The notion of democracy is ubiquitously found in the
international political discourse, and its significance has been perpetuated over
the years. The lessons from the tyrannical reigns of the fascist and
authoritarian regimes during the second world war made the importance of
democracy known to the world in a political, economic and academic fashion. The
international relations are governed by the principles of democracy to a large
extent and the interactions between nation-states are based on these principles
today. It would not be an understatement to say that democracy has become a
universal good. The question still remains: what is democracy? Is it the freedom
of political practice or the freedom to uphold ones religious values, or the
freedom to ‘enforce’ one’s doctrines in order to yield other universal goods
for the subjects of a democracy. The answer is too complicated and different
for different countries; I believe there is no uniform definition of the
concept that can reflect the breadth of the human experience in the political
realm. For most complex societies, it is probably one of the freedoms bestowed
upon them by virtue of belonging to a civilized society, whereas the origins of
democracy go way back. The behavior of Paleolithic cultures even in the hunter-gatherer
tribes to come to a consensus regarding decisions is actually a manifestation
of democratic attitude. At the end of
the day, in my opinion, the process of democracy is the interplay of different
institutions, and this process is largely governed by human behavior and the
heritage of the political system in question.
For a country like Pakistan, the idea of a successful
democracy had always been complicated and problematic. It would be way too much
credit for the failing democratic institutions to assume that the Pakistani
political system is democratic in its truest form. The Pakistani people elected
their last government through parliamentary elections in 2008 and today the
Western allies like the US endorse the contemporary government as a
democratically elected one. Around 35% of the voting population participated in
the elections, out of which a huge majority is the rural population and
agricultural communities. The assumption that the elected government reflects
the principles of a successful democracy is not a truism. Pakistani political
system might have followed the ‘process’, but not the ‘philosophy’ of a true
democracy. The concept many political scientists in Pakistan have come up with
is the ‘infrastructure’ for democracy that is imperative for the successful
implementation of a democratic model. This infrastructure is the confluence of
different social, political and economic institutions working together in such
a way that they influence the political opinions of the people of Pakistan and
eventually influence the general human behavior. Ultimately the democracy has
to come through the people and they are the ones who have to be absolutely
clear on the philosophy for the success of democracy.
The problem with the infrastructure mentioned above is the
power dynamics in Pakistan. The power structure in the country is largely
determined by the interactions of different groups, which pre dominantly takes
the shape of a patron-client relationship. In most rural areas of Punjab and
Sindh, the people still bow down to their feudal lords, the clan leaders
influence the political opinions of their respective clans and the tribal heads
govern the tribal belt towards the North-Western Frontier.
Being from a political background and a rural area in Punjab
myself, I know that the elections are most ‘celebrated’ by the rural population
of Pakistan. At the same time, there is a complete indifference towards the
manifestos of different political parties running, because the guiding
principle of voting for the people is what the ‘patrons’ dictate to them. In
the process, the concept of ‘one man one vote’ is negated altogether and the
people from the rural areas, who do not have access to formal social
institutions, end up relying on the social system that they have. For example,
an electoral candidate only has to co-opt the village leaders or feudal lords
for mass mobilization of the voters, and they never come down to the grassroots
in order to convince individuals of their political objectives. This leads to a
repetitive process of the same people coming into power again and again, and in
most of the constituencies the parliamentary seats are referred to as ‘family
seats’ of certain politicians. Having said all of that, it does not mean that
the clan or tribal system is bad for these rural populations; on the contrary
they are the informal social institutions that provide the strongest safety
nets for the people. At the same time, however, if those people lack access to
quality education, healthcare, and other social welfare provisions, these
safety nets become detrimental for their overall human development. The urban
populations on the other hand seldom vote on the election day since they are
aware of the redundancy of the political process. Due to this vicious cycle of
politics created by the institutions in question, coupled with the inefficient
democratic institutions like political parties and relevant government
departments, the democracy stays marred with obstacles and all these factors
yield a sham or pseudo democracy.
There is a great need to introduce structural changes that
will essentially provide the essential infrastructure for a successful
democracy. Although one can mention several recommendations to do so but I
believe there is a dire need to create linkages between informal and forma
social institutions, and use the already existing social safety nets for the
provision of quality social welfare to the populations that do not have access
to them. At the same time, a long term investment in in quality education
(starting with educational reforms) is imperative for the sustainability of the
democratic infrastructure and the influence on the political philosophy of the
populations in question. Still, as long as such structural change do not
permeate the existing power structures, the results of any of the positive
policy changes will be unknown to us.
