Government is often criticised on having lack of vision, and its approach to development considered piecemeal, addressing problems as they come along without any effective blueprint for progress. Similar concerns have been raised on the task of electoral reforms in Pakistan as the Parliamentary Committee on Electoral reforms, while having passed the 22nd constitutional amendment in the parliament last month, has failed to come up with comprehensive legislation that addresses the various issues present in the current system. The constitutional amendment only made changes to the eligibility criteria and terms of office for the four members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the chief election commissioner. Understandably, the opposition voiced its concern over the haste with which the amendment was introduced in the parliament, and subsequently, passed at the eleventh hour since four members of the ECP were set to retire in a week when the bill was introduced in the Senate.
However, it still remains to be seen as to what extent both government and the opposition would push the agenda of electoral reforms and bring meaningful improvement. Regardless, talk of electoral reforms is a welcome development in Pakistan’s political discourse, and it goes to show how the debate is gradually turning towards the right direction. And while the public may be frustrated at the pace of reforms, and rightly so, it is pertinent to discuss the slow but effective progress that occurs through the strengthening of democracy.
Democratic evolution that took place in Britain through its parliamentary reform acts is an interesting case to demonstrate the internal logic of the modern parliamentary system. While it is true that comparing Pakistan’s current political scenario to 19th century British politics is akin to indulging in gross anachronism, let alone comparing two political systems with vastly different forms and histories of institutional development, nevertheless, the British example does show a much broader pattern of evolution that is the hallmark of the democratic system. Moreover, highlighting the merits of democracy through recourse to history is all the more important given the dwindling patience of the public over the sluggish pace at which reform is currently taking place in Pakistan.
A watershed event in British parliamentary democracy is considered to be the Great Reform Act of 1832. This act was passed by the Whig government at the time, and, interestingly, the aim was not to enfranchise a greater segment of the population on moral grounds. Rather, the Whigs believed that through opening up the parliament for the newly wealthy business and commercial class any impetus for revolution from within could be vitiated. Deliberately then the reform act did not enfranchise the entire working class population, and even a sizeable portion of the lower middle class was left out. This stirred up a great deal of resentment from the public as it expected better representation in the reform act, and, as this coincided with a period of economic depression, a political movement arose from within the working class that had as its aim radical parliamentary reforms centred around the principle of universal suffrage.
The chartist movement as it was called drew broad support from the British public; however, it eventually failed in achieving any of its stated objectives before dying out altogether. Still, the movement in its own way contributed to keeping the debate on parliamentary reform alive, and provided a linkage, even if a tenuous one, between the 1832 reform act and the 1867 reform act. The 1867 reform act was far more progressive than its predecessor, and, surprisingly, it was passed by the famous Conservative prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli. The reason behind it was not because Disraeli was in favour of broadening the franchise; on the contrary, his conservative sensibilities, in all likelihood, would have been offended by this act. Rather, the 1867 act was the product of pragmatic considerations by the Tory leader, especially considering the virulent opposition from the Liberals for any reform act lacking adequate broadening of franchise and the general public mood in favour of it.
This brief narrative of British parliamentary reform acts highlights two important processes that underlie democratic evolution. First, reform takes place in democracy in a piecemeal way as different factors coalesce to produce conditions that are at the time either conducive or inimical to reform. If reforms fail to realise at one point in time then that does not mean that they would not be achieved in the future. In fact, as the British example shows, even those parties that are most hostile to reform would be the ones to enact them if political considerations so demand. This ties in with the second aspect of democracy that the narrative reveals: democracy as a system does not depend on the benevolence of those who occupy political office. The logic of democracy ensures that the political interest of leaders conflates with the interest of the public, and this keeps going the slow but steady march towards progress.
While these observations may seem to be pedestrian, they still merit emphasis because of the direction that the debate on democratic evolution often takes in Pakistan. Political leaders in Pakistan are often blamed to be inept and corrupt, and this argument is further extended to conclude that democracy under these rulers is a futile exercise. It is also argued that since the current flawed electoral system ensures their success, they have no incentive to change it. However, all of these assertions miss the point of the manner in which democracy actually functions. As institutions strengthen under democratic rule, political parties mature, and the public becomes more aware of its rights, a system develops that inherently keeps check on abuse of power and nudges it towards meaningful development. All of this needs time, and while it is true that for a country that faces widespread poverty, time may seem like an unaffordable liberty, it is the only way that democracy and democratic culture can effectively take root.
The writer is an assistant editor at Daily Times