What is more debated is who or what is responsible for this anti-democratic turn and what needs to be done to ensure 2024 is different
One does not need expert analysis to discern that 2023 was not a good year for democracy in Pakistan. What was supposed to be an election year ended with unelected governments in charge. That even the schedule of these already delayed elections remains uncertain speaks volumes of the damage done to democracy over the past few years in particular, and 2023 which saw a continuation of the ‘management’ of democracy by the unelected and the will of the people counting for next to nought when it came to deciding political outcomes. Who gets to stay in power, contest elections, and even the path our economy will take were decided outside of the public arena. There were also significant infringements on the right to dissent and protest peacefully, in keeping with the censorious and intolerant bent that has characterized the past six years or so. What is more debated is who or what is responsible for this anti-democratic turn and what needs to be done to ensure 2024 is different, especially with elections, ostensibly, a little over a month away.
According to a report by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency entitled ‘Quality of Democracy in Pakistan 2023’, political parties and politicians, the presumed victims of undemocratic transgressions, are a major part of the problem. The report argues that the leading political parties appear to be addicted to using the undemocratic forces as a crutch. Rather than securing the people’s mandate on their own and ensuring strong elected governments, those who ought to be leading the fight for more democracy settle for “a managed public popularity” and forming “fractured governments”. With such a blunt spearhead, the people get what appears to be a show of democracy rather than the real thing. This is a system where the country, enabled by the political class, goes through the motions of holding elections, and where MNAs have to be prodded by the executive, with the backing of undemocratic quarters, to do their job rather than playing the leading role in drafting, debating and passing legislation. Provincial assemblies too often serve as a rubber stamp for their respective governments as per the report.
Some international experts label this state of affairs as an ‘electoral autocracy’ or ‘hybrid democracy’. This seems like an apt way of describing a system where some of the trappings of democracy are present, but where the ultimate fate of politicians is not determined by the people and politicians seemingly compete for power patronage, taking turns to fall in and out of favour with the latter. For all the rancour that our politicians raise, it is rather sad to know that it is all to decide whose turn it is to play “second fiddle”, in the words of the report. One might conclude that our politicians take themselves but not the duties of their office seriously, hence the seeming contentment with being perpetual junior partners in governance. This also helps explain the public’s lacklustre engagement with the democratic process and the, at best, sceptical attitude they harbour towards politicians and politics in general. After all, why should they turn up for those not bothered with turning up for them? The next elections might come too soon for the politicians to shake the role they currently fulfil. But for things to get better from here on out the reliance on undemocratic forces has to end, as it has in more mature democracies. Rather than serving as a mere legitimizing force, politicians need to exhibit a greater desire to actually take the reins of governance. This is not something that will be gifted to them.