IN his study of political systems (oligarchy, monarchy, etc), Aristotle concluded demokratia was probably the best system. The problem that bothered him was that the majority of free people (excluding women and slaves) would use their brute voting power to introduce pro-poor legislation like taking away property from the rich.

Aristotle suggested that we reduce income inequalities so that have-not representatives of the poor people were not tempted to prowl upon haves’ property. James Maddison (England) harboured similar concerns. He feared `if freemen had democracy, then the poor farmers would insist on taking property from the rich’ via land reforms (Noam Chomsky, Power Systems, p 84). The fear was addressed by creating a senate (US) or a house of lords (Britain) as antidotes against legislative vulgarities of house of representative or a house of commons.

Aristotle would rejoice in the grave to see both, Pakistan’s National Assembly and the Senate, being populated by the rich. One member defiantly wears Louis Moinet `Meteoris’ wrist-watch, worth about Rs460m. Another, with a capacity to shut down the whole country, lives in a 30-kanal house (his divorced wife denies having gifted it). They never took any legislative steps to equalise citizens in access to education, medicare, housing and jobs. In short, in all realms of life.

They never looked into the origin of landed aristocracy, chiefs and chieftains in the subcontinent during the Mughal and British periods. A politician knows the art of playing cricket. One day he may burn Pakistan flag and be dubbed anti-state. The next day he may support military courts.

The pliable politician knows the art of staying afloat, along with paraphernalia of legislature and other pillars of constitution, through US support. He knows it is not democracy, but a pliable regime that US supports.

Doubtless, our democracy is Aristotle’s dream as it is stable, rich and pro-rich.

Amjed Jaaved

Rawalpindi

Published in Dawn, January 1st, 2015