Democracy or Oligarchy?
By Mowahid Hussain Shah
The world, it has been said, is becoming a global village. What happens there is also happening here. Power is concentrated among the privileged few. Political parties, under the hijab of democracy, operate more or less as family businesses. In the US, too, it appears that the 2016 Presidential contest could be between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Democracy comes across as phony if it is only a façade hiding an oligarchic character – even if done with the consent of the people.
On the home front, oligarchy is limited not just to government, parliament, and the executive branch. There is also a visible dominance and monopoly of media magnates in print and electronic media and this platform invites encroachment into the executive arena and sport. Precisely to avoid this concentration of power, which deprives the public of the competitive force of countervailing ideas, anti-trust laws were framed in the United States to prohibit monopolies and curb anti-competitive and predatory practices.
Arbitrary behavior is entrenched when favorites are lavishly endowed while the not-so-favorites are subject to appalling deprivation. To be inculcated in the culture, fairness has to begin at home. It is one way to remedy lopsided behavior.
A recent study on oligarchy by Princeton University professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern University professor Benjamin Page (“ Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” ) highlights the issue of disparity of power and inequality in power balance. The study found that both wealthy individuals and organized interest groups have substantial influence on government policy, while the average citizens’ ability to affect policy is nearly zero. In effect, the preferences of affluent Americans are decisive – it makes very little difference what the general public thinks.
The study also found in the American political system a substantial bias against change. Thus, the system is tilted towards an oligarchic status quo. Even if a very large majority of the public favors change, if that change is not favored by the wealthy or interest groups, the public is not likely to get what it wants. See, for example, the continued grip in the US of the pro-gun lobby, despite regular episodes of murderous rampage. Also note how, over ten years ago, think tanks in Washington rubberstamped the disastrous foreign policy course of President Bush on Iraq. So what is the finding? Does the majority rule in democracy? An answer is unnecessary. But it does question America’s claims of being a democratic society.
In Pakistan, one has seen how a weak democratic culture has encouraged abuses with the unleashing of unfettered media. This absolutist power has led to corruption in public discourse and coarsening in civility and has expedited the spread of an obnoxious environment. To top it off, there have been suggestions of collusion between media houses and the executive branch.
Pakistan already has been damaged by family monopolies in the shape of political parties. Now it is being subverted by media monopolies. If left unattended, these pose a threat to national solidarity and commonweal. Already this oligarchy is damaging to the emergence of a stable and prosperous socio-economic environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
