In defence of democracy
Our political parties are dynastic
The writer has worked for multinationals in senior positions, both in Pakistan and abroad. He is retired and lives in Karachi
As the political drama heats up and the citizenry watches the civil-military and the politico-judiciary discord, with great dismay, it’s perhaps a good time to say ‘stop’ and remind the Big Boys of our rights and our morale!
In an independent country, the sovereignty of the people is absolute and inviolable and all the rights and privileges that flow from it, including electing a parliament and a government to represent them. Despite being an independent country for 70 years and having in place a Constitution agreed by all parties and functioning pillars of the modern state, we are still debating the need for democracy. There are powerful voices suggesting that we need a government of technocrats, as democracy has failed. Let us review these reactionary arguments:
People are uneducated. They vote for feudals or along ‘biradari’ lines; their votes are bought and sold. Time and again, the common people have demonstrated their astuteness by voting for change, in clear defiance of biradaris and influential. Whether it was the referendums of 1945, or the 70s elections, when two new parties – the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Awami League swept the polls. In 2013, the people voted out the PPP due to non-performance, something which the establishment couldn’t achieve despite many years of ‘political engineering’. In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P), the people have changed three political parties since 2002 — the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, then the Awami National Party and currently the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, in their quest for better governance. What further do they have to do to prove themselves? We have deprived the common man of most basics and now we want to even take their right to vote away!
The corruption mantra. Politicians are corrupt, and the stables need to be cleaned. In Pakistan, we have had four military regimes and there is little evidence that corruption decreased. A democracy is more open and politicians and officialdom are constantly challenged, which is much more likely to curb corruption.
Democracy has failed. A broad sweeping statement based on anecdotal evidence and clichés. The recent Gallup and Pulse Surveys found that, 81% and 68%, respectively, of the people want democracy. The 2013 elections had 55% participation, compared to 44% in 2008 and 41% in 2002. Clearly, people want democracy and are turning out in greater numbers! Despite the dismissal of Mr Nawaz Sharif, the federal government is working properly and still commands a majority. The 18th Amendment, a landmark political achievement, has improved inter-provincial harmony and relationship with the centre. Punjab and K-P governments are clearly in competition to demonstrate better performance in delivery of healthcare, education and other public services. Politicians have worked out sensible steps to bring in transparency – the holding of elections under neutral caretaker governments, the appointment of the Election Commission of Pakistan and National Accountability Bureau heads through consultation between the government and the opposition, appointment of the chief justice of Pakistan through a self-regulating seniority rule and so on. This is a show of maturity and good sense by what is, arguably, a rather young and fragile democracy.
The security situation with the military’s active participation has greatly improved, the economy is doing well, inflation is in control, the electricity and gas shortages are almost behind us and so on. So, why the itchy fingers on the trigger?
Our political parties are dynastic. This is a valid criticism. That said, politics in our part of the world has tended to be dynastic. Take the world’s largest democracy next door and witness the succession of three generations after Jawaharlal Nehru. The Bandaranaike family of Sri Lanka and the Begums of Bangladesh all point to a dynastic trend in the subcontinent. While this is not desirable, is it a good reason to uproot democracy?
There are better systems. And the armchair warriors point to countries, rather than political systems. They talk of China, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, etc. China is a single-party Communist regime, which is clearly not an option for us. Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia are all democracies. Frequently cited Singapore, mistakenly perceived as a ‘dictatorship’, is a multi-party Westminster-style democracy since inception.
Clutching at the proverbial straw and with no reasonable alternative, the elite has proposed a ‘government of technocrats’. This was tried in Bangladesh some years back, with the blessings of the judiciary and the military, but, predictably, proved to be a failure. Both Field Marshal Ayub Khan and Gen Pervez Musharraf’s early years had governments run mainly by technocrats — what enduring legacy did that leave us? How long will we keep going on in these debilitating circles? A technocrat government will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the people, no matter how it is anointed.
Defending democracy is fine, but going forward a lot needs to be improved. Politicians need to progress on devolution and empowerment of local governments. They need to be more participative in parliament, rather than taking to streets to assert their positions. The civil services and police need to be strengthened and made more independent. The military needs to cede space and avoid public disagreements.
We need to invest in the human resource which at the same time is our biggest failure and our greatest opportunity. The tax structure needs to be overhauled. Accountability for all — fair, across the board and with no sacred cows is required to clean up the mess. Selective accountability will never be credible.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2018.
In an independent country, the sovereignty of the people is absolute and inviolable and all the rights and privileges that flow from it, including electing a parliament and a government to represent them. Despite being an independent country for 70 years and having in place a Constitution agreed by all parties and functioning pillars of the modern state, we are still debating the need for democracy. There are powerful voices suggesting that we need a government of technocrats, as democracy has failed. Let us review these reactionary arguments:
People are uneducated. They vote for feudals or along ‘biradari’ lines; their votes are bought and sold. Time and again, the common people have demonstrated their astuteness by voting for change, in clear defiance of biradaris and influential. Whether it was the referendums of 1945, or the 70s elections, when two new parties – the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Awami League swept the polls. In 2013, the people voted out the PPP due to non-performance, something which the establishment couldn’t achieve despite many years of ‘political engineering’. In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P), the people have changed three political parties since 2002 — the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, then the Awami National Party and currently the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, in their quest for better governance. What further do they have to do to prove themselves? We have deprived the common man of most basics and now we want to even take their right to vote away!
The corruption mantra. Politicians are corrupt, and the stables need to be cleaned. In Pakistan, we have had four military regimes and there is little evidence that corruption decreased. A democracy is more open and politicians and officialdom are constantly challenged, which is much more likely to curb corruption.
Democracy has failed. A broad sweeping statement based on anecdotal evidence and clichés. The recent Gallup and Pulse Surveys found that, 81% and 68%, respectively, of the people want democracy. The 2013 elections had 55% participation, compared to 44% in 2008 and 41% in 2002. Clearly, people want democracy and are turning out in greater numbers! Despite the dismissal of Mr Nawaz Sharif, the federal government is working properly and still commands a majority. The 18th Amendment, a landmark political achievement, has improved inter-provincial harmony and relationship with the centre. Punjab and K-P governments are clearly in competition to demonstrate better performance in delivery of healthcare, education and other public services. Politicians have worked out sensible steps to bring in transparency – the holding of elections under neutral caretaker governments, the appointment of the Election Commission of Pakistan and National Accountability Bureau heads through consultation between the government and the opposition, appointment of the chief justice of Pakistan through a self-regulating seniority rule and so on. This is a show of maturity and good sense by what is, arguably, a rather young and fragile democracy.
The security situation with the military’s active participation has greatly improved, the economy is doing well, inflation is in control, the electricity and gas shortages are almost behind us and so on. So, why the itchy fingers on the trigger?
Our political parties are dynastic. This is a valid criticism. That said, politics in our part of the world has tended to be dynastic. Take the world’s largest democracy next door and witness the succession of three generations after Jawaharlal Nehru. The Bandaranaike family of Sri Lanka and the Begums of Bangladesh all point to a dynastic trend in the subcontinent. While this is not desirable, is it a good reason to uproot democracy?
There are better systems. And the armchair warriors point to countries, rather than political systems. They talk of China, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, etc. China is a single-party Communist regime, which is clearly not an option for us. Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia are all democracies. Frequently cited Singapore, mistakenly perceived as a ‘dictatorship’, is a multi-party Westminster-style democracy since inception.
Clutching at the proverbial straw and with no reasonable alternative, the elite has proposed a ‘government of technocrats’. This was tried in Bangladesh some years back, with the blessings of the judiciary and the military, but, predictably, proved to be a failure. Both Field Marshal Ayub Khan and Gen Pervez Musharraf’s early years had governments run mainly by technocrats — what enduring legacy did that leave us? How long will we keep going on in these debilitating circles? A technocrat government will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the people, no matter how it is anointed.
Defending democracy is fine, but going forward a lot needs to be improved. Politicians need to progress on devolution and empowerment of local governments. They need to be more participative in parliament, rather than taking to streets to assert their positions. The civil services and police need to be strengthened and made more independent. The military needs to cede space and avoid public disagreements.
We need to invest in the human resource which at the same time is our biggest failure and our greatest opportunity. The tax structure needs to be overhauled. Accountability for all — fair, across the board and with no sacred cows is required to clean up the mess. Selective accountability will never be credible.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2018.