Is
Pakistan a Democracy?
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA
My friends in America often
quarrel with me when I say that Pakistan is not
a democracy. Our discussions quickly devolve into
one of three arguments. The first one is that
Pakistanis don’t want democracy, since they
have had uniformly bad experiences with it. The
second one is that General Musharraf is an enlightened
ruler so why look for anyone else. Finally, I
am told that Pakistan is already a democracy.
The first argument implies that because Pakistanis
have had bad experiences in the past, they have
given up on democracy. That is surely not the
case. The University of Michigan survey cited
in an earlier column showed conclusively that
Pakistanis want the right to choose their own
rulers and to fire them if they don’t like
them.
Some argue that Islam does not allow for democracy.
This is clearly false since Pakistan is governed
by a constitution that calls for parliamentary
democracy and many other Muslim nations including
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey have
democratic governments. Still others have argued
that poor and illiterate countries cannot be democracies
but the presence of democracy next door in India
belies this thesis.
None of this is meant to say that democracy is
a panacea. There is no dearth of bad democratic
leaders in Pakistan or elsewhere. But if democracy
lets in bad leaders through the ballot box, it
also provides the same mechanism for removing
them. The ballot box is a much better means for
removing bad rulers than a coup d’etat.
The second argument overlooks the fact that a
military ruler, regardless of how benevolent and
competent he might be, is a ruler with no checks
on balances on his or her powers. History has
shown that most such rulers ultimately become
despots and tyrants and as witnessed in the case
of Pakistan, none leave their post voluntarily.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that future military
rulers will be benevolent or competent. This too
has been discussed in prior columns.
Thus, in this column, I focus on the third argument,
that Pakistan is a democracy. To settle the debate,
we need a definition of democracy. Perhaps Abraham
Lincoln said it best, when he dedicated the national
cemetery at the battlefield of Gettysburg on November
19, 1863 and said that democracy was a “government
of the people, by the people, for the people.”
In the fifth century BC, Greeks coined the word
by combing demos (people) and kratia (to rule).
To them, democracy simply meant “rule of
the people.” The earliest democracies were
practiced by small city-states such as Athens
where each citizen participated in the making
of laws.
Today, a democratic dispensation includes political
parties that contest elections and a polity in
which individuals are treated as equal with constitutional
rights and freedoms as well as duties. Thus, democracy
is a form of government in which the supreme power
is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation
usually involving periodic elections.
It is important to note that elections are a necessary
but insufficient condition for a successful democracy.
They have often been used by dictatorial regimes
to give a false sense of democracy both internally
and externally. Authoritarian rulers such as Hosni
Mubarak, Ferdinand Marcos and Saddam Hussein have
imposed restrictions on who can stand for election,
by limiting the laws that can be brought before
parliament, by using unfair voting practices and
by falsification of results.
When making a transition for dictatorial to democratic
rule, it is equally necessary to create a democratic
culture in which a “loyal opposition”
can exist. All sides in a democracy need to share
a common commitment to its basic values. The ground
rules of the society must encourage tolerance
and civility in public debate and the losers must
accept the judgment of the voters when the election
is over, and transfer power peacefully accordingly.
The losers are safe in the knowledge that they
will not lose their lives or liberty, but can
continue to participate in public life. They are
loyal not to the specific policies of the government,
but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state
and to the democratic process itself.
Another feature is that parliament has sovereign
authority over all government expenditures (including
those of the military) and to impose taxes. The
judiciary has the power to declare military coups
as unconstitutional and to uphold the rule of
law while settling disputes.
Good governance should not be confused with democracy.
A benevolent dictator might be selfless and less
corrupt than all prior civilian rulers. He may
well act in the national interest, pursue sound
economic policies that result in rapid economic
growth and development, lower the poverty level,
encourage freedom of the press, push a liberal
social agenda and establish peace with neighbors.
But none of these conditions individually or collectively
converts a dictatorship into a democracy.
Pakistan experienced rapid economic growth during
the Ayub and Zia dictatorships but that did not
transform either ruler into a democrat, even though
both endued themselves with the trappings of democracy.
Musharraf is pursuing many sound social, economic
and political policies but that alone does not
make him a democrat.
The people of Pakistan do not have the ability
to understand, let alone challenge General Musharraf’s
edicts, such as his decision to place Muktaran
Mai on the Exit Control List. Yes, there is a
parliament that makes laws and there is a judiciary
that dispenses justice. There is even a civilian
prime minister with a cabinet of civilians. But
none can prevail against the writ of the Praetorian
state.
A supra-constitutional executive exists outside
of legislative and judicial purview. At the federal
and provincial levels, the real power resides
with the army chief and his corps commanders.
A couple of analogies come to mind. A woman cannot
be half pregnant. A person cannot be half married.
And so it is with countries. They can either be
democracies or dictatorships. They cannot be both.
There is something to be said for the dictatorships
that govern China, Myanmar and North Korea. None
claim to be democracies.
Politics has been called the art of the possible.
Thus, nuances matter. But they do not change the
ground reality of Pakistan’s polity. The
“boots on the ground” all wear khaki.
The best that can be said about those boots is
that they tread softly. Under a post-modern military
dictator, Pakistan appears to have perfected the
art of enlightened militarism.
(Dr. Ahmad Faruqui is director of research at
the American Institute of International Studies
and can be reached at Faruqui@pacbell.net)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
