Daily Times

Dear readers, as some of you might be aware there is new a kid in town, or rather a new editor at the paper, tabdeli aa gaye hai (change has come). And as is the norm in such scenarios, the sentinels of status quo are scampering around to get into the new top honcho’s good books. Accordingly in these uncertain times, it would be helpful, if all of you can take out a few precious minutes to email him in support of this amazingly fantabulous column, critical for the paper’s circulation!

Delusional self-praise? Compared with the belief in democracy being the best form of governance, not at all; in fact, not even in the same league of delusions. Nassim Nicholas Talib was right that people get fooled by randomness, but that is forgivable since, after all, it is extremely difficult to be prepared for the unknown. On the other hand, an unwavering belief that a system, essentially designed to fool, and that too repeatedly, is the best form of government, is perhaps the epitome of delusional.

The cynics and ardent supporters of democracies, likely up in arms by now, are advised to exercise patience for the moment, notwithstanding that this request is extremely taxing on their nerves, since screaming indiscriminately and intelligibly, all the while assuming coordinated threatening postures, at the first signs of critique directed towards their beloved system, is in itself a critical component of their beloved system’s design mechanism. This epiphany, that creating a ruckus and browbeating critics of democracy is part of the design itself, evolved after numerous attempts to rationally discuss the perils of democracy at social gatherings. But at the end of the day, it makes sense; after all, the only way to defend an indefensible position is to scream at the top of your voice continuously, thereby scuttling any chance of a civilised debate.

This antagonism is so perverse that persisting to negatively portray democracy results in ridicule or being struck off from the guest list, which is sufficient reason for the majority to side with the democracy bandwagon on social occasions. Man, after all, is a social animal with a huge enough ego to want to be right about everything; accordingly, it is easier to side with the foolishness of the crowd rather than oppose it. Ironically, the other reason why the majority always sides with democracy again has to do with design; in fact, the numero uno of the system, the so-called think tanks.

Ever wonder why there was never a think tank that supported dictatorship? Or why are there so many think tanks that continuously extol, and apprise the masses about the tremendous benefits of democracy. And don’t for a moment think that these think tanks do that out of the goodness of their heart for the benefits of the masses; hiring experts and disseminating words of wisdom, if that, takes money. A logical question then is, who funds them? Obviously think tanks are funded by those who gain from democracy. Eventually, someday, this column will touch upon these beneficiaries and the related benefits, for now the focus is limited to explaining the design. These think tanks are necessary, and in fact, critical to delude the masses, or rather brainwash them, which is easier when the majority is illiterate, into believing that democracy is in their best interest. In fact, out of context history and statistical data, propagated by established experts, is persuasive enough to befool even the literates; since hardly anyone attempts to verify and challenge, and the minority that does meets the fate discussed earlier. It is a foolproof design.

Again the objective today is not to disprove the underlying evidence establishing numerous propagated benefits of democracy, but seriously, if it was actually more than two centuries old and so amazing, there would not be any need to sell it.

The next step, within the design, is to build public opinion that is most efficiently handled by the electronic media in modern times. Obviously, with a massive illiterate populace, print media struggled to get the message through, which is probably why national support for democracy was not ubiquitous earlier. For this reason, it is incomprehensible that it was a dictator who privatised television channels. Once again, operating a news channel requires money and it is delusional to believe that electronic media is funded by charities working for the betterment of the masses. Business work for profits, and electronic media is a business.

Free and independent media is a myth necessary to keep the narrative palatable. Notwithstanding that every efficient state will by default be a policed state, if freedom of speech was ever acceptable to governments why would they crack down on social media across the globe? And the proof lies in the eating of the pudding; whenever the powers that be so desire, there is a media blackout. There are multiple interests that decide what news is and what is not; essentially, masses are informed on a need-to-know basis, which has nothing to do with their own needs. The oldest method of thought control, filtering the truth!

How do the two systems operate? Take the 18th Amendment, beyond perusing superfluous write-ups and listening to television debates, is anybody even aware why it was needed and what it did. If so, challenge the view that the 18th absolutely has not alleviated the interests of common Pakistanis.

Developing a narrative via the think tanks, and disseminating the narrative via the electronic media do not, however, build ownership; hence the final component of the design is elections. In order for all of it to work, people have to believe they chose the government, and since it is their choice it is solely their fault if the government fails, and hence they should choose wisely next time. This is a crucial argument that also explains the two-party system in vogue in democracies; people should believe that they have a choice, and it’s not necessary to give them the right choices. As time has passed, the much touted differences between the so-called right and left has virtually disappeared or at least become irrelevant; as a caption on the internet asserted, voting is deciding who gets to steal everything you have. Winning an election requires a huge investment, and rational men invest only for profit. Democracy is a system dependent on money and designed to protect moneyed interests while simultaneously hoodwinking the masses!

Made to believe that democracy is their best option, and apparently given a choice to decide who will rule them, the masses are deluded into believing that they are responsible for what is happening to them. Seriously, are we, the people, responsible for all the mess the world is in today? Could our votes have prevented the wars across the globe? Did we really have a choice? If so can we reverse it come next election?

Before the screaming starts, it is absolutely true that even under a dictatorship, these power games will continue and the moneyed interest will still pursue profits; the difference is that at least the masses will not be deluded into believing that it was their fault.

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad, and can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com