8
MEMOGATE, Swissgate, Dharna 1 and now Panamagate are all cases since 2008 when democracy survived serious crises. Pindi-inclined, excitable folks may yet cry wolf. But democracy no longer hangs by a thread, ready to be swept by storms in teacups. It is consolidating fast if not fully safe yet.
The evidence is clear. Election gripes soon caused street protests and a coup in 1977. The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf waited a year after elections to even launch street protests and even then it was the courts, and not Pindi, that acted as umpire. In 2014, Imran could martial a four-month sit-in even though his gripe (election fraud by Sharifs) was weak.
In 2016, he could not martial even a four-day one though his gripe (money fraud by Sharifs) is likely true. Again, the matter was referred to courts, which may yet deliver justice. Thus, the courts are emerging as credible alternatives to Pindi as umpires in major political crises. There are concerns about judicial overreach here, but clearly it is better than Pindi being the umpire.
Annually, we have a silly season when conservatives shrilly claim major national interest losses due to a triviality, eg, Malala’s book, Memogate and now the leak, without evidence ever of a concrete loss to even narrowly defined national interests. The aim is to muzzle civilians and liberals. Thus, the strong Pindi reaction puzzled many about what secret was leaked.
What does the consolidation of democracy mean for the common folk?
One finds dozens of earlier articles that the security establishment supports some militants. Several ex-bureaucrats together wrote so a few weeks back in this newspaper without causing fury. Despite hysterical claims, there is no evidence this leak caused any concrete national interest loss, eg, US penalties or a new Indian anti-Pakistan drive. But a few months back, the United States had blocked F-16 subsidies and aid, causing concrete national losses not due to a leak but its own long-held views about the policies of the security establishment.
So, why were sensitive agencies so oversensitive to the leak? And why the demand for civilian heads to roll to undo what was perceived as a slight? Ever-hopeful analysts hoped the top civilian head will roll, not grasping democracy’s consolidation.
But what does this consolidation mean for the common folk who desire practical governance, not democratic idealism? Though staunchly pro-democracy, I must confess honestly that it means very little beyond its own survival.
Democracy is a form of governance whose ideal distinctive features include representativeness, accountability and participation. The hope is that representativeness through elections will better ensure accountability and participation — which are the pillars of good governance — than other governance forms.
But many long-consolidated democracies have not yet achieved good governance. So, on corruption, accountability, police, bureaucracy and court records, septuagenarian democracies such as India and Sri Lanka do only slightly better than us. Thus, representativeness is a key but not sufficient condition for good governance.
So what further mountains must the increasingly impatient masses scale before reaching the green fields of good governance? In answer, I will repeat my Political Science 101 lecture.
Progress comes from good governance which, in turn, comes from good leaders. Those emerge from strong institutions which emerge in societies that are relatively egalitarian. Educated persons who are forever cursing the illiterates for their superficial political views must display their own education by grasping and accepting this complex causal chain. This causal chain makes it quite clear that good governance cannot emerge without initial improvements in institutional and societal factors.
It paradoxically also means abandoning the eternal but superficial quest for leaders who are honest and sincere, for this focus only on the causal chain’s tip deflects focus from its root causes. This superficial quest can also create misconceptions that good governance is mainly a result of individual goodness.
However, even in the West there are many leaders who display crooked tendencies now. What keeps those tendencies in check and good governance intact are societal accountability checks. Also, the superficial focus on honest leaders only fuels passive desires for Pindi rule among the middle classes. But the focus on root causes suggests an active role for them by donating to and participating in civic action for broader egalitarianism and accountability.
So, the issue is not when good leaders will emerge but how institutions, egalitarianism and accountability can be strengthened. They strengthen gradually with increasing levels of income and education. But poor governance slows their increase. So, unfortunately, the arrival of good governance will yet take long.
The writer heads INSPIRING Pakistan, a progressive policy unit.
Published in Dawn November 8th, 2016
