Sham democracy

Published August 21, 2017
The writer is a former civil servant.
The writer is a former civil servant.

WHEN the former prime minister of the country, in and out of power over the last 35 years, says that the ‘basic structure of this system’ needs to be changed if we want to avoid a repeat of 1971, I marvel at our democracy and his honesty as he was the head of the same system until a few weeks ago.

After three stints as prime minister, he now says we need a new Constitution. I say, yes, let us have a new one — but for entirely different reasons.

Firstly, with the dynastic rule of two families, this system resembles a monarchy more than a democracy. Where the PML-N is concerned it is only the Sharif family that rules.

Political parties tend to resist democracy within their own ranks.

The only interest and contribution of the hundreds of MNAs and MPAs elected on party tickets and representing the ‘bees crore awam’(200 million people) is to assert their political influence in their villages and towns and apparently to swindle money for their next election.

The role of our members of parliament, both national and provincial, is to raise their hand on the command of their party head without question — or else, face the axe.

An identical situation prevails in that other monarchy, the PPP. All power vests with Mr Asif Ali Zardari. Democracy in Pakistan comprises two individual monarchs, with Imran Khan making desperate attempts to be the third player. We are told to be patient and let democracy take root. But how will it do so if there is no democracy within the political parties themselves?

The Election Commission of Pakistan makes an effort to hold polls to the national and provincial assemblies, but where democracy within the parties is concerned, it seems content to receive a certificate from the parties saying they have had internal elections.

Section 8 of the Political Parties Order, 2002 says that candidates for party posts should be elected through a ‘transparent democratic’ procedure and Section 11(2) says “every member be provided equal opportunity of contesting elections of any party office including party leader”.

But does that happen? Leaders in all political parties, including the PTI, nominate office bearers who are ‘elected’ by a compliant electorate and the list of elected persons is submitted to the ECP under the signature of the party leader, whose own ‘election’ is even more managed.

So there is little scope for a political worker in Pakistan to work his way up to the leadership of his party — an integral feature of the British parliamentary system, which our Constitution tries to emulate and our leaders pretend to follow.

To expect democracy to take root in this country, even after a wait of another 30 years, will be a dream unless it can be introduced in our political parties. This has to be an important part of the electoral reforms that our parliamentarians have been debating for the last four years.

Secondly, our legal system follows the British dictum of Blackstone’s formulation, “it is better to let 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer”. We saw five honourable judges of the Supreme Court devote 186 working days, including hundreds of hours of judges’ and lawyers’ time, to try to conclude a simple case of the unexplained assets of Nawaz Sharif and his family.

But in the end, this was referred to NAB to start the proceedings all over again. If and when the accountability courts decide, the affected party will have the luxury of appealing to first the high court then the Supreme Court, that is if they don’t go into intra-court appeals too.

If this is the speed of the delivery of justice at the highest level, you can deduce the plight of the common man. So with our current legal system, chances of the rule of law prevailing in the country are dismal.

Thirdly, the attitude and thought process of a large percentage of our population is worrying. When Nawaz Sharif is convicted for lying, they say everyone is a liar in our society so why pick on him? The argument that there is a difference between the privileges and responsibilities of a peon and a prime minister cuts no ice with them.

If the prime minister is accused of corruption, they say why don’t you catch the other corrupt first. The argument that you have to start somewhere — and it’s better to start at the top — does not satisfy them. There is great comfort all around in following the status quo and not rocking the boat of our vested interests.

More than changing the Constitution or pretending to launch a revolution , we need to ensure there is democracy within the parties, through state intervention, if we want a genuine democracy and not the current two-family rule.

The writer is a former civil servant.

Published in Dawn, August 21st, 2017

Opinion

Editorial

‘Source of terror’
Updated 29 Mar, 2024

‘Source of terror’

It is clear that going after militant groups inside Afghanistan unilaterally presents its own set of difficulties.
Chipping in
29 Mar, 2024

Chipping in

FEDERAL infrastructure development schemes are located in the provinces. Most such projects — for instance,...
Toxic emitters
29 Mar, 2024

Toxic emitters

IT is concerning to note that dozens of industries have been violating environmental laws in and around Islamabad....
Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...