Daily Times

Some Pakistanis
appear tired of democracy after a short civilian stint of five years. A recent BBC poll suggests that more Pakistani youth would prefer Islamic law or military rule than democracy. More than half of 5,000 18-29 year-old Pakistanis polled said democracy had not been good for them or the country. Almost a third of registered voters in Pakistan are under 30 years old, and are expected to play a big part in the general election due in May. The poll respondents reached their ‘no to democracy’ conclusion based on the inability of the civilian government to deal with the economic and security issues facing the country. Approval ratings for the military were about 70 percent compared with just 13 percent for the elected government that just completed its term. The idea that ‘the worst dictatorship is better than the best democracy’ seems to be alive and kicking in Pakistan, bucking a global pro-democracy trend.

What all Pakistan watchers know well is that the security establishment holds ‘bloody civilians’ in contempt. The military and the establishment snipe at the heels of the democratic process all along, intent on not giving the system the time to evolve. Once politicians are discredited as incapable of compromise and predisposed to squabbling, the army and its civilian allies find ways to establish their own writ. Democrats have been unable to articulate the limits to dictatorship: the lack of openness and accountability; the shortage of public scrutiny over government decisions; and the absence of public debate about them among politicians, however ugly that debate may sometimes look.

Perhaps young would-be voters would form a different opinion if they were familiarised with the chequered record of past Pakistani dictatorships. A few snippets for consideration: 1) The ‘enlightened’ dictatorships of generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Pervez Musharraf are largely responsible for the secession of East Pakistan, and the military defeats in 1971 and Kargil. 2) The military dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq is responsible for mixing the deadly cocktail of religion and the state. This concoction was utilised in Pakistan’s initial involvement in the Afghan imbroglio and contributed in its blowback. The spread of corruption, guns and drugs, and terrorism, sectarianism and obscurantism in society can be attributed to the failed security policies of this period. 3) The coddling of terrorist groups by the military for strategic purposes has brought Pakistan to its knees and close to being considered an international pariah state. 4) Past dictatorships have rewritten or held the constitution in abeyance to consolidate power, they have silenced dissident voices in the media, arresting critical editors and journalists and closing down television channels that refused to toe the dictatorial line. 5) The military intelligence agencies have used illicit funds to manipulate politicians and the electoral process. 6) The huge cost of building and maintaining a national security state and the development of the nuclear programme has diverted significant national resources and foreign aid away from the economic and social sectors.

Dictatorships have delivered short spurts of economic growth but the longer-term political and social consequences for the country have been near catastrophic. Dictators have been prone to making rambling propaganda speeches through a controlled media, which kept many Pakistanis in ignorance of the reality that the dictatorships were ‘a corrupt, mismanaged affair’. As an aside, all four of Pakistan’s dictators left the corridors of power with full protocol and honourable mention without having to answer for their alleged treason and misgovernance. Contrary to that past democratic leaders have been soft targets for the establishment. They have been hanged, killed and exiled, and their governments have often been dismissed disgracefully.

The main structural and perception issues that Pakistani democracy faces are: the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system that hinder swift, decisive action; the tendency, between elections, for political parties to pander to their hard-core activists and neglect the masses as a whole; and the inability of politicians to shake off electoral politics and get difficult jobs done more efficiently. The average voter wants quick results on issues such as jobs, inflation, law and order and the energy crisis. When they see little progress on these core issues, it causes those with votes but a lack of influence, to legitimately question the democratic system itself. Dictatorships fare better when these factors are taken into account. They are superior to democracies in the expediency with which they can arrive at policies and implement laws that could resolve problems. They can easily calibrate the institutional and legal framework, since they do not need a political coalition for passing or repealing acts. This framework can be efficiently managed, ignoring the special interests that need to be relatively reconciled in democracies through a time consuming process.

That being said, an election is a good indicator of how the government has performed and its future within the country. It is an example of a good ‘social contract’ mechanism that does not exist in a dictatorship. Every action of the government is to be accounted for at the end of the term. This gives the government in power a sense of responsibility when entering and during a term. The upcoming election provides an opportunity for Pakistanis to utilise their vote to help shape the country’s future, an opportunity that would certainly be denied to them under a dictatorship. Granted, the vote does not put food on the table or guarantee a job, but it holds out a promise of freedom and peace in the future.

The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com