Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to
PATRIOTIC Pakistanis spend many sleepless nights brooding incessantly whether Pakistan’s democracy brand is genuine. Having concluded glumly that it is not, based on unrealistic comparisons with Western countries, many call it plutocracy or sham democracy. However, such arguments present mere rhetoric, not logical definitions.
Despite huge differences in quality across Test and U-19 cricket, nobody labels the latter as non-cricket, since it meets basic cricketing prerequisites. Similarly, classifying Western countries as democracies and all others as non-democracies given differences in governance quality is improper. In reality, there are multiple categories of democratic countries with different governance quality.
Experts generally include credible elections and no formal political powers for non-elected institutions as basic prerequisites since they fulfil democracy’s bedrock of formal power transfer to genuine representatives. Pakistan has met both prerequisites since 2008 (The 2002 elections were non-credible while a military president could dismiss parliament).
Robert Dahl, a leading democracy expert, sets higher standards by adding near-universal election voting and competing rights; and basic freedom of expression, information and association. Pakistan meets even these requirements basically. It also possesses a rights-based Constitution despite dictator-era distortions, independent courts, a pesky media, a thriving civil society, plurality of power among political parties across provinces and increasing devolution, which all ensure basic accountability. Thus, Pakistan clearly ranks among the strongest basic democracies, however much critics may huff and puff.
Dictatorships have always left Pakistan in worse shape.
Governance quality also improves gradually under democracy, assuming peace and increasing incomes, literacy and urbanisation. All this is happening in Pakistan slowly. However, critics flatly refuse to accept that present-day democracy can ever mature. But is seven years sufficient time to judge it? It would be if most countries graduated from basic to advanced democracy sooner. But Western countries took 100-plus years while India, Brazil and Turkey remain intermediate democracies even after several decades.
Some improvement in governance is already visible since 2008. The BISP and CPEC represent Pakistan’s biggest anti-poverty and foreign investment programmes, which dictators could never produce.
Freed of political compulsions, the army has acted far more boldly against militants than it did under Musharraf. Economic risks have receded, even if only secondarily due to sound policies. Pakistan’s Transparency corruption perception scores have improved slightly after Musharraf. Power is being devolved to provinces and now even locally.
Serious reform still eludes politicians, but so it did dictators during longer rules. More critically long-term-wise, accountability is gradually strengthening faster than ever under dictators. Far more electoral reforms are happening now. The judiciary has attained independence after Musharraf’s frontal assaults. Thus, governance should improve further gradually given increasing accountability under democracy.
Against 4-6 successes, there are 100-plus failed dictatorships globally, yielding a paltry success rate of 3-5pc for dictatorships.
Prolonged democracy has a near-100pc success rate; prolonged dictatorship near-zero! Furthermore, Pakistan resembles the failed dictatorship countries more than East Asia along critical governance determinants. These include national history length; ethnic diversity; and pre-independence education, land reforms and industrialisation history. Thus, dictatorship is inherently unsuitable for Pakistan.
However, Pakistan has tried democracy intermittently but dictatorships and hybrid regimes unsuccessfully for much longer. These always left Pakistan in worse shape than when they started. Short-term growth under Ayub and Musharraf ended in severe violence given their flawed politics. Bangladesh has already unsuccessfully tried technocracy, another critics’ favorite. Thus, we reach the sobering conclusion that there are no widely proven alternatives to democracy for Pakistan-like countries. Must Pakistan be the one to risk all untested, quack-like recipes which invariably fail?
But many are willing to sacrifice Constitution, rule of law and slow-maturing democracy if corruption could magically be eradicated overnight. Is Pakistani corruption so alarmingly high compared with similar countries to justify extraordinary steps? Transparency corruption perception scores for India and Pakistan are broadly similar (38pc vs 29pc).
In India, similar scores invoke Anna Hazare’s agitation, AAP’s rise and popular mobilisation, which strengthen democracy. In Pakistan, they invoke calls for army-led anti-corruption drives or take-over, which weaken democracy! Why such hugely different responses to similar scores? Perhaps, many Pakistanis have been brainwashed by those who benefit from autocracy.
The writer is a political economist.
Published in Dawn, October 11th, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
Comments (21) Closed
Because so far Pakistan has been very comparable to the Roman Empire.
CPEC route is in disputed terrority. Doesn't look like building soon.
I endorse the viewpoint highlighted in the article.Democracy is a very difficult form of government and naturally it takes long to strike roots.No democratic country has been an exception to this rule.Media need to educate the public on the pitfalls on the way to true democracy.
U r right, Pakistan democracy is also democracy, but it can't b called an intentional democracy, it's just a sham. It's like village panchayat where mukhiya is elected but becomes a king and runs affairs in whimsical manners.
Let us not forget India is at least 6 times more diverse in languages, population apart from having huge minorities. So there is hardly any scope for comparison
In terms of failures and successes, Pakistan's progress towards democracy stands similar to that of Nigeria i.e. of having reached a maxim and not being able to make any sustainable progress due to corruption being accepted as legitimate part of life.
"Perhaps, Pakistanis have been brainwashed by those who benefit from autocracy..."
wonderful, quintessentially summed up the article..
There is no comparison. Autocratic system is to Rule masses by dictat. Democratic system is governance by the people for the people. Good or bad is inconsequential, as quality is an outcome of stock of people governing themselves.
In a democracy an elected government makes policy decisions, not the military. Shocked that intellectuals are unable to tell even this difference.
With the type of argument you have put forward.....the question arises as to when do you stop calling it a democracy ?.......after all is looted and plundered and the people forced to flee because they don't get even the basics necessary to exist......does that even justify calling it a democracy......in my books its an insult to the word.
If democracy is the best system then why China is progressing? There is no democracy there but still they are going to easily cross US in economy and development. Democracy is not for country like us where 60 percent of population is illiterate. How can a value of the vote of PhD and an illiterate be the same?
@AQ economic progress is not the only progress. People are gagged there, they have absolutely no freedom and can't enjoy their lives the way they want to. If China is progressing so fast, just compare the number of Chinese going to USA for studying and settling and vice versa
Well, but we don't see any other option than that.There might be corrupt elements in army but on the whole it has a system that does not allow any black hat to practice his activities for long.It does not spare any one from sepohy to general .yes general- and there is a lot of example can be given in this context. It is the only institution which is working perfectly.
Mr Murtaza , a country is guaged a democracy if its constitution makes no distinction among its people. The Objectives Resolution prevents this and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination can be called a Democratic Nation on this account. Governance,corruption ,Transparency etc are not unique to Democracies and can exist or be gauged in non democratic forms of governments also. Islamic countries canot be called Democracies since they give primacy to one Religion. Pl clarify .
@AQ China will fall like USSR failed . Democratic set is the best setup . Swaraj ( self rule ) is the best way for all nations be it India or Pakisthan. One thing to note that every human opposes his superior but he or she wants to become to be same. Do think. Love
@Cyrus It's true.
how can a system be called democracy when decisions taken by elected leaders can easily be abrogated by military?
Democracy is the safest institution for the country - not the best. China has done great economically recently - but same communist party also killed millions in cultural revolution. Authoritarian regimes can deliver faster success or destruction - the problem is neither is based on what population wants - rather the whim and fancy of what dictator thinks is right. Zia was bad, Musharaff was good, Raheel is an angle - but do they do what people want or what they think is right? Politician in democracy cannot do anything that majority of population does not agree with - maybe Modi wants a Hindu India but even with majority in Parliament he does not do that because he knows majority of Indians are secular and he will lose next election if he does that. If Modi was dictator he will just make India a Hindu state.
@AQ I sometimes feel the same way as you do when I think of the Indian democracy.
I think that the reason why masses response to what ails society in Pakistan is usually for Army's intervention because our constitution allows it and majority of our people have not seen anything else.
However, in India the constitution does not have a provision of Army's intervention in governance. If you go to any Indian city with a cantonment, you would find that the cantonment area has better governance than the city. You wont see garbage dumps, roads are pothole free schools have buildings and teachers. Yet, no Indian ever says that Army has better management, lets get rid of politician and get Army instead.
Winston Churchill famously remarked that democracy is NOT the best system of government except for all others. Governance in democracy is lousy. Americans have as many complaints about the government as Pakistanis. Slow improvements are hardly noticeable and the benefits flow to well connected. Majority is left with the promises. Of course dictatorship is not the answer. However, history has produced some very good monarchs. My favourite is Marcus Auerelius, emperor of Roman empire who, it is said, governed with an eye on the welfare of the people. Despite being an emperor of mighty empire he always talked to the people as if they are talking to a friend. You won't find any in democracy.