In popular narrative, democracy is often used as a synonym for corruption, elitism, ineptness, lack of patriotism and more recently, growing extremism. Astoundingly, we overlook the fact that the lack of transparency during dictatorial rule implies that these evils actually stem from the times of autocrats. Ideally, democracy should offer considerable transparency to ensure that none of these evils prevail for long. However, I am no apologist for the bad governance witnessed during the past democratically elected set-ups, which proves that there is more than just a grain of truth in the scepticism towards such orders too. However, what beats me is how conveniently we remember the mistakes of the democratic governments, while ignoring or even, at times, glamourising the follies of the dictators.
Is it possible that we are so infernally in love with the idea of one powerful ruler that we chose to ignore all his shortcomings? Or is it because of our desire to cover our cowardice during such regimes that our selective amnesia chooses to forget all our sufferings during the autocratic rule? These explanations are much too simplistic, although not entirely untrue, for our complex problem. Both love and fear show that there is an age-old conditioning at play. This is why, every dictator invests heavily in propaganda and the projection of a softer image that a civilian ruler can hardly even dream of.
When, after their long stints in power, these dictators leave, they leave behind weak democratic set-ups that cannot expose this narrative for what it is for one reason or another. This narrative, in the garb of our official history, is protected by a state that, in essence, is its biggest victim. But this, too, is only half of the problem. There are deeper undercurrents in our collective historical experience that might explain the other half.
Pakistan, we know, was almost single-handedly carved out of India by a politician whose fondness for democracy is well known. But behind the simple fact of birth of a nation lies a complicated set of influences. The sense of deprivation of a minority that had successfully ruled India for centuries and was then thrown out of power, followed by prolonged suffering at the hands of our British colonial masters. The concept of democracy came to India from Britain. As any underdog in a colony would do, the depressed Muslim community tried to associate themselves with every reactionary system available at the time. Allama Mashriqi met Hitler, Iqbal met Mussolini and expressed his fondness for him. The simple fact that our imperial masters were advocates of democracy shouldn’t mean that democracy is a bad system. But before we could overcome this fascist tendency we had already won freedom. The premature death of the founder of the nation meant that we were left completely clueless in search of our identity.
And since then, we have stayed obsessed with the same names and intellectuals of that time, without making room for new national poets or national intellectuals. This exercise has cost us an arm and a leg. For one, we have totally failed in our bid at national renewal. That is causing the gradual withering of whatever passed as the national identity. Also, our pursuit of old-fashioned, almost outdated, undemocratic models and ideas have ensured that we remain reactionary and highly paranoid at best. And it is not fair that while the entire developed world and some happy parts of the developing, too, enjoy the fruits of democracy, we stay tethered to an outmoded streak of fascism.
This is high time to develop a consensus for democracy. I say it because I feel that there are still parts of this country where democracy is actively abhorred. And only by closing the dictatorial chapter can we accomplish this.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 29th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (15)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
People of Pakistan not only approved Jinnah's use of his power but supported his acts whole-heartedly. Democracy empowered his dictatorship and loved it.
@ Uza Syed: "Whether or not Mr Jinnah used the “draconian powers” that he obtained as GG through the amendment is irrelevant". Which amendment? Is there any record of it? Who passed it? Was it used by the courts to justify "illegal" acts of the GG? Being the GG, he was not the chief executive of the country, even though he was respected as the father of the nation. How much power he had can be gauged by the fact that when he returned to Karachi from Quetta the day before his death, the prime minister was not there to receive him at the airport. He had only one ambulance, which broke down on the way to the city centre. Unlike today, when mere MNAs and MPAs have six police mobiles escorting them, he had no such protocol. Surely this was not a man who had "draconian powers" or used them? He was advised to go to London for treatment, but he declined, as the country was too poor. Compare this with today, when ordinary mediocre ministers are given millions to spend on the treatment of not only themselves but their wives also. And you still say that this man was a dictator?
After independence, Gandhi retired to his aashram while Mr.Jinnah wanted power and position even though he was seriously ill. That is why Gandhi was called Mahatma Gandhi.
Shahida Rizvi is peddling unsubstantiated allegations against the Quaid. My original research has totally refuted these baseless rumors. The works of VeerPooncha Cooraswamy the leading historian from Chikamangaloor North West Subdivsion also make it amply clear that the Quaid never adopted the fascist and undemocratic means which Gandhi always used.
ET, please publish my remarks to set the record straight and defend the Quaid's reputation.
@Shakir Lakhani: Whether or not Mr Jinnah used the "draconian powers" that he obtained as GG through the amendment is irrelevant. What is pertinent is he acquired it through his active involvement in this amendment and if he wanted it so then obviously his intents are quite obvious and does reflect his mindset, if his serious "illness" prevented him from exercising such dictatorial powers is another matter and so much the better for us.
@ Prof.Shahida Kazi, ” It was actually Jinnah who made amendments in the British Act of 1935 ,to make the governor general a virtual dictator instead of a nominal ruler as he was supposed to be.The G.G. was given a host of powers including the power to dismiss the prime minister,and, the chief minister and to dissolve a provincial assembly.These powers were fully used by Jinnah himself as well as other G.G.s including Ghulam Mohammed.”. This is the first I have heard about Mr. Jinnah making such amendments. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to when this happened, and whether or not the Constituent Assembly approved these amendments? Also, since Mr. Jinnah was seriously ill for most of the thirteen months after independence and before his death, did he use these draconian powers without consulting the prime minister and his cabinet?
@MK - You sound politically incorrect, but true...
@Author - What's the point in having a democracy just for the sake of it (if it doesn't deliver)?
Freedom of thought and expression cannot fill empty stomachs... Better a dictatorship that delivers... No wonder Pakistanis danced on the streets when Musharraf took over. On this side our fondness for Modi is due to the same reasons - his dictatorial style of working yields quick results, compared to the painfully slow and ineffective Congress... Do you really feel that the Arab states would transform into democracy once the autocratic rules disappear? Chances are these would be in turmoil, like Syria...
Esteemed author, end this liberal claptrap. Muslims need a strong dictator. We need a strong dictator like Stalin or Hitler. Remember Japan was the best in the 1930's. China is also a dictatorship and is best performing country. So Pakistan needs iron rule from a ruthless dictator.
Thank you for highlighting the Great Quaid's love for pure democracy as he practiced it daily. Islam itself is natural democracy. Giants like Allama Iqbal, the Great Quaid, Sir Syed Khan, Allama Mashriqi and Maulana Maudoodi (RA) were the beacons of democratic hope. Unfortunately, as the Great Quaid had predicted - khote Sikke have lost the light now. :(
Prof.Shahida Kazi, " It was actually Jinnah who made amendments in the British Act of 1935 ,to make the governor general a virtual dictator instead of a nominal ruler as he was supposed to be.The G.G. was given a host of powers including the power to dismiss the prime minister,and ,the chief minister and to dissolve a provincial assembly.These powers were fully used by Jinnah himself as well as other G.G.s including Ghulam Mohammed.".
Hmm, facts but a bit too bitter!
Author, Democracy and MAJ were incompatible. MAJ considered mixing with the riff-raff, the ordinary people beneath him. Conducted himself in a very dictatorial way.
You complain of fascism,but it is obvious you cling to fallacies after reading falsified history.
It was actually Jinnah who made amendments in the British Act of 1935 ,to make the governor general a virtual dictator instead of a nominal ruler as he was supposed to be.The G.G. was given a host of powers including the power to dismiss the prime minister,and ,the chief minister and to dissolve a provincial assembly.These powers were fully used by Jinnah himself as well as other G.G.s including Ghulam Mohammed.
Pakistan, we know, was almost single-handedly carved out of India by a politician whose fondness for democracy is well known. . @Author: I loved your article. However, it must be noted that when the founder of Pakistan could have been a legally elected member, he chose to be the Governor General of Pakistan, a position that was only abolished in 1956 and which was a nominated position. In India while the position existed until 1950, the head of state was always the elected representative, the PM.