If the people of Pakistan are asked to make a choice between the two Sharifs, who would they vote for? My sense is that they would want to vote for both. And that, perhaps, is the inherent duality of the journey that Pakistan has made. But have we arrived at some kind of an equilibrium with regard to the perpetual tension between the civilian and military outfits? Does it work and can it in some amorphous ways be institutionalised? Or is the present situation, marked by the campaign against terrorism and the upheaval caused by the massacre of our schoolchildren in Peshawar on December 16 last year, unique and hence transient – just like the configuration of the two Sharifs in terms of their tenure? Before I move ahead, I must take note of the crack that appeared in the existing civil-military alliance when, on November 10, the ISPR issued a press release to express the army leadership’s disaffection about government’s ‘governance initiatives’; the government prompted responded the next day. At a lower level, we have recurring evidence of divergences between the Rangers and the Sindh government in the conduct of the Karachi operation. Now, irrespective of how this potentially adversary relationship evolves in the near future, my purpose is to explore the popular mood when it comes to our abiding pursuit of a more meaningful democratic dispensation. There is valid appreciation that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has weathered the ‘dharna’ storm and is now firmly on dry ground. According to one survey, people’s approval of the quality of democracy has increased from 56 percent in 2014 to 66 percent in 2015. At the same time, there is widespread appreciation of the role that the army has played in its operation against terrorists and extremists. There seemed something ominous about how the visage of the chief of army staff was projected on the sidewalks of the major cities but apparently that wave has subsided. Fresh concerns about increasing discord in civil-military relations do not yet project any threat to the existing arrangement. This also means that the civilian rulers of Pakistan have an opportunity – and the challenge – of strengthening democracy under the cover of a national security operation that is being steered by the army and the extraordinary powers that are available to enforce law and order. This is also the time to set the democratic house in order and seek a sanction of the democratic process through improved governance. Essentially, the political rulers should learn from the travails that resulted from the growth of extremism and obscurantism in our society. They must strive to benefit from the present offensive against terrorism and militancy to improve the overall environment of peace and tolerance in society. In other words, they must attend to the needs and aspirations of the people to generate trust in democracy. Is this – in the midst of an operation that naturally undermines civil liberties – the right time to be talking about democracy? To an extent, I am prompted by my participation in a serious discussion on this subject held in Lahore on Wednesday. It was, in fact, a session of the Pildat Assessment of the Quality of Democracy in Pakistan. There will be a report on the assessment of democracy covering the calendar year but on Wednesday, we reviewed a draft that presented major developments recorded until October 31. Without going into any details of the Pildat exercise that involves a number of distinguished practitioners and analysts, I must confess my own ambivalence about what Pakistani democracy is all about. One has to contend, in all respects, with the power of the military and the powerlessness of our people in terms of their capacity to function as responsible citizens. Our political leaders, too, have not inspired much trust in the democratic process. We are a society of low political culture. Our people are impoverished – and not just in a material sense. Our deprivations are of a monumental nature. So how do we move ahead with this heavy baggage? Looking at the state of democracy in Pakistan at this time, it may be useful to consider some relevant indicators. Pildat’s draft had separated positive and negative developments that have impacted the quality of democracy. There were such categories as ‘electoral process and management’; ‘parliament and provincial legislatures’; ‘civil-military relations’; ‘Pakistan’s democracy and the role of the media’; ‘rule of law and human rights’; and ‘local government elections’. These are mainly ritualistic and procedural aspects of how a democracy functions. I acknowledge the fundamental importance of the credibility and universal acceptance of the electoral process. It is in this area that most Third World democracies have floundered. We do have the Indian example. Even though the general elections of 2013 were certified by a judicial commission, the capacity of the Election Commission of Pakistan to conduct elections remains deficient and the process demands an overhaul. Ultimately, the validity and endorsement of the democratic process must be located in the lives of the people. Democracy must also ensure a tolerant society in which there is no discrimination on the basis of belief, class or political ideology. India, for instance, is passing through a phase of violent assertion of religious and nationalist identity. This is a test of its democracy and its constitutional obligation of protecting a secular polity. What is encouraging in this scenario is the response of the Indian civil society. Its protest against growing intolerance in the country certifies the presence of a vibrant intelligentsia willing to fight for liberal causes. We in Pakistan have a large number of social activists but the civil society as such has not been able to make its mark; and this may have a bearing on the evolution of our democratic process. How this process can find its vindication in the presence of a powerful military that has always had an upper hand in the power equation is a question that baffles the mind. Besides, our society remains seriously afflicted with potentially undemocratic passions with reference to religious and sectarian animosities. The National Action Plan was meant to tackle these aberrations but the fact that this month’s atrocity in Jhelum in which the Ahmadi community was targeted was still possible is unbearable. Against this backdrop, one wonders if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s remarks that he sees Pakistan’s future as ‘liberal’ and democratic have any significance. Hopefully, the military leadership is also mindful of lessons we must learn from what happened on December 16. The writer is a staff member Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com
