To obtain power, politicians tend to make a lot of promises but most of them can hardly be kept. In a feudal society, populism is simply a means to an end. A gullible populace can be faulted for being taken for a ride, again and again, and mostly by the same lot. For all its claims about democracy, the UK is no different.
The polls for the recent Scottish referendum showing ‘yes for independence’ voters pulling slightly ahead of ‘no’ for the first time, panicked the three major UK parties into overdrive, making a whole bunch of promises in the few days remaining till the referendum day (September 18).
The broad consensus hammered out between the Conservatives, the Labour Party and the Liberals for considerable devolution of power to the Scots to fail the ‘yes’ vote, unleashed a flurry of last minute pledges, going far beyond what had already been promised for a ‘no’ vote.
Neither the pledges nor the general bonhomie prevailing between the major political parties lasted more than an hour after the results were announced. Welcoming the results on September 19, Prime Minister David Cameron reiterated that all the promises made would be kept. As an afterthought but clearly a well-conceived one, he unleashed a storm of controversy by stating that the voice of the English populace would now also be heard in denying the Members of the Scottish Parliament some say over the English laws.
More controversially, the potential threat to David Cameron’s leadership of the Conservative Party, London Mayor Boris Johnson, demanded revising of the ‘Barnett Formula’ devised in the 1970s by former civil servant Lord Barnett, giving £10,152 to every head of the population in Scotland for devolved public services compared to £8,529 per head in England. Attacking the pledges made during the referendum campaign as “reckless promises” to retain an outdated system, he publicly urged the prime minister to renege!
Alex Salmond, who is Scotland’s First Minister and Leader of the Scottish National Party, said that the two major British parties wasted no time reneging on the last minute promises for further devolution. He said the people of Scotland would be “astonished and outraged”, particularly those who were swayed in the last few days in the referendum to vote ‘no’. The Labour Party’s leader, David Milliband, could find his campaign strategy for the next elections badly disrupted on this ‘English question’. The Labour Party’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, said that Cameron is looking to divide and outflank his opposition, both within and outside the Conservative Party, seeking narrow political advantage instead of looking at the future of the country.
Imran Khan may be giving examples of British democracy pertaining to community governance at the grassroots level, however, the fallout on the Scottish referendum has shown that British parliamentary democracy is not only quite imperfect, it can also be selectively unjust. The Scots may have lost their battle for independence, even if some of the pledges go through further devolution, they would have won the war.
To get their major objective of independence in 1947, the leaders of Pakistan had no option to shift away or even amend the British model. Once they got it, they had to persevere with it in order to consolidate the territorial and ideological boundaries of the new nation. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto faced the same limitations after 1971, saving what was left of a truncated Pakistan.
The 1973 Constitution shows that we have been straitjacketed into a system with hardly any relevance to the requirements of our population. Without governance at the grassroots level, democracy is abstract and meaningless at the provincial and federal levels. At the provincial level, elected community representatives make up the composition of the assemblies. The indirect election, electing representatives to the Senate, is a joke. Fundamental electoral reforms are needed to get our democratic principles in line with our needs. We must devise a more pragmatic and equitable system.
Modelled on the British system, our present version of democracy is feudal and farcical and only selectively democratic. According to the Magna Carta, it is in the blood of the feudals to make promises that can be easily broken without fearing any accountability
Published in The Express Tribune, September 25th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
I may not agree with writer's opinion on Scotland's referendum. Gullible their people may be, but the polls are not rigged like us. Flawed their system may be, but the merits of the system are obvious; Corrupt and wicked politicians would there be, but they are punished when caught. However, I fully agree with Mr. Sehgal regarding his comments on state of the nation. Our system requires a major overhaul and those who consider being in power their divine right wouldn't let us change the system. It pains me to see some of the comments which are highly irrelevant and hitting below the belt. I request the web editor to spare us such comments and include those which have any semblance of relevance with the contents of the articles.
It is indeed shameful how bigoted personalities try to score points with their malicious mindsets. I read the column of Sehgal Sahib once again after reading one particularly nasty comment just to recheck if it really had something which merited such pathetically irrelevant remarks; There was none! Mr Sehgal only opined which has been proven as the best system; The Basic Democracy. Undeniably, it is the ever-prevalent feudalistic approach which has so far prevented this effective system from being implemented. I commend the writer for his bold and forthright opinion.
I am a 19 years old undergraduate student. On my father's advice, I started reading articles in leading newspapers to broaden my knowledge base. I don't know much about politics but I love my country and with all the ills prevalent in our society, I am a proud Pakistani. I have found Mr. Ikram Sehgal's opinions forthright and in the best national interests. It pains me to see people casting aspersions on characters without any substance or matter. During my thirteen years of studies, I have read various versions of Pakistan Studies in the syllabus. Each government or ruler gives a different twist or colour according to his/her/its whim. Where is the patriotism! Where is nationalism! I think Mr. Sehgal portrays the thoughts of a vast (silent) majority. That is the reason he has been writing prominently in so many newspapers and his critics can only find space in the comments columns.
It is ironic that our myopic brain and prejudiced (so called) vision makes us virtually blind to glaring facts. I have read the article of Mr. Sehgal and the ensuing comments. I fail to understand the relevance of some of the comments to the contents of the article. I mean, what's wrong in it! If the (self proclaimed) critics are happy with the state of affairs in the country then I can only pity them. Who can deny that neither the system nor the personalities at the helm have brought stability or prosperity into common man's life. So, even if Mr. Sehgal was a POW, does this go against him! He was made POW in defense of our country. Does this limits his ability or intellect to comment on the state of affairs! What if he was an army officer! Nowhere in his article any mention of the generals are made. In fact, in his one of the previous articles in this very newspaper, he clearly stated that worst form of democracy is better than best ruled dictatorship. I implore the critics with vested interests to shun their hateful instincts and listen to the passionate message of a learned, patriotic Pakistani who wants nothing but the best for Pakistan and its people.
A great overview of the Scottish Referendum and nicely linked with our Political System.
Mr. Nadeem tried to side track the real issue pinpointed by writer, need of electoral reforms to elect genuine representatives of people. Proportional Representative PR is one such system followed by many nations. We need to study & evolve some hybrid system to suite our needs. Here is suggested one: http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2011/06/political-reforms-for-stable-democracy.html?m=1
Brilliant articulation as always.
@naeem khan, "audacity to comment on politics"?!?! wow!! the writer is a political analyst FYI, which is why his articles have been getting published in different newspapers since decades. If you do not know that, kindly get rid of your own audacity to comment on whether he has the right to talk about politics or not.
Where exactly has the article said that generals have been better for Pakistan. he has rightly advocated strengthening of democracy by electoral reforms and has highlighted the loopholes in the current version of democracy. I don't see how people like sabi can post comments without reading what is written.
Accurate analysis on the Scottish independence referendum. The writer in a great inspiration
@naeem khan, lol. seems like Mr. Sehgal punched on your face before escaping from the prisoner camp in India and you're still angry on that. He's not a POW now, and is a patriotic and proud citizen and political analyst of Pakistan. Go take out your anger elsewhere!
very informative article Mr. Sehgal. Electoral reforms and local body elections are badly needed to serve the requirements of our country.
Is naeem khan for real? if you don't have anything intelligent to say about the article why don't you keep your mouth shut instead of telling a writer to do that? the writer WAS a POW, but successfully escaped the enemy's camp with honour and dignity. I think you haven't read his book Escape from Oblivion but you're still here to shamelessly post an entirely irrelevant comment!
shame is a word which the writer doesnt seem to know the gentleman was a POW in 1971 debacle and still has the audacity to comment on politics and politicians in civilized nations POWs do one thing they keep their mouth shut but shame is a word which the writer doesn't know
Biggest feudal in Pakistan's politics had been generals which this author is not mentioning in his so-called analysis for obvious reasons.Days are gone Mr Sehgal when greedy generals would kick poor politicians out with the help of fake politicians and touts in media. No more fooling.
This article is so true and accurately portrays the adage: "if a politicians lips are moving he/she is at the very least obfuscating the truth".