The political history of Pakistan is marred by recurring episodes of democratic backsliding, authoritarian takeovers and attacks on the rule of law. These patterns range from military coups and unconstitutional interventions to the repression of masses and crackdown on mass media. The undemocratic tendencies have structured the political order in the country. Counterintuitively, many people continue to profess support for leaders known to have been involved in undemocratic actions. In certain settings, citizens’ approval of such political leaders and parties has grown deeper.

This phenomenon raises a critical question: why do groups of citizens support leaders who infringe upon democratic norms? Can this just be loyalty to a party or sheer misinformation? Recent research by political scientist Suthan Krishnarajan provides a sobering yet thought-provoking perspective: “Citizens unconsciously rationalise undemocratic actions when they align with their political beliefs.”

Rather than being passive subjects to state propaganda or rigid factionalism, citizens tend to distort their views about democracy based on their choices. These cognitive biases and psychological tactics are functional beneath the conscious understanding, silently shifting the perceptions regarding subjects such as democracy, legitimacy and leadership.

The trajectory of democracy in Pakistan has been on a deteriorating course ever since its inception. The country has gone through abrogation of constitution, military takeovers and endured intensely polarised politics. However, public opinion about most political leaders has been unchanged. The popular sentiment in favour of certain institutions and political leaders in general has been relatively unaffected. Some of these leaders have been accused of corruption, abuse of power and suppressing the opposition, but this has not resulted in a losss of public support. What makes this support so unyielding?

Recent research on the subject points to an astonishing discovery. The enduring support for one’s leaders is ingrained in the perception of citizens’ definition of ‘principles.’ Public opinion is inclined towards accepting any undemocratic act as democratic as long as it is aimed at the ‘greater good’ of the country, such as national security or economic progress. This subconscious consideration clouds their judgement. The bias is involuntary. The people are not being deceived. They truly believe that what they steadfastly embrace is democratic.

His work explores international relations, political psychology, and broader social and political issues This distortion of political perceptions has dire results for democratic development as its strike at public accountability. The willingness of a people to tolerate transgressions against democracy by their favourite leaders can squeeze the room for institutional oversight.

This redefinition of democracy by citizens is explained by two psychological mechanisms. First, ‘democratic transmission’ argues that people lean towards a reinterpretation of undemocratic practices as democratic because they harmonise with their political aspirations. For example, the oppression of opposition parties might be considered democratic in the interest of national unity. Second, ‘democratic elevation’ posits an expansion of the definition of democracy to make room for ‘esteemed actions’ even at the cost of breaching democratic values. For instance, the engagement of the establishment in politics is described as necessary in order to protect the national interest.

In this context, Pakistan’s experience with democracy is very peculiar. Political discourse in the eyes of the public is shaped by factors such as ethnicity, religion and historical discontents. The influence of these aspects on the psychological mechanisms that are involved in political behaviour is formidable. People may advocate for authoritarian measures to safeguard the nation against a threat from internal or external enemies.

These distortions of political perception have dire results for democratic development as they strike at public accountability. The willingness of a people to accept democratic transgressions of their favourite leaders can squeeze the room for institutional oversight. Simultaneously, the opposition parties are subject to fundamentally altered standards. This creates political gulfs in the society. This rift in political perceptions aids in understanding the widespread political impunity in Pakistan under elected governments. Not only that, it also leads to a political atmosphere where ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ are determined by one’s understanding of democracy rather than some facts.

A vast majority of the Pakistanis relates democracy with development and national strength rather than transparency or accountability. Hence, ‘rational’ people come up with justifications for undemocratic rule, as it is serving the purpose of national integrity. This shadowed comprehension of democracy is deeply embedded in the process of how it is taught in educational institutions, and how media and politicians develop a discourse around it.

From this lens, the foremost menace for democracy in Pakistan stems from the minds of lay citizens and the way they shape democratic values in their minds. If the nation is to strengthen democracy, the discourse must begin with a commitment to democratic principles. Is it possible to acknowledge the need for accountability even if it is against your side? A vigorous reconceptualisation of such democratic perceptions can pave the path to a metamorphosis in the political atmosphere of the country.

The writer is a researcher in political science and a graduate of the University of Warwick.