Democracy or what?

Democracy has been criticised from a variety of naysayers, as well as power-hungry authoritarian forces, terrorists and religious fundamentalists or revivalists.

There is also a broad section of the elite that hates politics and wants an efficient authoritarian developmental model san civil rights – not to mention those opportunity-seekers who always wait for an extra-constitutional intervention for self-promotion. Should we let this fragile transition to democracy take roots or let it derail once again? And for what kind of an alternative – one we have not witnessed with disastrous consequences?

Indeed, we are aware of the glaring shortcomings of the current variant of a flawed elected dispensation – the way it functions in an oligarchic style, ignores merit, rules, transparency, bypasses parliament and overlooks certain requisites of good governance. It is also the function of democracy and responsibility of conscientious citizens, media and diverse forces of opposition to continue to keep governments under constant scrutiny and make them accountable in the public interest – not for selfish, partisan or expedient considerations.

A vibrant aspect of the incumbent democracy is that the plurality of criticism of the incumbent governments is rather chaotic. However, lack of established democratic conventions, liberal-democratic values and a tolerant pluralist culture make the road to democracy a bit bumpy amid the inherently conflicting civil-military equation. Issues of morality, such as corruption, and political legitimacy, due to the disenfranchisement of larger sections of the populace and un-fulfilment of people’s aspirations, continue to diminish the legitimacy of the democratic project – often focused on the doubtful character or vilification of the leading officials of the elected dispensations.

It took hundreds of years for democracy to develop in Europe, US and elsewhere, and it continues to evolve to redress its shortcomings. As a political system of representation, democracy was preceded by great ideological battles against the hegemony of the clergy and the monarchy and emergence of civil and human rights, a free individual in particular. Similarly, the right to adult franchise of the dispossessed, women and minorities, and the self-determination of the colonised and the enslaved also took longer years and infinite sacrifices to achieve relative freedom, human and civil rights.

All this required intellectual emancipation and rights movements and revolutions to defeat or marginalise the monarchy and the clergy and, finally, the separation of religion from the state and education. Freedom of thought/expression, assertion of all rights of the individual, free media, an independent judiciary, professional civil servants, a free press, rule of law and elected representative systems – these took even longer to consolidate.

After long historical experiences and experimentation with various models of governance, the world at large has finally embraced democracy as the only viable political system. Yet its shortcomings continue to call for improvements, especially in the realm of freedoms, rights and political economy. Hence, various experimentations continue within a democratic framework, such as social democracy, liberal democracy and the nature of participation of the people in governance at various levels as well as the extent of the accommodation of the peoples’ needs to be addressed at the cost of the profits of others.

The democratic project in Pakistan, however, continued to face hindrances from Islamists, champions of a unitary and authoritarian state, domineering civil and military establishments and various proponents of an authoritarian model. Different experimentations – with an Islamic state (Objectives Resolution), authoritarian developmental model (by Ayub Khan), the jihadist Islamic authoritarian dispensation of Gen Ziaul Haq, the liberal-military rule of Gen Musharraf and civilian quasi-democratic variants – failed to give Pakistan a viable system of governance. Instead, they brought horrible consequences, including the breakup of the country and a delay for decades in having agreed to a social contract in 1973. To date the country remains a divided personality in terms of it ideological and political direction and the nature of nation-building.

During this period of transition, which passed from one elected government to the other, there are issues that continue to dog its future and raise questions about its ability, sustainability and legitimacy. First, more than the lack of power in setting the direction for security and foreign policies –which is a major hurdle in the way of the sovereignty and viability of the representative system – whatever the powers the elected governments have, they are not exercising in a sufficiently prudent and responsible manner.

Second is the lack of democratic functioning of the ruling parties and the top bosses as well as the bypassing of assemblies and cabinets by the relevant chief executives. Third, there is no sufficient movement towards good governance in the realm of civil service, judicial, police, revenue and accountability institutions, such as FBR, FIA, NAB, etc.

The fourth issue is the assertion of the armed and civilian armed forces in acting, and being seen to be acting, separate from – and above – the civilian executive as the super executive. Fifth, development priorities and the expenditure-layout ignore the real needs of the people while keeping them on paltry handouts.

Sixth, the establishment of an accountability system that makes the rulers accountable without exception, such as in the case of Panama leaks, has been avoided. And, finally, there are excessive and over-extended security agendas that regionally isolate the country and internationally make it disreputable, which is neither economically sustainable nor helpful in the fight against terrorism.

All the governments and the parties in power need to address all these and other issues that put the legitimacy of the democratic system in jeopardy and allow the powers that be to expand their space, and other anti-democratic forces to fish in troubled waters. Politicians and elected representatives must rise above their expedient considerations and develop a tolerant and democratic modus operandi, rather than derailing the system – as the PTI and PAT are trying to do for the second time.

For its part, the federal government must take the initiative in bringing the opposition on board to evolve a consensus on the burning issue of accountability, rather than using diversionary or countering tactics. In the meanwhile, the most important issue – the extension or appointment of a new army chief – should be settled with care. It is preferable to retain an experienced, war-tested and non-Bonapartist Gen Raheel Sharif rather than take the risk of finding ‘our own man’.

What Gen Raheel Sharif is saying about reforms in the system needs to be addressed at an appropriate forum. He must also be asked to revisit the erstwhile adventurous regional security policies that have put us in a blind alley. Without changing them the successful war against domestic terrorism won’t achieve the ultimate objective of peace – both within and without.

The writer is a senior journalist.

Email: imtiaz.safma@gmail.com

Twitter: @ImtiazAlamSAFMA