This is not really an attack on Democracy but it certainly is not in praise of it. The thrust of my argument is that democracy is not the only method of ensuring that the ruling class responds to public opinion. We tend to lose sight of the basic purpose that drove the people who invented democracy when faced with a series of historical situations first in ancient Greece and then in pre-modern and early modern Europe.
A hundred years ago, when philosophy was king, people may have been interested in the Greek origins of Democracy. When the Germanic races [most particularly the French and British societies] were reviving this form of government, they romanticized its Greek moorings but chose to construct their political practice on its Roman variant along with its administrative and legal frames of reference. Their selection wasn’t entirely arbitrary; it was dictated by the history that they were living and creating under European feudalism.
Their objective was to achieve a, participatory, accountable system for redress of grievance and allow the citizens to have the right to choose between possible actions that the government was contemplating to resolve problems faced by a nation or a country. In time, like all systems, adaptations have been made in the structure. Consequently, today, these concepts are far from accurate for describing the ground realities.
Although words like divisive, bigoted and autocratic are seldom applied to a democracy, it seems that democracies may be as dogmatic, dictatorial, oppressive and authoritarian as a fascist, theocratic or monarchial state. We generally assume several attributes to be the inherent concomitants of democracy.
Are education, secularism, and science integral to democracy? Is the sanctity of human rights, modernism, capitalism, social equality, and accountability inevitable wherever there is a democratic government?
The first rules of business that an emerging democracy [whether in a preexisting state or a nation that is being born] must undertake, are: who gets to vote and how should people be represented in the governance mechanism. But, the legitimate right to conduct the first decision making process has to be arbitrary, even if that is that everybody gets to vote. If, however, it is decided to exclude a category based on any criteria, this is a right exercised by a collection of people who have not acquired the sanction from those who are required to exercise it subsequently by a means that has been prescribed by some other people.
Democracy, is supposed to be rule by a majority that gives its chosen set of politicians a general power of attorney. It allows the disempowerment of a person who lacks political clout. In practice, it is the rule of a minority which convinces the majority that it will take care of their collective interests. Which, in Pakistan means that either a handful of secular minded modernists, or a similar number of so-called traditionalists inclined towards Islam will gain the mandate? In the wings stand civil rights activists as an aggressive arm of secular-modernists, and communities of religious zealots, the sometimes militant army of traditionalists. I believe that none of them serves democracy or Islam or the common Pakistani, or the nation or the state.
One might well ask: Does a dictator, a monarch or a fascist leader serve the nation, state, the common citizen or some other ideal? I believe that there is a better chance that some of those who do not claim a “democratic” mandate will serve some ideal, whether it is one that you or I may approve of or not!
When a politician is trying to get votes, there is considerable likelihood [almost a certainty] that his/her convictions will be sacrificed so that the requisite number of votes can be obtained to gain power. Remember, even a great altruist cannot manipulate state machinery without political power. Interestingly, such an altruist, like Edhi, may be socially powerful, with no vote except the person’s own public credibility.
If a politician declared that he/she did not want the vote of a person who did not support her/his ideology; especially if it meant losing an election; I would be stunned. Commitment to ideology is not a common thing. Perhaps most Pakistani Muslims have a nonchalant tolerance for other sects and faiths. Sunnis are a majority in Pakistan but none of their sub-sects can claim to be the majority. I believe that it may not be as difficult to derive a formula for religious tolerance as to get a majority support of secularism in Pakistan
The Pakistani situation illustrates that the democratic debate can only be germane if the ground rules are the same. While democracy is capable of uniting a polity at one level it can divide it at another. Ideologies of capitalism and secularism have a strongly divisive effect when implanted in the Third World societies; but constantly changing scriptures of science, freedom, and nationalism are aspects of modernity which cause the greatest difficulty for the state-nations that have emerged with the decline of colonialism.
Modern democracy enforces the selection of a government on the basis of issues that are not the direct concern or do not directly influence the lives of a majority of the electorate. It also allows people who are not influenced by an issue to interfere in decisions that do directly affect others and make decisions that are a cause of discomfort for them. In most matters those directly affected are a small community; other voting communities together invariably outnumber those directly affected by a considerable margin. In the past, there have frequently been societies that were governed through communal legislation based on the interest aggregation and articulation by those who were affected by a policy.
Within a family, males generally take the lead in representing the family in a community meeting. A similar status is conditionally granted to the elders of the biradri or dhara,. In order to reconcile conflicting interests and balance power distribution between biradris, dharas, families, or other social entities, seat adjustments dominate elections. People are apparently not convinced that election results are relevant to governance regarding social and communal relations. Perhaps because legislation, and in particular fiscal legislation at the national and provincial levels, isn’t influenced by the legislature. A history of bills passed by assemblies shows that debates seldom alter a motion tabled by a sitting government in case of the budgets.
Individuals who expect the political process to yield benefits traditionally associated with the electoral process or have been deceived by electoral slogans are disenchanted with the electoral process. Others who are not interested in benefits that politicians can deliver are apathetic to the political process. As a result the overall turnout of voters is always quite low but may suddenly increase during an election when the voters are motivated to assert their rights or feel sensitive about a particular issue.
Upward mobility or induction of new individuals in the political hierarchy is rare, but for clients/progeny of existing political actors, this is a normal route for replacing deceased or retiring politicians. Induction of political aspirants in upper carders does take place occasionally if an individual has financial power, or extraordinary political acumen. But induction at the lower level is now frequently achieved through the personal standing of someone in the community. Success of such inductees depends on the ability to find a niche within the given political forces/parties through a display of local popularity or use of the power of coercion. In either case, the patron-client relationship within the political hierarchy remains constant.
The slogan of a steady process of development, gradual growth of trade and industry, low unemployment, steady fiscal management and controlled inflation makes a military coup successful but it has generally let people down. These governments pursue the modernist agenda: sanitation, health, education, clean water, power, transport, communication. Most citizens fail to appreciate these elitist concerns. They are primarily interested in assertion of their linguistic, religious and cultural priorities at the local-communal level.
Local government elections show a clear trend of community involvement in selection of candidates with the sensitivity to communal issues as a criterion for success. At this level it appears that the communities develop a system of compromise and accommodation in order to get a balanced representation that can safeguard the interest of biradris and factions within the community. It also appears that the probability of defrauding the electorate of “communal/individual” benefits promised by a candidate after election is much less than in the upper echelons of the political hierarchy. Unfortunately these bodies are less powerful than they ought to be, consequently the system is unable to transmit maxim benefit representative local bodies.
Instead of focusing on this issue which could truly enhance democratic culture of politics and strengthen local institutions or culture, civil society is promoting non-issues of social and cultural reforms which would have been resolved by the community itself if local government was effective. With the induction of civil society initiatives in the scheme of decision making, common citizens pay with their time, money or effort for social management through four agencies mentioned in the preceding article. Yet they are required to perform the task themselves in the end, despite making the fourfold payment. When mankind first learnt that cohabitation demands administration, governance, justice, equity, fair play and compatible opportunity, they ceded the functions to the wise and just amongst them; those who possessed special competence in a required field. People who accepted the task began to see themselves as elites as they were performing a function beyond the capability of the majority. The majority in turn was glad to pay for escaping the tedium of resolving issues that required special mental and emotional skills.
Electoral politics in Pakistan since 1988 has brought to light several interesting aspects of the national, provincial and local political culture of our country. Each tier of national and local political institutions has a different set of dynamics. The National Assembly and the Senate are likely to display some conformity to the norms of western democratic models in the house. However, as soon as political activity recedes to the lobby, the constituency or the street, it begins to show a greater affinity with Pakistani social norms.
Nationalism, like other sources of sovereignty, is commonly associated with democracy as the vessel in which the fluid human integration is contained. In this vessel democracy is expected to supply the elixir of national interest which will dissolve and make uniform the collectivity of the nation. In Pakistan, the civil society is frequently represented by the “military society” which is a custodian and ‘defender of the faith’ of modernism. It protects the agenda of development and secularism as a ‘backseat driver’ of democracy or as champion of the grassroots level of public participation in the state. Each military dictator in our history first claimed that the politicians had made a mess of democratic institutions and of state security. Then he became dictatorial for a time before presenting an “alternate democracy” which failed both, him and us.