Bad Democracy: A Revolutionary Door to Power for a Few!
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg , CA
‘Life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short without a strong government, and the best government was one that had the awesome power of a “Leviathan”, a sea monster, who could impose order and demand obedience”. Hobbes, 1651
“Even the worst form of democracy is better than good dictatorship”, says the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr.Yousuf Raza Gilani. And he has made this observation countless times. The slogan has special appeal for those who, like him, are addicted to staying in power by hook or by crook. How can the worst form of even a good system, such as democracy, be termed as good!
It was Winston Churchill who once famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried … a five-minute conversation with the average voter”, will confirm it.
How true! Sugar becomes poison for those who are diabetics; same is true of democracy. It is good as well as bad. It is not a universal panacea for all political ailments, nor is it the best form of government. It has worked well only where it was born, namely, Europe and America, and there too in the form it suited the culture and genius of the people. It did not work in Africa where it destroyed a good number of countries, namely, Kenya, Mozambique and Nigeria, and it has been inimical to most of the developing countries in South Asia, Pakistan in specific.
The countries that have shown remarkable progress, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, to name only a few, have been semi-democratic. Bangladesh and Indonesia have begun showing progress after they learned the hard way that the system of democracy works well when the constitution is respected, and the process of accountability is applied on the principle of ‘sameness’, i.e., equally implemented on the powerful as well as the powerless. Without it, democracy becomes plutocracy, a system in which only the very corrupt but very rich rule by turns.
PM Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari are often heard repeating the slogan with a great deal of zest. One can understand their passion for saying so. The system is keeping them in power. The other day, Mian Nawaz Sharif also in-toned in the chorus, adding some of his own wisdom to the cliché when he explained some of the “virtues” and “vices” of the two systems of governance in such words as, “A democratic rule is like riding a horse, and dictatorship is like riding a donkey (khota). Which one you (leaders/people) would like to choose?” Then for the benefit of the dumb people, he explained the merits and demerits of the two modes of transportation. One is quick and graceful; the other is slow, risky (an ass is notorious for kicking), and disgraceful. Jesus Christ entered Jerusalem riding a donkey. We in our childhood benefited a lot from a ‘stolen’ donkey’s ride. How can its ride be demeaning in any way? The problem lies with the rider, not with the poor beast whose humility, perseverance and selfless service is legendary. One also fails to understand whether Mian Sahib was addressing the riders (leaders), or was talking to the beasts of burden, (people).
The system as such is neither good nor bad. The basic requisite for an effective democracy is the quality of the state rule. “A state that is not effective significantly affects the credibility of democracy,” says Carlos Santiso in his article, “Development Cooperation and the Promotion of Democratic Governance”. Fareed Zakaria also warns when he says, ‘Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war.” (‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, November 1997).
Despotism or dictatorship is inhuman as it is totally oppressive and , therefore, is cruel. No civilized people will accept it, nor would they let it prevail over them for long when imposed. More lethal, pernicious and poisonous than dictatorship, however, is the kind of democracy that is under discussion here. There is no inherent virtue enshrined in it. When it gets bad, it becomes disgusting. It is rather more beguiling in nature, because it is more deceptive in appearance. It is more expensive too, because people get constrained to pay, not for one, but for a battalion of ministers, i.e. vultures. And in return , what they get is nothing, but chaos and disaster and polarization of an already divided people.
Free and fair elections, accountability at every step, equal opportunity for all, and most importantly, the presence of a possibility in the system to remove those who are unable to deliver results, and adherence to the Constitution in letter and spirit, is what makes democracy holy like a religion, popular like a fashion and wished for like a dream. Otherwise, there is nothing inherently good in it that would keep it sacramental even when it is in its worst form.
The scribe of this article is a great lover of democracy, but has no patience when it is distorted and abused or is partially implemented. Benjamin Franklin called democracy a way of seeking people’s will as “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Are the people of Pakistan not like the lamb in the saying sitting in the midst of power-hungry wolves! When did they see a new, and bright face appearing on the scene through elections? It has been a game of power in which only three names have circulated in Pakistan since the fall of the senior Bhutto in 1977: the Bhuttos, the Mians and the two military dictators. Americans refuse to see the same face after a maximum period of 8 years. Not so in Pakistan.
These leaders of Pakistan have denuded the 175 million, otherwise very resilient, resourceful, hardworking and enterprising people of their innate ability to think and act independently. The worst crime of these leaders had been that they have totally blocked the way and the possibility of a healthy change in Pakistan. Thirty-three years out of the 63-year history of Pakistan have just revolved in circles around only four people: General Ziaul Haq, late Benazir Bhutto, Mian Nawaz Sharif and General Musharraf. Is there a phase of their character and political philosophy that has remained hidden from the people? Hardly any. They are as predictable as the weather when the sky is heavily overcast; the distant thunder of clouds is audible and the streaks of lightning are also constantly illuminating the sky. Even a blind man would predict what is going to happen. Same way in Pakistan any layman can predict that these leaders have lived their utility. People are done with them. But who can and who will show them the exit door? Is there somebody who could come and tell them the way once Martin Luther King Junior told the eight white church men in Birmingham, Alabama, “I am here because injustice is here”.
True leadership is always creative because it is pro-active, and not re-active; it is clear-headed and focused like a hedgehog, and is not distracted like a fox; it knows who is aboard the bus it is driving. It knows whom to keep in the team and whom to kick out. Did the present regime of Gilani and Zardari ever fire one corrupt and inefficient man? There is blood in the air like mist; there is mayhem everywhere, and yet Malik Rahman keeps his portfolio. If it ever fired a corrupt person, it rewarded him manifold in another position as in the case of Mr.Khuso. It could learn a lot from Bangladesh and India, if not from Singapore, Indonesia and Taiwan, or even from Rwanda how to retrieve a country when it is just falling apart. Making mistakes is not something unusual; but never confessing them is a big human aberration. It is a Satanic pattern to stay defiant and proud and unrepentant.
It is a known truth that the Founding Fathers of America were not power-hungry politicians but men of great foresight. They wanted a system that could work and that could be as free of abuses, and that could best suit a fledgling nation. They just did not copy-cat what was prevalent in Europe, and especially in England. That is one reason that the Constitution of the United States “does not contain a single solitary reference to the word ‘democracy’, but instead stipulates that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government’ ”, writes Bevin Chu, August 5, 2005 in his article, “Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried”.
A democratic system is vastly different from that of a Republic, and the difference is not trivial. Allama Iqbal was very critical of a democratic system because in it the mob mentality prevails, and the individuals suffer. In early days, the Romans for the sake of entertainment, would throw a Christian in the den of hungry lions and would watch the spectacle for amusement. The gory scene would bring outburst of cheers as the hungry lions would tear apart the limbs of the victim. In the entire game, there was hardly any element of enjoyment or happiness for the unfortunate victim; all the fun rested with the spectators. Democracy is that kind of system. In Pakistan, the poor people can easily be likened to the man thrown in the den of hungry lions. The cheers come only from the rich and the corrupt who are heard saying, “Give democracy a chance; let the system work”. I would pray if it were to end tomorrow, it ends today, at this moment, now.
The Founding Fathers of the United States noticed the difference between a democracy and a republic early on. In the words of Bevin Chu, they considered the distinction as vital and distinct as between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty. Pakistan also was renamed in the 1956 Constitution as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. But did the civil or military leadership ever recognize the representative or consultative role of the people whom they ruled with impunity?
Thomas Jefferson, the 3 rd President called democracy “nothing more than mob rule”; James Madison, the 4 th President, and Father of the Constitution, termed democracies of the world as “spectacles of turbulence and contention”. John Quincy Adams, the sixth President spoke about the system in no uncertain terms, “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived”.
Nor was John Adams in any way ambivalent when he said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide”.
How many times did democracy fail and fall on its own face in Pakistan in recent times? Every time it was tried, it failed. Who failed the system? The political leaders would put the blame on the military; and the military on the bad performance of these clueless leaders. Both buttered the bread on both sides and walked away. Now the retired generals once part of the problem inform us what we should do. People just remain dazed and bewildered and confused. Is it to be deduced then that the people of Pakistan are inimical to the democratic forces and their mind-sets are incompatible with the demands of Democracy?. They like sticks more than carrots. Certainly not. They are not any less lovers of democracy than are the people of India or the West. It is the rotten leadership of Pakistan that is solely responsible for the debacle.
The system of democracy is like a medical prescription. It will deliver results only when applied in full sincerity. Half-hearted use of it is plain abuse.
(Continued next week)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
