Democracy’s circus

America, the world’s richest democracy, produced Donald Trump. India, the world’s biggest democracy, produced Narendra Modi. Britain, the world’s oldest democracy, produced Boris Johnson. Brazil, the world’s largest Latin democracy, produced Jair Bolsonaro. Italy, the world’s most volatile democracy, produced Silvio Berlusconi. The Philippines, Asia’s first democracy, produced Rodrigo Duterte.

Has democracy, in practice, been producing performers rather than governance models? Increasingly, there appears to be a gap between leaders who master the art of winning elections and those who possess the expertise to govern effectively. The incentives of democratic politics often reward charisma, populism and vote-getting strategies over competence, institution-building and long-term policymaking.

Donald Trump, a reality television star, turned politics into a spectacle. Donald Trump relies on three things: rallies, soundbites, and branding. No policy detail. Narendra Modi, a master orator, has two lethal weapons in his bag of tricks: religious identity and grand narratives of nationalism. No sober governance.

Boris Johnson, a journalist-turned-politician, is celebrated for three things: wit, theatrics and slogans like 'Get Brexit Done'. Little or no seriousness in office. Jair Bolsonaro, a former army captain, thrives on three things: incendiary rhetoric, denialism during the pandemic and culture-war theatrics.

Silvio Berlusconi, a media tycoon, deployed his celebrity flamboyance, treating governance as a stage for self-promotion. Rodrigo Duterte, a populist strongman, commanded attention through crude language, tough-guy performances and made-for-camera dramatics.

Do these cases suggest that democracy, at least in its populist wave, has elevated leaders who excel as performers – commanding attention, mobilising emotions and mastering the art of political theatre – rather than leaders whose central skill lies in the patient, technical craft of governance? In the Pakistani context, election campaigns are built on three familiar pillars: populist slogans, street power and emotional appeals. In the Pakistani context, victory at the ballot box has typically depended on six known instruments: cultivating personality cults, mobilising identity-based loyalties, leveraging patronage networks, commanding crowds, dominating media cycles and outmanoeuvring rivals.

What Pakistan needs, however, are three very different pillars: long-term plans for economic reform, institutional strengthening and governance innovation.

This is not an argument against democracy but a note in support of it. For Pakistan’s democracy to endure, it must begin producing leaders with three essential qualities: technical expertise, administrative discipline and an unwavering commitment to systemic reform. Only then can we break the recurring cycle where the art of winning elections continues to overshadow the science of governing.

To be certain, democracy cannot survive as a circus forever. Pakistani democracy must begin nurturing leaders who can patiently build institutions, craft policy and deliver results. Yes, populism wins elections, but only governance sustains nations. For Pakistan, the challenge is urgent: unless democracy begins to reward competence over charisma and reform over rhetoric, it will continue to recycle the same failures. To be sure, the promise of democracy is not just the ballot box, but the ability to turn votes into better schools, stronger institutions and fairer opportunities. Without that, democracy risks hollowing itself from within.

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. He tweets/posts @saleemfarrukh and can be reached at: farrukh15@hotmail.com