After the mandated market-reform-driven economic restructuring and a land reforms proposal that should hopefully not pass into oblivion, there is yet another proposal from the World Bank that merits a closer look.

For, it might be a combination of the latter two proposals that the country might need to approach the stage of take-off —economic, political, and social. However, there might be some bugs that will need to be removed to get to the goal. And, some of this debugging might require an integrated view of the above proposals rather than a mutually exclusive one. That is, one proposal need not be viewed as a substitute for another. Rather, some of these could be viewed as building blocks required essentially for the implementation of a strategic intent whose translation into action should commence sooner rather than later.

As for the market-reform-led economic restructuring, many of us have remained critical due to a lack of agreement on its appropriate timing and suitability to our country’s initial conditions. Notwithstanding this disagreement, World Bank’s land reforms proposal is viewed as a silver lining. It is also against this backdrop that the World Bank’s politico-economic restructuring proposal is viewed as it further indicates a continued thinking or rethinking on the part of this agency that has had so profound an influence on the country’s economic scene thus far. If it now links its “reform” process with the success of democratization (Dawn, 21-12-02), then it would be important to ascertain if the donor and the recipient are on the same wavelength as far as the meaning of “democratization” is concerned.

Is democracy only the holding of general elections and inducting an elected government into the office? In a country with absolutely skewed patterns of distribution of assets, incomes, education, literacy, health, housing, water, sewage, and other facilities; the liberties too are inequitably spread across the population. It is, therefore, the disenfranchised who exercise a “franchise” which is influenced strongly by the extent of the freedoms they themselves possess and the disproportionate socio-political power of others. Those who possess more social, political, and economic rights in the country by virtue of their disproportionate access to material resources are in a strong position to influence the “franchise” of the disenfranchised. Consequently, what we end up having is an election of the resourceful which, in the case of Pakistan, has mostly turned out to be for the resourceful and influenced by the resourceful thereby being virtually by the resourceful. While in theory, we have representatives of the people; in actual practice, they represent the special publics and not the general public so much for the reasons above. Most of the general public merely votes for a symbol without even knowing the name of the party leave alone what it stands for. So, the bulk of the male population which is deprived is externally advised about the symbol they have to rubber stamp. Their womenfolk, in turn, have to stamp the symbol their men advise them to. In consideration of the vote, they may get some food rations and /or some minor benefits or survival in a big lord-dominated community. A naive electorate ends up electing the representatives of elite groups and political parties which, in turn, are governed by clans and tribes whose birth right it is to continue to head the party.

Are the elected resourceful thus expected to deliver for the general public which has just served as a tool for the propulsion of the former into the highest offices? The latter group knows well enough from experience that the disenfranchised would always be around to exercise their franchise in a manner they will be expected to until such time that they are developed. If the situation be as grim as above, will the elected be inclined to engage in socio-economic uplift by governing for the people which is the essence of democracy?

So, while we have had elected governments, not many considered themselves to be accountable to the people even in the decade of the 1990s. At least, one such elected government was headed towards an absolute rule of the prime minister also under the garb of religion until it was overthrown. It would, therefore, be erroneous to call it an overthrow of a democratic government. Rather, it was nipping an upcoming dictatorship in the bud which would have otherwise grown into a despotic rule of the kind we lament about for some other parts of the Muslim world where referendums and elections are held regularly only to re-install the despotic incumbents. “Impermanence” of the above kind of elected government in Pakistan provided more hope for democracy than a theoretically advocated “permanence of elected government” that would actually lead to the permanence of a certain ruling clique rather than that of people’s representatives.

For, some such governments have been driven more by personal than national agendas. Their “impermanence” would, therefore, be in greater interest of the people than would their permanence be. It is the dynamics of the elections process in the third world that needs to be analyzed before pronouncing “elections” per se as a sure fire remedy for ameliorating the socio-political lot of such nations and thereby their economic lot. The gap between theory and practice can be bridged only by taking a holistic view of the situation that keeps segments of populations subjugated to a small national minority and then the nation as a whole is kept subjugated to the developed industrialized democracies. External determinants notwithstanding, the focus herein is on internal factors.

We, therefore, must see the reality as it is and recognize the challenge of ushering in democracy in the strictest sense of the term. That is, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Even though most advocates of democracy do see the role of socio-economic power in political calculations and in the marginalization of the multitude in whose interest democracy is advocated, they recommend “more of democracy” to perfect the process. While democracy may be improved by more of it, this prescription works only if there actually is more of democracy. For, it would fail wherever it would be believed that elections are all there is to a democracy. If this be the case, then we may find ourselves in the bind delineated above due to skewed structures of all kinds. To break out of this impasse, some suggest a transformational economic restructuring beginning in the countryside of Pakistan. That is, land reforms that would aim at not just socio-economic equity but at more democracy due to economic empowerment at the grassroots which, in turn, would lead to a more meaningful political participation, an intelligent exercise of political rights and, above all, the right to vote.

Another route usually suggested is that of devolution. Usually it is viewed as an alternative to land reforms when the two could actually proceed in parallel thus reinforcing each other. Those who view devolution as an alternative to land reforms assume that greater say in grassroots decision-making would lead to their empowerment and thus to more democracy eventually leading to a better representation of the people and improvement in their economic status. While theoretically, participation in decision-making leads to ownership, commitment, and empowerment; the assumption is that the participants are at comparable levels of socio-economic and/or intellectual development by virtue of equitable distribution of education which is viewed as a socio-economic equalizer. Only then are they viewed as worthwhile contributors to the decision-making process. In the absence of above conditions, a system of local elected governments that we tend to call “devolution” would also remain as elite dominated as the system of federal and provincial governments would be. It might even provide an avenue for the next-generation elite to hone their political skills as has been observed in the country.

It would also provide an opportunity for the political parties, already dominated by elites, to deepen their influence. Under such circumstances, those on the fringes of the society might remain as marginalized as the 33 per cent women councellers in Pakistan’s local councils are who are ignored by their male counterparts in discussion and deliberation and who are also denied their share of development funds. To assume that by mere devolution the women and other disadvantaged groups will be represented by design is to push theory at the expense of ground reality.

The reality is that attitudinal changes need to be brought about which remains a formidable task in a country where even the very process of elections is at times called into serious question. Consequently, those thrown up in the legislatures are even less representative than would be the case if the elections process was viewed as flawless. Under the above circumstances, it would be naive to assume that mere elections could lead to greater accountability of governments and thereby a better promotion of public interest. Interest of the general public can be promoted only if the public is in a position to assert itself. In its current “disenfranchised” state, it is not “franchise” that they can use for the purpose. While the exercise of franchise is important to maintain bare minimum pressure, transformational measures are required to expedite the process of empowerment of the people.

Since there are socio-economic roadblocks to the process of political empowerment as envisaged through devolution; clearly, economics here gains primacy over politics. The prime focus of lending agencies such as the World Bank should, therefore, be on economic empowerment through land reforms that they have themselves now proposed for Pakistan. While these could be coupled with democratization and devolution, sole or prime reliance on the latter would not be without pitfalls outlined in this piece. Even though the latter route, if proposed as an alternative, is more palatable politically to those who matter in the country; it will not, by itself, lead to the promotion of public interest the World Bank is now so keen to pursue or so it appears. Meaningful economic reforms need to aim at economic development at the grassroots through transformational measures which will logically lead to social and political development and a democratic process the world is so eager to see in Pakistan.