Democracy, governance and citizens

Theoretically, and empirically in the case of mature democracies, democracy has a positive relationship with governance. In contrast, our democratic governments, at any level and in any of the provinces, have failed to provide rule-based governance, responsive to the needs of citizens, with very limited exceptions. If you have visited any government office anywhere for anything, you will experience ugliness, lethargy, indifference, absenteeism and disrespect — unless you are somebody and come with some connection — reference, or introduction.

Moreover, go to any public park, even in the capital, you will see, garbage uncollected, grass uncut and benches and fences rotting in rust for decades. You may find condition of government offices and public parks, if they haven’t been taken over by politically connected encroachers, in every district and small town even worse. The question is, at what level should we judge governance? A regular point of connect with the citizens is the basic and most important measurement of judging the quality of governance — offices, parks, public schools, colleges, universities, and hospitals. There are certain improvements in governance in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, which have yet to prove sustainable or create critical impact.

What about big issues of economy, infrastructure, development and a vision to change and transform the society from poor and unequal to just, fair and prosperous? We have heard a lot about visions of both military regimes and civilians, but the fact is any public service that any government handles continues to perform badly. It is because of institutionalised corruption and political expediency. A narrow-self-interest in not ruffling feathers of the unions has prevented the Sharif and Zardari dynasties to take difficult decisions of either privatising public entities or improving their governance by providing personal leadership and cleaning these entities of powerful mafias. While we see some improvements in railways with lots of investments and personal interest of the minister, the rest are as bad as they have been for decades. It proves the point that with better democratic leadership we can do far better for the country and citizens.

The question is why democratic governments with public trust and faith in them would remain indifferent to improving the quality of governance of basic points of citizens’ contact or not reforming entities causing an estimated loss of 600 to 700 billion annually? The answer is simple: indifference of the citizens. When the dynastic elites from the constituency to the national levels know that they can get away with corruption, bad governance, and even get elected, they will never take bold decisions or provide a transformative leadership. Rather, the ‘democratic’ elites would use the plunder to perpetuate corrupt patronage of electoral politics at public expense — ‘development funds’ for members of assemblies in billions.

In societies like ours when citizens neither resist nor protest at bad delivery of services, the unionised bureaucracies, politically-connected officials and the dynastic politician remain unresponsive. No democratic country has ever done better with civic-minded citizens willing to spare time and energy to question officialdom and remain engaged in improving local public schools, parks and holding the political class accountable for taking big decisions in critical areas of the economy and governance.

Experience suggests passive citizens would create conditions for the rise of corrupt leaders and persistence of bad governance. A civically engaged citizen is a pre-requisite of democracy. Otherwise his apathy, as we have seen for decades, would bring into power only corrupt, incompetent, robber-political class. Let democracy be our destiny, but the quality of democracy will be what we make out of it.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 7^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.