Democracy and new expectations

There are two broad reasons why critics judge Zardari’s democratic government as a continuation of Musharraf’s dictatorial regime. The first structural evidence of this lies in the fact that while the Musharrafian Constitution remains firmly intact, all the various democratic coalition agreements have been systematically broken by the Zardari government. The charter of democracy has became as much of a farce as that red herring, the constitutional package.

The experiential/other evidence comes from something more intangible – a growing sense of frustration over the impropriety, confusion, incompetence and paralysis demonstrated by this government. After the February 2008 elections, in the absence of a plan of governance beyond Benazir, the party leadership resorted to the old culture of politics – one fraught with nepotism, IMF economics, individualism, and power-mongering. For what is essentially a new Pakistan, at least one that is witnessing a new generation’s coming of age, this has been all too reminiscent of self-seeking pursuits that removed people’s trust in civilian leadership in 1999 and invested futile hope in a military dictatorship.

There are a number of reasons which mark out this last year as a political disappointment. It has less to do with idealism or any purist expectations of democracy and nor is it, as some analysts insist, a repeat of bourgeois hate and distrust for political parties. Instead, it is important to recognise that there has been a shift, both with regard to the nature of the state, as well as with regard to political expectations in Pakistan. Some of this has to do with global events and economics, as well as the war on terror and its direct social and political impact on our communities and society.

Meanwhile, internal socio-political changes have been gaining ground too. This includes a sharper political awareness due to a new media and a growing culture of critical evaluation (however flawed) of politicians and policies. Simultaneously, urbanisation and the contest for ideological spaces is throwing up new actors at an equally fast pace. New media tycoons, businessmen-turned politicians, the stock market community and quasi-religious leaders not found in mosques and madrassahs but in community clubs and dars sessions in private residences. These new sectors are claiming more representation and are willing to compete for this, often outside of mainstream political organisations. All these combinations have influenced shifts in the collective political consciousness of Pakistanis in the last decade.

It is this aspect that the civilian leadership has been unable to grasp, understand, respond to, co-opt or contest. Musharraf co-opted the liberals; politically bartered with the religious parties to share power; duped the people with mindless entertainment and cell phones and opened up a casino called the stock market to distract the upwardly mobile classes.

This government has not gotten up from the musical chairs game to do anything. This inability is causing it to lose what could be called principled political support. This unmeasurable quality may not carry direct practical weight but is nevertheless important for democracy, despite what ‘pragmatists’ may advise. Despite the dismissal by some analysts of the role and expectations of civil society as made up of the drawing room variety of the bourgeoisie, the momentum that built up against Gen Musharraf’s emergency rule and even prior, did manage to capture the imagination of both a younger generation as well as neophyte democrats in Pakistan. Today’s youth is now the product of a liberal dictatorship which has seen both - the opening up of a stifled society with regard to liberties, media and social relations and at the same time, the polar effect of increasing militancy and religious conservatism. Unlike previous pro-democracy movements, this generation had not been moved by any class identity or interests.

Instead, the aspirants for a new-age democracy in Pakistan are probably more in tune with the kind of appeal that has catapulted Barack Obama into power in the USA. A New World Martin Luther King who is not too black, too oppressed, too working class, too secular or too religious. But he stands for change – a break from the old culture of politics and for more imaginative, inclusive and accessible approaches to solutions. Further, a new expectation of democracy is based on a deeper understanding of the state, its responsibilities and rule of law as its essential principle. Political leaders and parties can no longer get away with populism, falsity, secrecy or empty rhetoric - for the facebook generation is one obsessed with detail – personal and political. They need to see and track democracy to be convinced it is something more than a five year voting pattern.

More importantly, apart from the inability to inspire this new generation, the Zardari government has made disastrous decisions that have shaken its historically-loyal constituency, made up of the intelligentsia and women’s rights and human rights activists. Several unambiguous human rights issues, that confronted this government over the past year, required unequivocal political decisions. Instead on each, the government delayed, reneged, covered up, or worse, as in the Zehri and Bajarani appointments, became complicit by association and by rewarding those who support crimes against women. No amount of excuses will help cover the lost moral ground on these particular cases.

In addition, the fate of the national commission on the status of women hangs in limbo due to a lapsed ordinance that founded it. This and the fact that the ministry of women’s development seems not to deserve a full-time minister, are institutional issues that remain unresolved. There are also rumours of negotiations and barters being sought through dialogue with Maulana Fazlur Rehman on certain aspects of the Women’s Protection Act.

Clearly the plan was never to restore the chief justice nor the pre-Nov 3 judiciary or constitution. The point is not whether political promises are binding or not – instead the judicial issue was about restoring democracy in a direction that would reinstate faith in democratic processes and institutions. It was also about demonstrating the strength of civilian power as a counter to military adventurism. Instead this government has squandered these opportunities and made transition all about consolidating its own power. Evidentially, people seem to have broadened their understanding of democracy to a more holistic inclusion of all pillars of the state and the importance not just of their independence but of their separation.

If all these are of lesser concern to this government, then certainly the previous government will compare in some terms, as a more progressive one than this democratically elected one. One needs to acknowledge in fair assessment that those women who sit on reserved seats in parliament today are partial beneficiaries of a Musharrafian policy. The only way to re-claim such quotas as our rightful corrective path to gender equality in the political process is to out-do the liberal claims of the previous regime. This will not happen through apologist defence of outrageous policies that seem to be rewarding misogyny in the name of culture or covering up male violations and abuse of human rights in order to defend constituencies.

The pragmatic argument is being romanticised and glorified beyond sensibility. In the name of pragmatism this supposedly progressive government, which includes women activist-turned-parliamentarians, is reneging on its commitment to human rights – symbolically and practically. At this rate, all sympathies and support will necessarily be rethought by civil society actors not because they ‘hate’ the PPP but simply because the government cannot prove its commitment to the causes of strengthening state institutions and representing marginalised sectors. Income generation programmes will not ensure protection against human rights violations. In any case, masquerading social welfare as a women’s rights issue is a debatable policy. The government needs to come out of its mode of paralysis and self-preservation and actually confront and deal with controversial issues that may conflict with party interests but need to be resolved – if for nothing else but to suggest to citizens that there is some semblance of governance outside of Islamabad and that democracy is not some half-baked consolation prize simply based on the number of votes that are counted after an election.



The writer is a sociologist based in Karachi. She has a background in women’s studies and has authored and edited several books on women’s issues. Email: afiyazia@yahoo.com