Daily Times

Democracy in its simplest definition is a system of governance through the consent of the people. Right from the Greek times when there were strong detractors of the system like the doyen of philosophy Socrates, who disparagingly referred to the system as a mob rule. It was a system which according to the Greek philosopher believed erringly in the equality of the equals and unequals. Churchill on the other end of the spectrum is quoted saying that democracy is the worst form of the government except all others that have been tried in the past. There is a chicken and egg dilemma whether democracy ushers in changes in the societies or the changes in a society usher in democracy. The above leads to some questions; could an imported version be repeated successfully in another society? Is parliamentary democracy the most suitable version of democracy for a country like Pakistan? What are the pre- conditions for the success of democracy in developing countries like Pakistan? Why has our democracy failed to catapult the country into a development orbit like rest of South Asian countries?

The answer to above is not easy as the paradox of democracy as practiced and preached in our neck of the woods is graver than other countries similarly affected. All countries that adopted democracy as a system of governance successfully have one factor in common i.e the indigenous adaptation of the concept as per the social, cultural, and economic realities of those countries. Consider for instance Great Britain where the democracy took an arduous journey of 600 years to really come into its own. Starting from the William the Conqueror’s establishment of a “Council of Tenants” in 11th century A.D and the further empowerment of the same through Magna Carta in 1215,the unwritten constitution of the Great Britain attests to the long evolutionary process that coopted the realities of tradition, society, economics, and politics to raise the structure of parliamentary democracy.

The political trajectory of France, Germany, and USA took a different route incorporating internal realities of each nation. The classic example is that of USA where the exit of the British colonists presented an opportunity for the ethnically kindred races to adopt the British model. The British model was rejected as the newly liberated colonies achieved consensus on a constitution based on a political system of checks and balances where the parliament, executive, and judiciary were bound in an interdependent yet non-interventionist system of political governance. The law makers in House of Representatives and the Senate were supposed to make laws and not interfere in the executive functioning. The election to the Congressional office therefore was not taken to be a carte blanche for influence peddling or getting rich. The Head of the Executive i.e the President could therefore concentrate on the governance with the help of a cabinet selected from amongst the best in the country, without being blackmailed by the demanding congressmen.

Democracy is a system of governance that relies upon the judgment of the masses in an adult suffrage model. If the judgment is flawed the outcome of the selection would also be flawed. The electoral exercise without internalizing the spirit of democracy by the people and the politicians would throw up a flawed product. Democracy’s rule by consensus and debate is in sharp contrast to the rule by fiat in an authoritarian dispensation. Though the messiness and disorder of democracy is considered superior to the orderliness and regimentation of autocracy by the votaries of power grabbing human instinct (Rousseau) and the peace loving human impulse(Kant) alike, yet there are certain pre-conditions for the putative superiority of democracy. There pre-conditions include a fidelity to the principles of consensus, plurality, and rule of law. Sans above a democracy as per Fareed Zakaria degenerates into an “illiberal democracy.”

In an illiberal democracy the form of democracy remains intact in the shape of electoral process, parliament, government, and other institutions like judiciary

In an illiberal democracy the form of democracy remains intact in the shape of electoral process, parliament, government, and other institutions like judiciary. What is absent in an illiberal democracy is the true commitment to the ideals of democracy like rule of law, tolerance, pluralism, public accountability, and participatory governance. In a true democracy the political parties representing the people imbibe the real spirit of democracy in their day to day conduct and internal functioning. In a true democracy the political parties are not the family heirlooms to be kept hostage to the owner dynasties. There is no concept of political succession through the law of primogeniture where the sons and daughters inherit the political mantle for the political progeny. There is also no concept of a political despotism and muzzling of dissent within the political parties that are run in an egalitarian spirit.

How many political parties in Pakistan pass muster on above criteria? The sacralisation of a political creed or the deification of a political personality indicates a serious flaw in the political DNA of our country where the electoral process merely throws up the winners and not the democrats. The propensity to worship and not to confront the political leadership encourages a culture of client-protégé political relationships to the detriment of political pluralism and accountability. Where the leaders are raised to the pedestal of a deity instead of a mortal soul there the human foibles are celebrated like the attributes of the Greek gods. A lot of the above has to do with our undeveloped political culture of lack of accommodation, tolerance, and acceptance of dissent. Our proto-tribal identities and the ethnic affiliations bear the strong imprimatur of a semi developed tribal society where the feudal values still dominate our socio-political landscape.

What then is the impact of the above political weaknesses? The most baleful impact is on the political egalitarianism where the political elite bar the entry of the fresh talent because of dynastic politics. Consider for instance the example of four political parties i.e PPP, PML(N), PML(Q), and JUI. In PPP the political succession has been virtually decided in favour of Bilawal whereas the same has almost been done in favour of Maryam Nawaz in PML(N). In PML(Q) the leadership is still firmly on the hands of a political family with no chance of an outsider staking claims of leadership. In JUI Maulana Fazal -ur- Rehman does not appear to be in a hurry to groom a non-family political heir as is evident by the high profile role of his future successor i.e Asad Mehmud. Pakistani politicians’ predilection to run their political parties like a family fiefdom where the major decisions are taken non-democratically spawn an authoritarian culture where woe betide a political worker that dares to voice dissent.

Pakistani political parties without exception display a non- inclusive and non-democratic internal decision making style in their internal politics and decision making. The lack of democratic decision making internally along with dynastic politics puts off the people, especially the politically aware educated middle classes that develop an aversion for this form of democracy. The political legitimacy of such a system that instead of promoting democratic freedoms promotes a system of spoils becomes suspect in the eyes of electorate. In such a system the crooks, the criminals, and the moneyed elite elbow out the educated and competent political workers of integrity. The antipathy of middle classes for such a system is reflected in the form of frequent political interventions by the mandarins and the soldiers whose political loyalty is not commanded by the political elite due to above weaknesses.

Internal democracy in political parties’ political conduct and an internal political egalitarianism based on merit are the pre-conditions that would raise the moral capital of the political parties amongst the masses as well as non-elected institutions acting as the best bulwark against non-democratic interventions in national polity sans which the country is fated to muddle along as a flawed democracy.

The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST; email rwjanj@hotmail.com