Are we intrinsically messianists and anti-democratic?

Why is there a craving for millennialism, messianism or in simple words the desire for a strong deliverer, a crusader…a Charalamaigne, Napoleon, Attaturk and Saladin. Even among the historical democratic leaders like Lincoln, Roosevelt and Churchill, we tend to discern the glow of the touch of messianism and other worldliness.

There is the history of Muslim ascendancy evolving in a cyclic pattern followed by decay and the response thereto in terms of a dedicated, competent, all knowing, selfless saviour or benefactor. The example of the period of the four glorious prophets followed by enfeeblement is a case in point.

Contrary to Britain where historically the king was more of a primus inter pares with an array of strong dukes and lords, in the fertile and expansive lands of the orient there was an inordinate gap between the power and wealth of the monarch and the riyayah or the princedoms. A pronounced proclivity towards concessions, accommodation and consensus gave way to abject submission to extraordinary power with brutal consequence for renegades or those who did not submit.

While scarcity or paucity of means in the European context led to compromises, later to mature into concessions and sharing of power with grant of rights against the Kings or much later, after the industrial revolution to making the bourgeoisie as partners in power (right to vote and representation) such tendencies did not find impetus in oriental despotism (Karl Wittfogel: Oriental Despotism: 1957).

Democracy arose as a compromise between authoritarianism and people's participation and much later the welfare state arose as a compromise to save capitalism from Marxism. Democracy, depending upon consensus and give and take, is in essence the least effective system of governance, but it is the least threatening or the safest answer to avoiding popular revolutions.

Strongman rule essentially lacks the checks and balances that Montesque found in the American Republic. It curbs autocracy or in the worst despotism from arising.

In modern times with the availability of advanced means of forming or manipulation of opinions or choices the threat to human freedoms are ever great as is the risk of failure and fear of descent into fascism born from messianism mixed with jingoism and ultra-nationalism with religious overtones.

We were born in fear, the quest for independent survival according to a religion and a presumed differentiated cultural identity, despite a sharing commonality of dress, music, cuisine and folk culture.

Notwithstanding the history of Muslim rule of a Hindu majority country for a millennium, the fact that it was the minority of Muslim elite of UP, Central India and a fringe Bengali Muslim nationhood that remembered 1909 dissolution of separation of their country forced upon Curzon, who were in the forefront of the partition movement arising from the fear of massive land reforms that Nehru and Congress had upheld as part of Congress agenda.

Then the birth pangs: a Hindu dominated Congress government in India (although its first president was a Muslim, Abul Kalam Azad) obviously had those in its ranks who greatly rued the "vivisection" of "maata" Bharat which had connections to Sindhu which became Hindu in times immemorial. The share of cash with Pakistan was stopped until Gandhi intervened for its release.

Kashmir: story of how Hyderabad and Junagarh received more attention than Kashmir where the Maharajah waited for long for a meeting with Jinnah. When his personal safety and that of his jewels and females were threatened by Pashtoon insurgents, arranged courtesy Gen Akbar and Qayum Khan, the Maharaja of Kashmir, being left in perilous threat to life, riches and the harem, had no choice but to accede to India.

From the point of view of external relations, economically, politically and ideologically the army assumed the major role in the state structure.

Security was brandied around as the paramount threat and the army portended as the custodian of ideology and rationale of Pakistan.

The people, the unsung, the electorate, the masses never ever came into conjecture or policy.

'We know what is best for us', went the refrain of the elite. 'The populace are a mere uneducated, uniformed herd driven by desire and self-preservation. What can or do they understand about national safety and progress. Keep them out.' Ayub thought that the salubrious climate of Pakistan was not suited to democracy since that was only acclimatised to countries of cooler climes.

Jinnah, in view of the threat perception from India, opted to become an all-powerful Governor General rather than allowing parliamentary system to take roots with the PM in cabinet in total charge.

But the truth of the fruit is in the eating of it. What can keep a culturally diverse country of four sub-nationalities together: only inclusivity, accommodation, consensus, equity in benefits from resources.

But accommodation and consensus is often in contradistinction to centrism, a powerful state versus a loosely tied federation. We have enough bad experiences to footnote this truism. And this is the lasting paradox we as a nation have failed to resolve. We have lived for 74 years in the disbelief that democracy as an accommodative paradigm can only be a lasting answer to our problems as witnessed in our erstwhile eastern neighbour. We doubt the workability of democracy. Those who wield the power scepter have not ended their lasting venture to malign, castigate and demean civilian democracy, although history is by now testament to the weaknesses that civilian politicians have been accused of are present in equal measure, if not more, among the so-called sacrosanct institutions.

That was realised only as late as 1973 when all the regions through their freely elected civilian representatives agreed upon a national charter that holds the tether of a common nationhood to this day which only the myopic decry.

Like a four-nation Switzerland we did not learn that in a culturally diverse and economically imbalanced polity, the insistence upon a strong Centre rather than democratic accommodation can lead to disastrous consequences like the loss of E Pakistan. Have we learnt?