Suffering fools gladly
In our case, what ballot-box democracy does is legitimise and entrench the status quo.
amina.jilani@tribune.com.pk
Holding regular elections, claim the hard-core democrats, is the indispensable learning process that leads to a democratic polity. Election after election will weed out the baddies and slowly but surely the goodies will take over. Well, in Pakistan the track record does not bear this out (so far). Election after election that has been held since 1988 has only served to prop up the old saying quoted often enough, attributed to Founder-Maker Mohammad Ali Jinnah in one of his more realistic moods: that each successive government will be worse than its predecessor.
Do elections have similar outcomes irrespective of history, culture, and class structure of diverse societies? The answer has to be no. In our case, what ballot-box democracy does is legitimise and entrench the status quo — particularly problematical in feudal, semi-feudal, tribal and authoritarian nations.
From its birth, Pakistan has been under either bureaucratic-authoritarian or military-authoritarian regimes. Elected assemblies have served as an institutional interface between regimes. The people are dominated by feudal and tribal leaders — all under the thrall of the religious right, which mainly operates outside the assemblies — who have indulged in the charade of ballot-box democracy in an attempt to legitimise their exercise of political power and to considerably bolster their own pockets. The main political parties (Jamaat-e-Islami excluded) follow the same dictatorial policies revolving around an individual or a family. They indulge in dubious deals with the establishment, completely ignoring the rights or welfare of the people.
We are now in election mood again, with a couple of possible hiccups that may cause delay or even disruption. Now, as to who is at the back of it all and why, is not easily fathomable. Nor can it be predicted that the status quo is in danger. The US, the unlamented departed General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and the present army chief were instrumental in installing President Asif Ali Zardari and his party, admittedly through the interference of fate and a tragic happening. Both President Zardari and Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani have done more than tolerate each other — they may have had their spats but neither, because of the baggage both carry, has been able to down the other, assuming that they may have wanted to. As for the US, there have been tense moments but on each occasion, all has been ironed out and the status quo maintained.
What does the US wish for Pakistan, in light of its Afghanistan imbroglio? Well, obviously cooperation and a like-minded attitude. When President Zardari was accidentally installed, what did the US want from him? He has been as amenable as possible. But perhaps they were expecting more. That he would keep Pakistan happy and peaceful, that democracy would grow and become a reality, that the rocky economy of the country would stabilise and right itself. That President Zardari, hand in hand with General Kayani, would subdue terrorism rather than what has happened in the five years under the Kayani-Zardari watch during which it has galloped along freely and mostly unchecked — other than when the army finally decided that enough was enough as far as Swat was concerned.
And the judiciary, how did the US feel about that in 2008? The two leading democratic political parties — the PPP-Z and the PML-N were unconcerned about the restoration. It was not until 2009 when what came to be known as ‘civil society’ created a situation which forced the powerful army chief to intervene. Neither party has the slightest commitment to democracy or to an independent judiciary. Nawaz Sharif has made expedient noises about its independence, but only because he is ‘out’ rather than ‘in’. If he manages to get back and have a third stint in power, then we will see his commitment to an independent judiciary. His track record has been to do his best, as has done President Zardari, to block any independent judiciary that has a mind to challenge their authoritarian excesses. So, there is no alternative but to carry on regardless.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 12th, 2013.
Do elections have similar outcomes irrespective of history, culture, and class structure of diverse societies? The answer has to be no. In our case, what ballot-box democracy does is legitimise and entrench the status quo — particularly problematical in feudal, semi-feudal, tribal and authoritarian nations.
From its birth, Pakistan has been under either bureaucratic-authoritarian or military-authoritarian regimes. Elected assemblies have served as an institutional interface between regimes. The people are dominated by feudal and tribal leaders — all under the thrall of the religious right, which mainly operates outside the assemblies — who have indulged in the charade of ballot-box democracy in an attempt to legitimise their exercise of political power and to considerably bolster their own pockets. The main political parties (Jamaat-e-Islami excluded) follow the same dictatorial policies revolving around an individual or a family. They indulge in dubious deals with the establishment, completely ignoring the rights or welfare of the people.
We are now in election mood again, with a couple of possible hiccups that may cause delay or even disruption. Now, as to who is at the back of it all and why, is not easily fathomable. Nor can it be predicted that the status quo is in danger. The US, the unlamented departed General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and the present army chief were instrumental in installing President Asif Ali Zardari and his party, admittedly through the interference of fate and a tragic happening. Both President Zardari and Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani have done more than tolerate each other — they may have had their spats but neither, because of the baggage both carry, has been able to down the other, assuming that they may have wanted to. As for the US, there have been tense moments but on each occasion, all has been ironed out and the status quo maintained.
What does the US wish for Pakistan, in light of its Afghanistan imbroglio? Well, obviously cooperation and a like-minded attitude. When President Zardari was accidentally installed, what did the US want from him? He has been as amenable as possible. But perhaps they were expecting more. That he would keep Pakistan happy and peaceful, that democracy would grow and become a reality, that the rocky economy of the country would stabilise and right itself. That President Zardari, hand in hand with General Kayani, would subdue terrorism rather than what has happened in the five years under the Kayani-Zardari watch during which it has galloped along freely and mostly unchecked — other than when the army finally decided that enough was enough as far as Swat was concerned.
And the judiciary, how did the US feel about that in 2008? The two leading democratic political parties — the PPP-Z and the PML-N were unconcerned about the restoration. It was not until 2009 when what came to be known as ‘civil society’ created a situation which forced the powerful army chief to intervene. Neither party has the slightest commitment to democracy or to an independent judiciary. Nawaz Sharif has made expedient noises about its independence, but only because he is ‘out’ rather than ‘in’. If he manages to get back and have a third stint in power, then we will see his commitment to an independent judiciary. His track record has been to do his best, as has done President Zardari, to block any independent judiciary that has a mind to challenge their authoritarian excesses. So, there is no alternative but to carry on regardless.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 12th, 2013.