The promise of democracy

The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School

Our nation is in a state of despondency over the wanting performance of the coalition government, scaremongering is at its peak and all kinds of doomsday scenarios are being painted regarding the future of this country and its system of governance. Are we really falling apart? Do the power elites who are hastily seeking visas of inhospitable foreign lands know something that the rest of this country doesn't? Is the coalition government the best outcome that our democracy has to offer and should we being to ponder alternative models of governance now that our romance for democracy seems to be dwindling? Are the praetorians smugly taking notes on how politicians will always let us down and should we expect the arrival of another team of our omnipotent khaki-saviours soon?

There are many acts and omissions for which the coalition government deserves our censure. But let us also understand the context in which it has assumed control of parts of the polity after the Feb 18 elections. We have had General Musharraf reign supreme in this hapless country from October 12, 1999 up until the recent elections. Evenr after the people of Pakistan ruthlessly punished anyone allied with the general, his wraith and remnants continue to hover over this country like a dark cloud. It has been said before and needs to be reiterated here that one of the biggest challenges confronting the state of Pakistan and its democratic future is the imbalance between civil and military institutions that keeps civilian governments disempowered and dysfunctional, and hangs like the sword of Damocles waiting for them to falter.

To compare the power vested in and exercised by the general during his reign and that entrusted to the present coalition government is like comparing apples with pears. In the realm of domestic affairs, the general was answerable to no one and the scope of his power and the province of his jurisdiction was all-encompassing. And in managing the country's foreign affairs he was the only one who shared a hot line with military commanders in the region as well as with heads of states across the globe. Such efficiency of command comes along with a complete monopoly over state power and an inability of other individuals and institutions in the country to prevent its abuse. And that is exactly what democracy sets out to prevent.

The opportunity to rule a state that suffers from the hangover of military rule comes along with serious limitations. In theory the elected government might have the authority to make all executive decisions related to the state in accordance with the constitutional scheme of power distribution. But in practice it does not enjoy the power to formulate policy with regard to defence and security matters as well as areas of foreign policy that impinge on security affairs to point one example. And even in the areas of policymaking where a civilian executive can actually make decisions, it is heavily dependent on tools that fall beyond its control. The civilian infrastructure of the state has been rendered so dishevelled and threadbare due to lack of investment over the decades that civilian governments end up relying on the comparatively organized military for jobs ranging from cleaning canals and fixing WAPDA to rescuing policemen holed up in police stations within Pakistan's tribal fiefdoms.

Take internal security for example. The Lal Masjid operation was a disaster of mammoth proportions not necessarily because the vigilantes were correct in their decision to inflict morality and virtue on fellow citizens, but because instead of using a police force trained in policing citizens and prosecuting criminals the security operation was handed over to agencies specializing in the art of killing. What they obliterated, along with humans in the mosque, was valuable evidence that could have otherwise led to conviction of the militants fighting against state agencies. It will be no surprise now if all the detainees of Lal Masjid simply walk once they have their day before an unbiased court, for in a court of law the onus of establishing guilt needs to be discharged by the state.

But we don't seem to have learnt the right lessons even now as while the blame-game continues there is little talk of training and equipping the police to transform it into a force capable of handling the serious internal security challenges this nation is confronted with. And this is where civilian governments are to blame. Instead of investing in and empowering civilian infrastructure to serve as an effective foundation for civilian governance, elected governments are all too happy to opt for fire-brigade operations and rely on military and paramilitary support to produce immediate results.

Apart from lack of jurisdiction over certain policymaking issues and excessive dependence on military dominated agencies in all areas of governance, our elected governments have also lacked the courage to imagine that the future can be different from the past. This psychological barrier may be a product of our chequered political history wherein unrepresentative forces have continued to trump the representative ones. But an excessive focus on their inability to usher change causes our political leaders to continuously try and predict what the unrepresentative forces might desire – be it the military or the US Administration – and act accordingly. This causes elected leaders to be constrained not only by the explicit demands of non-representative interest groups (local or foreign) but also by their perceived wishes.

These self-imposed restrictions on freedom of thought and action of elected civilian governments in turn empower the non-representative forces even without their asking. They also make political forces seem toothless, inept and dysfunctional. Thoughless belief in the ability of others to control our will, our wishes and our fortune leads to oft-repeated claims like, 'no the judges cannot be restored because America doesn't want that' or 'Zardari cannot become prime minister or president because the military isn't allowing it'. America might not want the judges back, and the army might not trust Zardari. But that doesn't seal the fate of the deposed judges or Mr Zardari (for better or for worse). Instead it is the professed obligation of our politicos to comply with the perceived wishes of faceless forces that seals the fate of this nation and prevents it from assuming control of its destiny.

Democracy has never been advertised as the most efficient system of governance around the world; only the safest. And there is nothing intrinsic about Pakistan or the genius of its people that requires us to reinvent the wheel. The fruits of democracy lie not in the immediate term results produced by a credible election, but in the continuing process that empowers the public, educates it and establishes a continuous system of public accountability for those exercising state authority. The promise of democracy (in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States) is that the most important office is the office of the citizen, and we are a long way from that ideal. The return of democracy in Pakistan cannot produce selfless men and women of integrity, courage and conviction overnight to lead us out of the woods and undo entrenched power structures. For that we will have to demonstrate the patience to allow the system to run long enough for us to be able to shift the grain from the sheaf and create a sustainable political culture that finds and nurtures worthy leaders.

Meanwhile this nation is not ready for new praetorian experiments just yet. Those who misread the amused response of bar councils toward Naeem Bokhari's now famous letter against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry as collective apathy toward the office of the chief justice should not misconstrue the gloom over the coalition's performance as evidence of this nation's willingness to accept another saviour. The present despair should however be seen as a threat of reprisal for those in whom the people reposed their trust on February 18. The elected representatives of the citizens need to wake up and smell the coffee. If they become too pragmatic and acquiesce in ground realities, the fate of PML-Q is before them. But if they choose to strengthen civilian institutions –parliament, the judiciary, the civilian enforcement agencies – they might reclaim the constitutional mandate to run the polity that has been usurped by non-representative forces. And in the process they will be making a lasting investment in the democratic future of Pakistan as well as their own.



Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu