have a chance to elect, as well whenthe society has an open discourse going, It is an on-going process that refines itself over time. No one has said that Bhutto or Sharif or Zarardari or Wali or Jatois are going to satisfy everyone’s idea of an ideal leaders. But as long as they keep on getting votes, they are the best that the population has to elect. Bhutto was brutal to his opponents and short-sighted in his decisions. But where would Pakistan would have been better: another 5yr term of Bhutto, or Zia? Were Ayub’s experiments in controlled democracy superior to the uneven democracy that Pakistan experienced in 1950s? I submit that the seemingly unstable democracies of 1950s, 1970s and 1990s in the long run were superior to what unfortunately followed.
(And I haven’t even mentioned how these democracies were always kept on a tight leash by the Pakistan Army who was busy overthrowing government in early 90s while dictating the country’s security policies. Ayub himself had ingrained as a minister in civilian government in the 1950s.)
b) India is probably the best example where a far more fractured nation continues to thrive because it never gave up on democracy. Its democracy was anything but exemplary. India survived massive swathes of poverty and hugely corrupt system because its population kept engaged with each other inside a political system. But India seldom registers on Pakistani radar when it comes to the power of democracy.
c) The most important point that you have mentioned as well as overlooked in your writing is the supposed failure of western secular democracy. It was a secular democracy, where the equality of every man regardless of his tribe or creed was paramount that the West realized. This is where Pakistan gets it wrong on two fronts: first, by always putting a caveat of Islamic democracy (an oxymoron), Pakistan always keeps open the doors of an alternative system to govern and thus often short circuiting democracy. Second, Pakistan’s ideological confusion between religion and modern statehood was amplified by successive military men (General Sher Ali of Yahya government was the alleged architect of the Pakistani Islamic Ideology). I see this confusion in your writings frequently. But chasing an utopian Islamic democratic state (which probably means 10 different things to 10 different people, and which cannot even be found anywhere) will likely keep you yearning for the impossible and dissatisfied with the current for the whole lifetime.
Zee,
The point is not my personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction for that matter but the bottom line remains that whosoever we choose to blame,( democracy being no exception) the politcal and economic situation has continued to worsen steadily and progressively over the decades.
Futhermore, we are living in nothing but a fool’s paradise if we believe that any model is going to work without religious overtones for Pakistan. Be it Jinnah ( who stated that we learned democracy 13 centuries ago ) or Bhutto ( constitution of 1973 ), Islam finds itself firmly ingrained, thanks to our typical social and cultural background and need to associate with Muslim Ummah or nationhood.
[…] Evolution or Revolution? […]
Democracy is all about numbers and numbers are effective only when they comprise of people who are able to make sound judgements. India is world’s largest democracy but all parties keep fighting on lines of religion and caste because in a largely underdeveloped country thats what matters most to masses who know only religion or caste as their means of existence. In a developed country like US abortion and other social issues are major deciding factors in Presidential campaigns
Pakistan has never had any settled polity. Atleast before Zia era it was less islamic and more western in outlook but now with Army in control things are different
Thanks for your comment!
I find the phrase “make sound judgements” the key here. What should we expect out of a legislative body where the ladies & gentlemen holding the fake degrees or marginal education find themselves at the helm of the affairs? Those in turn elected by means of massive use of state machinery, bogus votes and poor, marginalized and uneducated masses who turn up to vote on the basis of ‘biradari’ or ‘kinship’.
What makes the entire situation worse in Pakistan is that ‘no one’ is accountable for their actions – this is what the nation is led to believe. As soon as you unravel problem and expose the people who are accountable, then like a domino affect – the entire Pakistan infrastructure becomes accountable – so it’s in the interest of the corrupted people to continue as is – in the hope that one bad news will supersede another, and the public focus and anger will shift from one problem to another – almost daily.