|
War against Democracy |
| Pakistan
and Democracy |
| There
are many things that don’t work in Pakistan, but all
evidence suggests that democracy is not one of them. |
|
Dr. Adil
Najam |
Of
all the travesties that are now the staple of what
goes as ‘political commentary’ on Pakistan, there
is none as venomous or as dangerous to the future
of Pakistan than the claim that Pakistan and democracy
are somehow incompatible. It is venomous because it
is patently wrong as well as deeply insulting. It
is dangerous because once accepted it can (and nearly
has) become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What is most
hurtful is that we make this claim, most often, Pakistanis
ourselves.
Such a claim can mean only one of two things. Either
it implies that Pakistan, and therefore Pakistanis,
are unworthy and incapable of democracy. Or it suggests
that somehow democracy is unworthy or inappropriate
for Pakistan. The first is an outright insult to Pakistan
and Pakistanis and implies that we are somehow genetically,
sociologically or historically (and, according to
some commentators, religiously) unfit for democracy.
That we, as a people, are so inept and incompetent
that we cannot be entrusted with determining the course
of our own future.
The second interpretation is more common, and also
more troubling. It stems from a disturbing combination
of hubris, disdain and inertia. Let us first look
at hubris. Hubris manifests itself in the assumption
that democracy is just not good enough for us or the
even more arrogant suggestion that we can do better
than democracy. That we can — despite all the evidence
to the contrary — devise a ‘new and different’ form
of governance that is more suited to our national,
social and religious temper. The details of what this
‘new and different’ governance might look like are
never divulged, expect as someone telling us that
we should just trust them to work out these details
because they ‘know better’. Such logic is a favourite
of apologists for authoritarianism as well as proponents
of fundamentalism. However, as soon as you peel away
the misconceived nationalism or the misguided religiosity
of such proposals what you find lurking in the dark
is the very same lack of confidence in the ability
of the Pakistani public to be entrusted with their
own future. Indeed, the real hubris of such arguments
lies in the arrogance of those who make these arguments.
One of the curious aspects of this argument is that,
nearly always, those who make this argument believe
that while the rest of Pakistan is incapable of making
reasonable decisions through a democratic process,
they themselves are more than qualified to do so for
the entirety of the country.
Then, of course, there are those who believe that
democracy is inappropriate for Pakistan because, allegedly,
it has not worked in the past. This argument stems
partly from the disdain that has set in as a result
of Pakistan’s bitter experiences with elected politicians
and the unselected generals who repeatedly replace
them. It also flows from a strong belief in inertia
— that is, since elections have not worked in the
past, they are destined to fail in the future. The
big problem with such arguments is that they confuse
the failures of our politicians (and the ambitions
of our generals) with the failures of democracy. More
than that, they confuse the ritual of elections with
the substance of democracy.
A detailed discussion of what we mean by democracy
must wait for a later occasion. At its roots, however,
it is a fairly simple idea. It is the notion that
people can, and should, decide how and by whom they
are to be governed. Some mechanism that gives the
entirety of the citizenry a direct say in how that
choice is made is a necessary condition for meaningful
democracy, but it is certainly not a sufficient condition.
Moreover, democracy doesn’t just ‘happen’ because
elections are held. It has to be carefully nurtured
and steadfastly defended in all institutions of society.
This is because there will always be those who will
seek to undermine the democratic process. In Pakistan’s
case, unfortunately, those who should have been custodians
of democracy have often been bent on undermining it.
This has included politicians who have tried to co-opt
the electoral process as well as military and civil
bureaucrats who have tried to circumvent it. However,
the corruption of our ruling elites does not prove
that democracy is a bad idea. It merely proves that
our ruling elites are corrupt.
And therein lies the great irony. Those who have been
most responsible for corrupting, co-opting and circumventing
the democratic process in Pakistan are the very same
who make the loudest noise about democracy being inconsistent
with Pakistan. Military and civil bureaucrats make
these arguments by posing as ‘super-patriots’ — they
‘know best’ because it is their duty to do so. Religious
zealots do the same by painting themselves as ‘super-pious’
— they ‘know best’ because they speak on behalf of
powers greater than any of us. And, worst of all,
the so called intelligence (especially the technocratic
classes) chimes in by posing as ‘super-democrats’
— they ‘know best’ because they are the educated few
and, obviously, the uneducated many cannot be trusted
with the future of the country.
Finally, there is the much-maligned argument that
Pakistan’s history proves that democracy has not worked
in Pakistan. This is total nonsense. If one looks
at Pakistan’s history, all one finds is vast periods
of non-democracy — mostly under non-elected rule,
but often also under elected rule. Empirically, the
only thing that one can say on the basis of this history
is that non-democracy does not work in Pakistan. As
one surveys the socio-political landscape one finds
the country in the grips of poverty, disease, despair,
sectarianism, extremism, violence, and much more.
But none of these can be blamed on democracy, simply
because we have never really allowed meaningful democracy
for any meaningful period of time. There are many
things that don’t work in Pakistan, but all evidence
suggests that democracy is not one of them. At least,
not yet. |
|
------------- |
|
Dr. Adil
Najam is an Associate Professor of International
Negotiation and Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, USA. |
|
|
|
|
