The democratic divide
The unanimous resolution of the Punjab Assembly against the media on May 9 is more than an emotional outburst by the legislators. It is reflective of a deeper divide between the old, conventional ruling classes of Pakistan and the new society that the media, civil society and scores of professional associations represent.
This divide has two serious dimensions. The first is that of the class character of the two groups. The ruling classes predominantly come from tribal, caste and landowning elites. The groups that belong to these sections of society have dominated the electoral politics throughout our history and have been part of power politics under civilian as well as military rules.
The media and civil society represent the new urban middle classes that are better educated, more articulate, progressive and deeply interested in moving Pakistan forward. They represent essentially a modernist vision of Pakistan in espousing the cause of true democracy through rule of law, accountability and constitutionalism. I am not sure if we can say the same about the dominant section of the traditional ruling classes which regularly get elected.
Getting elected is part of the democratic process and the basis on which one can claim representation. We cannot question the representative status of members of parliament, period. But getting to the assembly means going through a procedure and not the final mark of democracy. Democracy as a political philosophy and system of governance is more than that and its demands are too many.
What leads to successful democracy? The answer is: rule of law, independence of judiciary and accountability of public office-holders, our elected representatives. On these counts, we have the history and experience of other democracies before us, as well as the present and previous record of our ‘democratic forces’ to draw a clear picture about what nurtures democracy and what stunts its growth.
The conventional ruling classes think of democracy less in substantive terms and more in a procedural sense; getting elected or finding a berth in the cabinet. Once in power, they have attempted to place vital state institutions, including police, law and judiciary under political influence and stifle the process of accountability against them.
It is this culture of arrogance and power above law of the ruling groups that has hurt democracy in the past and may also cripple it in future. The fundamental stake of the ruling groups of Pakistan is not as such in democracy as it is in obtaining and retaining power. Casting a look back on who were the ‘democratic’ allies of the four military dictators would tell everything about democratic convictions of our ruling classes.
One should then not be surprised by the way they have been reacting to media exposing their scandals of corruption, misuse of power and cheating. Our classes don’t want to be restrained by law, the courts or the media.
It will not be fair to place all legislators in the same category though. There are those who are genuinely committed to democracy and rule of law, but lack power and influence within their own parties. The media and civil society have consistently struggled for democracy and they appear disillusioned by the conduct of ruling groups, more recently by their ganging up on the question of fake degrees.
This divide or clash is essentially between two visions about democracy and the future of Pakistan. The consensual view is that building true democracy will not be possible without accountability through law and the media uncovering corruption, nepotism and influence-peddling by elected representatives. The old view that everything goes with democracy may not work in the interest of the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 12th, 2010.
This divide has two serious dimensions. The first is that of the class character of the two groups. The ruling classes predominantly come from tribal, caste and landowning elites. The groups that belong to these sections of society have dominated the electoral politics throughout our history and have been part of power politics under civilian as well as military rules.
The media and civil society represent the new urban middle classes that are better educated, more articulate, progressive and deeply interested in moving Pakistan forward. They represent essentially a modernist vision of Pakistan in espousing the cause of true democracy through rule of law, accountability and constitutionalism. I am not sure if we can say the same about the dominant section of the traditional ruling classes which regularly get elected.
Getting elected is part of the democratic process and the basis on which one can claim representation. We cannot question the representative status of members of parliament, period. But getting to the assembly means going through a procedure and not the final mark of democracy. Democracy as a political philosophy and system of governance is more than that and its demands are too many.
What leads to successful democracy? The answer is: rule of law, independence of judiciary and accountability of public office-holders, our elected representatives. On these counts, we have the history and experience of other democracies before us, as well as the present and previous record of our ‘democratic forces’ to draw a clear picture about what nurtures democracy and what stunts its growth.
The conventional ruling classes think of democracy less in substantive terms and more in a procedural sense; getting elected or finding a berth in the cabinet. Once in power, they have attempted to place vital state institutions, including police, law and judiciary under political influence and stifle the process of accountability against them.
It is this culture of arrogance and power above law of the ruling groups that has hurt democracy in the past and may also cripple it in future. The fundamental stake of the ruling groups of Pakistan is not as such in democracy as it is in obtaining and retaining power. Casting a look back on who were the ‘democratic’ allies of the four military dictators would tell everything about democratic convictions of our ruling classes.
One should then not be surprised by the way they have been reacting to media exposing their scandals of corruption, misuse of power and cheating. Our classes don’t want to be restrained by law, the courts or the media.
It will not be fair to place all legislators in the same category though. There are those who are genuinely committed to democracy and rule of law, but lack power and influence within their own parties. The media and civil society have consistently struggled for democracy and they appear disillusioned by the conduct of ruling groups, more recently by their ganging up on the question of fake degrees.
This divide or clash is essentially between two visions about democracy and the future of Pakistan. The consensual view is that building true democracy will not be possible without accountability through law and the media uncovering corruption, nepotism and influence-peddling by elected representatives. The old view that everything goes with democracy may not work in the interest of the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 12th, 2010.