The Panama Papers leaks have taken the world by storm. The hidden wealth of some of the world’s most prominent leaders and politicians has been exposed by an unprecedented leak of millions of documents that show how the rich can exploit legal channels to expand their fortunes. While Panama leaks issue is on a global scale, it is also a national concern in Pakistan as it involves some family members of the Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Given numerous corruption scandals in the past involving our ruling elite, the Panama documents revelations about the Sharifs and others is not a big surprise. It, in fact, reinforces the national legacy of exploitative regimes and mass plunder our political authorities have traditionally engaged in. The revelation that Sharif family has kept money offshore has sparked public outrage across the country. Opposition parties and civil society have demanded the resignation of Nawaz Sharif.
Unrealistic comparisons have been drawn with Iceland where the embattled prime minister immediately resigned following the leaks. Yet the ruling party stands defiant. Denial and aggressive counter-allegations remain a default response strategy. The debate over resignation appears to be highly polarised. Those demanding resignation stress moral and ethical reasons. While others have played the democracy card fearing resignation as a threat to democratic evolution of the country. My concern here is not to analyse the resignation debate but to question the democracy argument that our politicians cling to as a knee-jerk response to their wrongdoings. Whether it is a call for electoral reform, anti-government protests over unfair elections or a massive corruption scandal, the answer remains constant; democracy is under threat. The implication of this approach is potentially catastrophic: all is forgiven and justified in the name of democracy. We have seen the same argument surface in response to the Panama scandal. By invoking the article of democracy, what system are we trying to preserve? Do we even have democracy in the real sense to begin with?
Democracy in its true form is, undoubtedly, the most desirable form of a political system. Abraham Lincoln defined it as “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Amartya Sen, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, emphasises its universal and intrinsic values and views democracy as an expression of basic human freedom. Sen contends that democracy besides allowing voting also promotes protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and freedom of speech. It enhances people’s voice allowing them to keep governments responsible and accountable. Based on these merits, it is hard to resist a democratic form of government. But here’s the problem. The universal appeal of democracy doesn’t guarantee its successful universal application. It is a western model embodying western principles of freedom and equality. Does that mean it will mean freedom anywhere? By reviewing the state of democracy in developing countries, we find weak grounds for its universality. Take the case of Pakistan. By the real virtues of democracy, Pakistan is still far from becoming one. Yet we strive to preserve it like it has existed for decades. We have seldom defended our indigenous institutions the way we have defended the western ideal of democracy. But why?
Interestingly, the grounds in defence of democracy within local political circles follow the same logic as secretive offshore tax havens: there is nothing unlawful about using offshore companies. Hence offshore accounts provide a legitimate way of managing assets. Similarly, all is justified under the garb of democracy. Since Pakistan’s inception, personal interests and selfish motives have taken precedence over what is good for the public. The ruling groups have crippled laws and democratic institutions of accountability for personal gain. Institutions have been plagued by the legacy of political patronage and nepotism. The tragedy of PIA, the Election Commission and Pakistan Steel Mills are a case in point. There were nationwide protests against electoral rigging demanding the resignation of the prime minister following the 2013 general election yet no meaningful action was taken. Why? Because the prime minister’s resignation would have meant collapse of democracy and power. In spite of claims that government was fraudulently elected Sharif emerged stronger and more resilient. Panama will prove no exception. Like in the past, the ruling party will manage to sail through the storm.
Unsurprisingly, the Panama scandal has failed to unite the opposition against the ruling party. That is because some of their leaders are also named in the scam. Sadly enough, the majority of the political class that contest for power is all tainted by the same brush. They are also the strongest proponents of democracy because the whole scourge of corruption has been made possible by the customised version of democracy that they fight to preserve. A democracy that fundamentally lacks accountability is no different from a repressive autocracy. Yet the label of democracy lends a degree of legitimacy to power abuse, which might be absent in authoritarian scenario. If our politicians our so concerned about democracy, why do they hesitate in promoting the much-needed electoral reform? Why have they not invested in strengthening independent institutions? Why do they shy away from accountability and transparency, the intrinsic principles of a true democracy?
Like religion, the notion of democracy in Pakistan has been exploited for political gains. It has afforded the ruling elite a shield under which any wrongdoing becomes justified. The flawed exercise of election every five years is enough to qualify for a democratic state. Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, believed that the only thing that is required for state to be considered a democracy is that its citizens are able to remove a government from power. Clearly, that clause is missing from the story of Pakistani democracy. Yesterday, huge crowds led by civil society gathered at the Lalik Chowk, Lahore, calling for the prime minister to step down whilst the ruling authorities enjoyed London’s spring. Do we need this form of democracy?
The writer is a freelance columnist