Democracy and Pakistan: Are They Compatible?
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
Are Pakistan and democracy compatible? Under the present set-up, they are not. It is possible for the Margalla hills of Islamabad to one day turn into gold mines; for cactus plants in Sindh to start bearing cherries; for the people of Pakistan to learn living without food and water. What is not possible in Pakistan or anywhere for that matter is its ever having a true rule of democracy under the current arrangement. You cannot expect vanilla flavor in your ice-cream if it had never been added to its recipe.
Democracy is not just holding free and fair elections, though the exercise is an essential ingredient of it. Elections that produce governments, in the words of Fareed Zakaria, “may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one”. Participation of multi-parties, including that of women, in the elections may further make the system look more democratic, but that still would remain defective.
The two most essential ingredients of true and liberal democracy without which elections remain just a ploy for the few for getting elected and getting into power, are the presence of an effective mechanism of accountability, and of a provision of justice for all. According to one report, some 118 of the world’s 193 countries are democratic, which is about 54.8%, but do they have peace, order, stability, and rule of justice there? The answer is self-explicit.
Should this mean that since true democracy cannot be had in this dysfunctional world, therefore, the world should not aspire for it? Wrong. The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke on the eve of elections in Bosnia in September 1996 posed a very intriguing question, “Suppose the election was declared free and fair, and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to peace and reintegration. That is the dilemma”. Pakistan faced that dilemma in 1971.
Some optimists still argue that had the results of the elections held in 1971 been accepted, Pakistan would have remained as one. Wrong logic. Only some bloodshed could have been avoided, not the dismemberment of the country. A similar situation exists in two of the four provinces of Pakistan now in 2008, according to ambassador Fatimi. Let us then admit that democracy is much more than mere elections, even if fair and free. It is a package of three things in equal balance: an enlightened executive, an independent judiciary, and a powerful legislative. Like a doctor’s prescription, either it should be taken as a whole, or not at all. Illiberal democracy, or semi-democracy, is more dangerous than dictatorship.
How come America and other Western countries then succeed under democracy while the developing countries of the world either have fumbled or failed in its name? Be it Peru or the Palestinian Authority; Sierra Leone or Slovakia, Pakistan or Philippines, Belarus or Bangladesh, Argentina or Kazakhstan, Zaire or Zimbabwe, to name only a few, all are undergoing great civil and political turmoil. Says the Freedom House’s 1996-97 survey: Of the countries that lie between confirmed dictatorship and consolidated democracy, some 50% do better on political liberties than on civil ones. Half of the democratizing countries in the world today are illiberal democracy, a situation worst than no democracy at all. After all, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia at best can be characterized as liberalized autocracies, and South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand are just semi-democracies. All these countries have better economic and social conditions than countries like, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Peru, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. Why?
The American Forefathers, like the founder of Pakistan Mr. Jinnah, were by nature, “constructive pessimists”. In the words of Robert Kaplan “they worried constantly about what might go wrong in human relations”. “Americans can afford optimism partly because their institutions, including the Constitution, were conceived by men who thought tragically. Before the first president was sworn in, the rules of impeachment were established”. By making Judiciary and parliament strong, they knew before hand, how to bridle and check the insatiable appetite of its all powerful presidents. Countries like Pakistan conveniently forget this essential pre-requisite of democracy.
The philosophy behind the US Constitution, a fear of accumulated power, is as relevant today as it was in 1789, writes Fareed Zakaria. The American system is based on an avowedly pessimistic conception of human nature, assuming that people cannot be trusted with power. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”, Madison famously wrote. The failure of Oliver Cromwell in England, and of the French Revolution in France, both ending in bloodshed and chaos, remained like a red herring in front of them. They remained skeptic of empowering the people too much, and were fully conscious of the sheep-herd mentality of people.
They remained consciously aware of the Machiavelli’s ideals. Hamilton echoed Machiavelli when he wrote, “Men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious”. And that is why James Madison preferred a Republic, nor a Monarchy, in which “the whims of the masses are filtered through their representatives and agents”, over direct “democracy” in which the people exercise the government in person”. “Values, good or bad, Machiavelli says, are useless without arms to back them up: even a civil society requires police and a credible judiciary to enforce its laws”. “A policy is defined not by its excellence but by its outcome: if it isn’t effective, it can’t be virtuous”. As in Islam, conduct is more important than concept.
Abraham Lincoln kept America one because he was convinced that “American geography was suited for one nation, not two, and that his side would prevail, provided it was willing to pay the cost in blood”. “He used power ruthlessly to target the farms, homes, and the factories of Southern civilians in the latter phase of the Civil War”, writes Robert Kaplan. In Pakistan General Ayub Khan, experimented with a similar concept through the system of basic democracies, and General Musharraf through his model of devolution of powers through the local bodies. Both failed, not because the systems had been defective, but due to lack of sincerity to the system they had introduced themselves. (To be continued)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
