by Adil Najam
Reprinted from The News International Pakistan
May 06, 2004

Of all the travesties that are now the staple of what goes as ‘political commentary’ on Pakistan, there is none as venomous or as dangerous to the future of Pakistan than the claim that Pakistan and democracy are somehow incompatible. It is venomous because it is patently wrong as well as deeply insulting. It is dangerous because once accepted it can (and nearly has) become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What is most hurtful is that we make this claim, most often, Pakistanis ourselves.

Such a claim can mean only one of two things. Either it implies that Pakistan, and therefore Pakistanis, are unworthy and incapable of democracy. Or it suggests that somehow democracy is unworthy or inappropriate for Pakistan. The first is an outright insult to Pakistan and Pakistanis and implies that we are somehow genetically, sociologically or historically (and, according to some commentators, religiously) unfit for democracy. That we, as a people, are so inept and incompetent that we cannot be entrusted with determining the course of our own future.

The second interpretation is more common, and also more troubling. It stems from a disturbing combination of hubris, disdain and inertia. Let us first look at hubris. Hubris manifests itself in the assumption that democracy is just not good enough for us or the even more arrogant suggestion that we can do better than democracy. That we can — despite all the evidence to the contrary — devise a ‘new and different’ form of governance that is more suited to our national, social and religious temper. The details of what this ‘new and different’ governance might look like are never divulged, expect as someone telling us that we should just trust them to work out these details because they ‘know better’. Such logic is a favourite of apologists for authoritarianism as well as proponents of fundamentalism. However, as soon as you peel away the misconceived nationalism or the misguided religiosity of such proposals what you find lurking in the dark is the very same lack of confidence in the ability of the Pakistani public to be entrusted with their own future. Indeed, the real hubris of such arguments lies in the arrogance of those who make these arguments. One of the curious aspects of this argument is that, nearly always, those who make this argument believe that while the rest of Pakistan is incapable of making reasonable decisions through a democratic process, they themselves are more than qualified to do so for the entirety of the country.

Then, of course, there are those who believe that democracy is inappropriate for Pakistan because, allegedly, it has not worked in the past. This argument stems partly from the disdain that has set in as a result of Pakistan’s bitter experiences with elected politicians and the unselected generals who repeatedly replace them. It also flows from a strong belief in inertia — that is, since elections have not worked in the past, they are destined to fail in the future. The big problem with such arguments is that they confuse the failures of our politicians (and the ambitions of our generals) with the failures of democracy. More than that, they confuse the ritual of elections with the substance of democracy.

A detailed discussion of what we mean by democracy must wait for a later occasion. At its roots, however, it is a fairly simple idea. It is the notion that people can, and should, decide how and by whom they are to be governed. Some mechanism that gives the entirety of the citizenry a direct say in how that choice is made is a necessary condition for meaningful democracy, but it is certainly not a sufficient condition. Moreover, democracy doesn’t just ‘happen’ because elections are held. It has to be carefully nurtured and steadfastly defended in all institutions of society. This is because there will always be those who will seek to undermine the democratic process. In Pakistan’s case, unfortunately, those who should have been custodians of democracy have often been bent on undermining it. This has included politicians who have tried to co-opt the electoral process as well as military and civil bureaucrats who have tried to circumvent it. However, the corruption of our ruling elites does not prove that democracy is a bad idea. It merely proves that our ruling elites are corrupt.

And therein lies the great irony. Those who have been most responsible for corrupting, co-opting and circumventing the democratic process in Pakistan are the very same who make the loudest noise about democracy being inconsistent with Pakistan. Military and civil bureaucrats make these arguments by posing as ‘super-patriots’ — they ‘know best’ because it is their duty to do so. Religious zealots do the same by painting themselves as ‘super-pious’ — they ‘know best’ because they speak on behalf of powers greater than any of us. And, worst of all, the so called intelligence (especially the technocratic classes) chimes in by posing as ‘super-democrats’ — they ‘know best’ because they are the educated few and, obviously, the uneducated many cannot be trusted with the future of the country.

Finally, there is the much-maligned argument that Pakistan’s history proves that democracy has not worked in Pakistan. This is total nonsense. If one looks at Pakistan’s history, all one finds is vast periods of non-democracy — mostly under non-elected rule, but often also under elected rule. Empirically, the only thing that one can say on the basis of this history is that non-democracy does not work in Pakistan. As one surveys the socio-political landscape one finds the country in the grips of poverty, disease, despair, sectarianism, extremism, violence, and much more. But none of these can be blamed on democracy, simply because we have never really allowed meaningful democracy for any meaningful period of time. There are many things that don’t work in Pakistan, but all evidence suggests that democracy is not one of them. At least, not yet.

The writer is an Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, USA.