Daily Times

Charles de Gaulle, former French president, observed that politics is very important, so important that it cannot be left to the politicians alone. The underlying message of the general-turned-president conveyed no confidence in the ability of politicians to provide desired leadership to the nation. Once they come to power their lust to perpetuate themselves outweighs other priorities. Efforts are made to prolong their rule, including manipulation of the electoral process. Politicians in the opposition get disenchanted at the diminishing chances of coming to power. The ultimate objective of the politicians is to form government in order to implement a set of programmes they feel are best suited for the country. As long as the mechanism of getting into power remains fairly uncorrupted, they take up the challenge and confront the ruling party through general elections. In the event the electoral process is coerced, the verdict of the people cannot be adequately reflected in the elections. Peaceful transfer of power gets obstructed.

The formidable challenge of democracy comes through the subjugation of institutions including the election commission, bureaucracy, law-enforcing agencies, media and the judiciary by the party in power. The fairness and competence of these institutions are a prerequisite to keep the electoral process a legitimate mechanism for the people to select their representatives. In India during the past six decades these institutions have been kept largely depoliticised, permitting the electorate to change governments according to their own judgment. The peaceful transfer of power has thus been ensured both in the central and provincial governments.

In democratic societies political parties are formed when people having similar views, visions and commitments on ‘how to govern the country and take it forward’ come together. They take a name, register with the appropriate authority, prepare a manifesto and mobilise public opinion in favour of the party. People having different visions, ideology, programmes create a different party with a different name, distinct manifesto, and seek the support of the electorate. Each political party claims, if not believes, its own programme would best suit the country. The leadership of political parties imbue their acolytes on the party programmes and then reach out to the electorate. By the very nature of their foundation, political parties demand and are often mandated by the people to take charge of the country. Political parties are essential in democratic societies.

The military, on the other hand, is an institution created, nurtured and disciplined to protect the country from external threats. Uri Avnery, an Israeli writer, characterised the military as an authoritarian and hierarchical organisation. He elaborated, “A soldier, from corporal to commander-in-chief, is trained to obey and to command. Hardly a good breeding ground for democratic virtues. An army can obey a democratic government. But an army cannot run a government. Almost all military dictatorships have been grossly incompetent. After all, a military officer is an expert in one profession (killing people, a cynic would say). He is not an expert on anything else.” It is interesting to note that the military is expected to obey a democratic government to the extent that in case of foreign aggression, the army would be involved in armed conflict against the enemy, once commanded by the civilian government. This cannot be vice versa. In many countries the military seized power in the aftermath of the collapse of good governance. But prolonged military rule undermines democratic institutions.

Pakistan spent almost 34 years under military rule. The Muslim League, which spearheaded the movement for the creation of Pakistan, over time, alienated the people. The constitution-making process lasted longer than necessary, and in the absence of the constitution, general elections were not held. Politicians began losing touch with the people and turned to the bureaucracy, and at times to the army, in order to stay in power. This allowed bureaucrats like Ghulam Mohammad and generals like Iskander Mirza to grab the highest position in the country. The situation became so dismal in 1954 that the chief of the army was brought into the cabinet. That exposed the weakness of the politicians. Following promulgation of the constitution, a civilian government was installed and dismissed at the pleasure of the unelected president. In 1957, the government decided to hold the first general elections, but the frequent change of governments had created instability and jolted the economy, much to the dismay of the people. The military seized the opportunity and imposed martial law. General Ayub Khan, the new president, blamed the politicians for failing to govern and characterised parliamentary democracy as unsuitable to the genius of the people.

The new regime drafted a constitution and offered a new brand of democracy. Members elected to the National Assembly denounced the electoral mechanism and creation of parliament with no authority to exercise check and balance over the government. The regime responded with a package of bounties: cabinet posts and positions of influence. It worked. Politicians of long years of service flocked around the regime like bees, transforming it into a quasi-military government. Had the politicians behaved responsibly and prepared the constitution in time, the nation would have been spared military rule. The rule of the quasi-military regime had a disastrous consequence. People got further alienated and it finally led to the dismemberment of the country. Subsequent military rule systematically subjugated the institutions, including the judiciary and the election commission, causing a long lasting adverse impact on the resurgence of democracy.

Bangladesh too lived under military regimes for over 15 years. Although it began its journey on the path of democracy, its political leadership within four years embraced a totalitarian system. Political parties were outlawed, media was shut down and dissidents were locked up. The lofty ideals for which people fought the war of liberation were sacrificed. Ironically, it was a quasi-military regime that succeeded an elected government, scrapped the totalitarian system and restored multi-party democracy. Errors committed by the elected civilian government were corrected by a government led by an army general. Owing to distrust amongst rival political parties, a military-backed interim civilian government is still opted for to oversee general elections.

The people of Egypt had not spoken ever since the Pyramids were built. In 2010, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) joined a conglomeration of secular and conservative groups in toppling Hosni Mubarak. The following year, for the first time, people elected a president. The military, the constituency of the former dictator, accepted the newly elected regime with no enthusiasm. Assuming power, President Mohamed Morsi moved too fast to consolidate power and implement the MB’s socio-political agenda. Corruption, unemployment and the alleviation of poverty did not figure prominently as his priorities. That compounded suspicion about the MB’s motives: to reign supreme and marginalise former allies who fought against dictatorship. Brutal police force applied in suppressing dissident voices and shutting down media critical of the administration exploded the situation. People moved to Tahrir Square and called for the president’s resignation. The army lent support to the protest and asked the government to concede. The president was ousted when he refused. The removal of President Morsi was hailed by the people who helped him to be elected a year ago. Paradoxically, those who fought against the military-backed dictator are now asking the army to restore democracy.

Avnery said, “Democracy means a lot more than elections and the rule of the majority. It is based on a whole set of values — practical things like a sense of belonging together, civic equality, liberalism, tolerance, fair play, ability of a minority to become the next majority, and much more.” People deserve democracy as this is the only option available for society to march forward. They will have to secure and nurture it.

The author is a former official of the United Nations