Faces of Democracy

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.