|
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.
|
