Democracy and political conversation

Any democracy throws up two important challenges to the system. Both challenges are directed at the political leadership and both need some serious consideration. First, how can you tell whether a leader is part of people or not? And second, how can democracy be converted into a conversation?

The answer to the first question is simple: a leader needs to give up on all his protocols, get out of the rings of security that surround him, and be out in the public and be part of the people. Any political leader who desists doing this on whatever grounds is only creating flimsy excuses not to take up the challenge. If he has stopped going through this process let him know. As a leader he can be part of the system, part of the political party or part of parliament, but he is no more a leader who is not part of the people.

As a leader, if you are not part of the people, you will never be able to come up with the correct answer to the question number two i.e. how can democracy be converted into a conversation? Holding any conversation in democracy means giving legitimacy to many voices that exist amongst the people. Ideally, majority of the seats for holding a meeting and generating a conversation should go to the group that represents the voice of majority of the people. The rest can also join in and thus democracy can have a conversation that can in countries like Pakistan end the tradition of 'democratic eloping' and replace it with the more acceptable 'legitimate contractual democratic marriage'.

If you are not a leader who is part of the people, you will hardly have any political will or courage to believe in a conversation. So, as far as my humble opinion is concerned, all efforts being made in Pakistan in the last couple of days to arrange some kind of 'democratic conversation' between political parties that have conflicting views over some vital issues of great national importance will be an exercise in futile. The issues that set the political ideologies of these parties apart are simple: results of elections, manipulation of judiciary, decision-making in the courts, and the curbing of freedom of the press and media outlets. It is not the political parties that are looking forward to sitting down and developing a democratic conversation, but two schools of thought - one that is confident that its leadership is part of the people and the other that is trying to convert democracy into conversation without clearly determining whether its leadership is part of the people or not. Therefore, even before this political dialogue which I call a democratic conversation has even started, it is easy to establish a political belief that this conversation is doomed to failure.

The word conversation actually reminds me of Oscar Wilde, the great literary figure who, besides his art of great writing, was famous for his unconventionality and his sparkling conversations. An Irish writer, poet and a playwright, he died young at the age of 44 years. Still, he left a more significant impression on the people that read him than any of our politicians would imagine doing through their political work and the course of their political life. The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890), A Woman of No Importance (1893) and The Importance of Being Earnest (1895) are some of his great works. But in the context of today's article, I would like to write about how he tried to distinguish between an illiberal and liberal society in his drama, Vera or the Nihilists.

The drama reflects the period of rule of the Russian Czar. Vera is the female character that represents the Nihilists - the group of liberal reformers. When told that "tomorrow martial law will be proclaimed over all Russia," a voice says impossible, to which Vera remarks, "nothing is impossible in Russia except reform." Russia was a closed society under the Czars and Vera remarks about it, saying, "Russia is smitten to the heart! The man Ivan to whom men called the Czar strikes now at our mother with a dagger deadlier than any ever forged by tyranny against people's life." She pledges, "The past has belonged to the tyrant and he has defiled it, ours is the future and we will make it holy."

The proclamation of the Czar reads, "To ensure public safety - martial law by the order of Czar, the father of his people." How Oscar Wilde sees martial law is reflected in the views of Vera who says, "The last right to which the people cling has been taken away from them. Without trial, without appeal and without accusers even our brothers will be taken from houses, shot in the streets like dogs, sent away to die in snow, to starve in the dungeons or to rot in the mines. Do you know what martial law means? It means strangling of the nation."

In one of the iconic lines in the drama, Vera accuses the Czar of having "killed the souls of the people with pleasure and you will kill their bodies now". Oscar Wilde also describes the limit of people's tolerance when Vera passes a remark accusing Czar by saying, "There is no limit to the tyranny of one man, but to the suffering of whole people there shall be a limit. Too many of us have died, it is their turn to be victim now."

Vera also signifies the nihilists hopes in the drama by voicing her belief, saying, "A father whose kingdom will change to republic, whose trespasses shall not be forgiven him, because he has robbed us of our daily bread, with whom is neither might nor right, nor glory now or forever."

Vera or the Nihilists is Oscar Wilde's drama that represents the great political divide between the political leadership and the people. My hope is that the political leadership in Pakistan is able to bridge this gap and fill this divide. Doing so will require of them to come up with the answers of the two questions I posed right up at the start. A leader without being part of the people is a nonstarter when it comes to engaging in democratic conversations. He can represent himself and his party but never the mood and aspirations of the people.