State and autonomy

Democracy, no matter how flawed, has a self-corrective mechanism, which takes time to take root and matures over time.

Even though we have elected governments in the provinces and at the federal level, discontent at the popular level has grown more than one could expect. In many areas of national life, we have seen things going from bad to worse during the past three-and-half years. The decline in state capacity to govern effectively, establish rule of law and extend its writ deeper and wider started much earlier. But the slide downward has been steep and faster than past decades.

The discontent against the elected governments has grown, as it has against the military, civilian bureaucracy and other classes of Pakistan’s ruling establishment. The question is why do the ruling groups of Pakistan continue to be unresponsive to the needs of society? And why does the state not care about its people?

A typical answer is that we have accumulated problems over time and the dictatorships of Pervez Musharraf and Ziaul Haq are responsible for every ill that we are facing. Some would link the argument to the first military takeover and how the imbalance between the military and civil society has created structural problems. A third explanation is that the powers above the Constitution aborted the civilian rule; the elected governments couldn’t complete their tenure and they never had time to see their policies through.

The fact is that the military governments didn’t do much better when it comes to the overall development of society. Even if they did better, which is disputable, there cannot be a legal or moral defence for dictatorships because they are against the essence of freedom.

Democracy, no matter how flawed it may be, has a self-corrective mechanism, which takes time to take root, and the civic engagement of peoples with the state, in a more meaningful way than merely casting the vote, matures over time. We concede this point, but there is a question of direction, vision, commitment and leadership that understands the deep pains of the Pakistani society and is willing to lead with courage and good example. Sadly, this is what is missing in our democracy.

The difference between the military and democratic regimes largely disappears on governance issues, and that is because both the state and ruling groups can get away with their wrongs, or don’t pay any political price for their rapacious conduct and systematic plunder of public resources.

What causes this autonomy of the state and ruling groups is dependence on external sources — aid. Pakistan has gradually acquired this rentier character, which makes the ruling groups, civilian or military, more careful about the external view of what can be done, than the public view of what must be done.

It is a simple logic and a historical fact that we can draw from the experience of democracies; peoples paying taxes and feeling that they can change governance can hold their representatives accountable, and thus reduce the autonomy of the ruling groups.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 7^th, 2011.