After going
through many articles on the forthcoming general elections in Pakistan, I have been self-guided to write the second part of my article published in Daily Times (“Democracy in Pakistan”) on March 28, 2013.This is not a response to any particular article; rather, it is an extension of my own opinion. In many articles, published in various dailies and on websites around the world, it has been alleged that the civilian government in Pakistan under President Asif Ali Zardari has failed on all fronts .The allegation cannot be hundred percent correct: yes the government failed on many grounds but has also done a few good works, which I highlighted earlier. Through their writings many authors are, indirectly, provoking the army to participate in the political process, and they are trying to build up a consensus in favour of the inefficacy of a civilian regime in Pakistan. This is an awful moment in the life of a nascent democracy. In case the army tries to manipulate the results of the forthcoming election by any means, the situation will be dangerous for the flourishing of democracy in Pakistan. Looking into its past institutional record, it seems that to be at the centre-stage of power in Pakistan, the army could try to do something unconstitutional to derail democracy.
Critics of the PPP-led government maintain that the government failed to do anything substantive for the people’s welfare and in the field of providing social security. The allegations are fair: the government failed to fulfil most of the promises it made to the electorate in the last elections held in 2008. In addition, some ministers were found guilty by Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Under its reign, the minorities, in the name of religion and sect, were butchered by criminals from the radical Islamist groups. The government failed to arrest that situation. Thus, indirectly, it helped in the strengthening of radical forces.
With a few disagreements my submission is that a substantive form of democracy is a higher stage in a process towards democracy, which is possible only when the procedural form of democracy is being deeply entrenched and political institutions become very strong. In Pakistan, when even the procedural form of democracy is at a nascent stage, how can one think about substantive democracy? Citing Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Ramachandra Guha, Perry Anderson in The Indian Ideology writes that India is at best “50 percent democracy”. If India, which is a practising democracy since its independence in 1947 is at this stage, it is political naiveté to expect a great deal from a civilian regime in a mere five years. Nevertheless, this is not an excuse for their poor performance; they could and should have done better and more.
On one account the government should be praised that despite all odds none of its actions led to the army’s intervention to dismiss the civilian regime. Yes, the government made various compromises to keep itself in power but that can be justified because even in mature democracies compromises and adjustments are made by political parties to remain in power. An example of that is that the PPP-led government managed to save the civilian regime during the ‘memogate’ episode when the situation and atmosphere were pregnant with rumours about a coup.
A week ago, amidst all sorts of predictions and calculations, the British Council carried out an electoral survey and came up with its interpretation of the political situation in Pakistan. According to its survey, most of the Pakistani youth favour military rule over democracy; and a majority amongst them favours imposition of shariah laws instead of liberal constitutional laws. The number of youth taken as a sample for that purpose was 5,000 from various regions of Pakistan. Well, this survey has given reasons to interpret politics in Pakistan with a tilt towards the army. I personally do not fall into the category of a blind believer in data and samples, which can be easily manipulated, and are mostly carried out to serve the purposes of the stakeholders. If for a moment let us assume that the survey by the British Council was accurate, even then it is a manifestation of a the commonly expressed attitude by the people in most of the developing countries. Most of the popular civilian leaders having been considered inept, corrupt and incapable, thus as a viable option people have supported men-in-uniform to redress their genuine grievances. Even in Pakistan the army attracts massive support from the people, as it is considered as a panacea for all ills. What is the result? Not a single issue has been properly resolved. The sectarian and communal groups were supported by the army to fight its proxy wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc. Now like Frankenstein’s monster it seems ready to gobble up Pakistan.
To conclude, if another civilian government completes its term then it is certain that the army, as a political institution, will start losing its sheen and that will be a triumph of democracy in Pakistan.
The writer is an assistant professor (guest) at the Delhi University, New Delhi. He can be reached at [email protected]