IN George Orwell’s, Nineteen Eighty four, Big Brother is a middle aged character who watches people and is present everywhere. However, in literature he is the image of a majority in a majority-rule democracy.
In democracy it is always Big Brother that rules. Right from Plato and Aristotle to modern political thinkers, all have expressed fear that in a majority-rule-democracy there is every possibility of a tyrannical Big Brother. He can expropriate the minority, tyrannizing it by enforcing his rules and regulations on them. Even Abraham Lincoln, a champion of democracy, expressed fear of the tyranny of majority. As such he justified revolution against such tyrant democracy.
“If by mere force of numbers a majority should deprive the minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in any moral point of view, justify revolution.”
Different political theorists have suggested different solutions to Big Brother’s tyranny. Some have suggested separation of powers among legislature, executive and judiciary at the federal level while still others have suggested proportional representation. But fact is that wherever there is majority, neither the separation of power nor the proportional representation make it less so, hence there is no escape from the tyranny of Big Brother.
It was fear of Hindu Big Brother that Muslims of the subcontinent demanded a separate state. An enlightened man like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan opposed democracy on the ground that it would subject Muslims to Hindu rule.
The tragedy of Pakistan has been that it never had a ruler that realized deep divisions, into distinct historical, racial, cultural and linguistic segments, of this country. Unfortunately every ruler tried to make it a “melting pot” of these segments. This was an unnatural and an anti-history effort. East Pakistan revolted against these segments. It revolted against the imposition of Urdu as one national language and it laid the foundation of Bangladesh as early as 1953.
Right from the creation of Pakistan no ruler wanted the country to have a constitution because constitution would have stripped them of the monarchical powers they were wielding under the Indian Act of 1935. When, finally the constitution was framed in 1956 it did not reflect the people’s aspirations epitomized in Lahore Resolution of 1940. It completely negated the historic existence of all the provinces of West Pakistan. By negating the existence of provinces they negated history. They forgot that the people of this part of the world are historical in texture and impelled with primitive passion for culture, language and history. They resented the anti-history action of the rulers and their resentment fermented into nationalism.
This is a historical fact that all the provinces of West Pakistan were independent and sovereign states prior to British rule. The agents of British government signed pacts with these states as they had done with any independent state. For instance when the British sought permission of the rulers of Sindh for crossing their territory to go to Afghanistan a pact was signed accordingly between the rulers of two independent countries. Then there was war and the British conquered Sindh, annexing it with British India. Accordingly, when the British decided to leave the subcontinent, the provinces were to revert to their original position of independent and sovereign states. But all the provinces willingly alienated their right to independence and sovereignty by consenting to go in Pakistan.
Sindh Assembly passed resolution for joining Pakistan. The Muslim representatives of Bengal and Punjab decided not to join the Indian Constitution Assembly. Referendum was held in NWFP and as there was no legislature in Baluchistan the decision was taken by the tribal Jirga and the members of Quetta Municipality to join Pakistan.
As such the Federation of Pakistan came into existence by the deliberate choice of the constituent provinces. however, historical reality was negated and one unit was imposed.
Ayub Khan the self-styled saviour forged a new system of democracy, abolished parliamentary system and installed himself as president of the country. Yahya Khan, after breaking the country, tried to enforce a new constitution which was later withdrawn. Zia-ul-Haque who suffered from syphilis of soul, dreamt of becoming Khalifa by imposing Shariah of his own brand. Nawaz Sharif, true to his mentor General Zia, used heavy mandate like a hammer.
Countries, divided into different linguistic and racial entities and segments, do not deny division. The Swiss federation founded in 1848 has 23 Cantons (the equivalent of states in the USA) and since then it has balanced the interests of the major ethnic and linguistic groups, German, French and Italian. Canada and Belgium adopted such a system. Political theorists and thinkers have been trying to evolve a system suitable to a segmental society since 17th century. In 1603, a theorist and a federalist Johannes Alhusius propounded a democratic system known as Consociational Democracy. In 1961 Sir Arthur Lewis, an economist and a political scholar, advocated in favour of Consociational democracy.
Unfortunately Pakistan is one of those countries which is not suitable for the democracy. The politicians and the generals have made it ill-suited for the rule of the people. Whether it is a so-called democratic government or an army rule, it is always the Big Brother that rules.
