Cry my Beloved Country

Pakistan has been experimenting with democracyfor nearly ten years now. Since death of General Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan hasattempted to sail the obscure waters of democracy with varying results.In the intervening years, it has seen three governments come to power andhas seen them leave in disgrace. According to most political observers,Pakistan can be classified as a democratic country. It has an elected bodyof representatives voted into office by the people expressing their politicalfree will. It has a robust press, which may not be very free by westernstandards, but still is a lot more open that it was ten years ago. Allthe symptoms of democracy can be identified in the body politic of Pakistan.Its elected leaders are not the antithesis of democratic leaders worldwide.Pakistani politicians, like their western counterparts, periodically makefalse promises and are known to mutate bad situations into even worse circumstances.


Pakistanis themselves hail their democratic experiment and point toit as a prove of their consensual maturity. If the definition of the term"democracy" is the ability to make bad choices, then Pakistan, by all means,is a country rich in democratic traditions. The nature of democracy itselfis a vague question. Democracy is more than merely electing representativesin ritualistic elections. The role of democracy in Pakistan poses certainquestions which imply its de jure existence. First of all, is Pakistan,in fact, a democratic country ? What is the true face of the democraticgovernment in Pakistan; is it a representative form of government or isit a populist government, or is it, as many believe, a combination of aristocracyand timocracy (the rule of privilege)? The present government of Mian NawazSharif, just like Benazir Bhutto's before it, argues that it is a popularlyelected government representative of the peoples' true will. The peopleof Pakistan are asking for the basic amenities in life: clean water, adecent standard of living and personal security from bodily harm. Are thegovernment's action representative of those popular demands ? If the governmentis a representative one, whose interests is it representing ? If the governmentin Pakistan is a popular government, then by what standards does it gaugeits own popularity ?


In order for democracy to thrive, it requires an educated populace,aware of the issues effecting its lives, to make decisions that best reflecttheir opportunities for a better life. Pakistan has one of the world'shighest illiteracy rates. The majority of its population, excluding theeducated elité in the urban centers, lives in the villages. Theyare, more often, engaged in a daily struggle for survival against a harshnatural environment and indifferent bureaucrats than they are in the politicaldebates affecting their lives. They do not have the luxury to indulge inidle pastimes and believe in promises and words they know will never materializeinto reality. It is not by choice, but rather by necessity that they arenot involved in the political issues of the day. That, by default, leavesthe political burden on the shoulders of the urban educated middle classesin Pakistan. The urban educated classes of Pakistan, control the institutionsin the country that really matter - military, bureaucracy and the economy.They see themselves as the proper guardians of the nation's political future.


This class of Pakistanis, between themselves, have created a rulingtroika (comprising of the military, bureaucracy and the feudal interests)that dominates the political life of the country. Whatever the dominatingcomposition of the troika, it has always compromised amongst itself tokeep its interests at the forefront at the expanse of the silent majorityof Pakistanis who toil under its oligarchical rule. It has always resistedinfringements on its power and considers itself not accountable to restof the country for the consequences of its actions. This brings the discussionback to the question of how can Pakistan be considered a true democracywhen it is a political minority that governs a majority without fully consultingits aspirations. Is Pakistan, then, a tyranny of the minority over themajority? Is this lack of due representatation only applicable to the Pakistanisin the villages, or is also true of the others in the country; the women,the Pakistanis who are Christians, Hindus, and do not follow the officallylegitimized religion of the country ? Can a country be called democraticthat discriminates againsts its own citizens based on the doctrines ofsex, race and religion? Is a country to be considered a democracy whereits citizens, regardless of their personal affinities, do not have therecourse to avail themselves of opportunties available only to a selectfew?


Governments are instituted among peoples by the consent of the governed.The proper role of a government is to better the lives of the people underits care. The most basic invioable right amongst human beings, as in nature,is the right to live. People consent to the authority of the governmenton the condition that it will protect them against the vageries of natureand other human beings. It is a contractual agreement beween the governedand the governors. Peoples, when they agree to the formation of a government,an authority, over their lives do so in the expectation that such a governmentwill foster conditions that will be productive and beneficial to a prosperousand secure existence. The purpose of the government is to ensure conditionsthat allow for the betterment of all concerned and one which allows forthe economic and personal growth of its citizens to their fullest potential.Thus, by this token, a government which fails to realize the purpose ofits existence and does not increase the wealth of its populace, but ratherretards their potential, can not be considered as a legitimate governmentof the people. Even if such a govenment is elected democratically and failsin its obligations towards the governed, it will lose the consent of thegoverned and will cease to be either a representative or a popular governmentof the people..


In the case of Pakistan, all governments that came to power with promisesof improving their fellow countrymen's existence, but did not live up totheir words are defacto governments that do not represent the consent ofthe governed. In Karachi, people, who were sworn to be protected by theirgovernment are being killed daily. Lahore is slowly devolving into a stateof anarchy that will mirror what Karachi has been for the past decade.Pakistani women, mothers of the nation, are being raped and dehumanizedwhile the government merely pays lip service to their plight and condonesthe brutality of their oppressors. Pakistanis of different faiths, whocan contribute to the commonwealth of the nation, are seeing their rightsdenied and their loyality to the nation questioned by the very governmentthat considers them as third class citizens. The majority of the countryis dying from a thirst of clean drinking water, while their children, thefuture of the country, are being killed in the streets of its major cities.The country is going bankrupt, because its rulers are of the opinion that,as a right to rule, they should not pay their fair share of taxes, butrather tax the poor to afford its luxurious lifestyle. The leaders of Pakistanare more interested in being seen on television, eating ice cream in thecompany of happy children in some foreign city than they are about thethousands who die from malnourishment, because of their indifference.


Is it by the consent of the Pakistani people that their future shouldbe victimized in the name of vested interests? The government in Pakistandoes not represent the hopes, dreams and the future of its people. Evenconceding the fact that the government was elected by people, it is nota true representative government of the people and it is safe to say thatits conduct can hardly be called popular. There is no logic that dictatesthat a democratically elected government has to remain democratic. AdophHitler and the Nazi government was elected by the German nation in a popularelection, but once in power, it promulgated laws that diminished democracyand instead fostered a dictatorship. In a similar vein, dictatorships canbe more representative of the people it rules over than a freely electedgovernment. The question of a government's legitimacy to enforce its authorityover the governed rests on its ability to provide its populace with a secureenvironment that satisfies its most basic needs: life, shelter and food.In an even more simplified sense, the authority of the government and itsright to exist as the legitimate government is determined by its competenceto secure the lives of its citizens from any threat that seeks to harmthem.


Once the government loses the capability to protect its citizens fromterminal threats, it loses its validity to govern over them. The peoplewho consent to be governed, do so under the impression that if they abidethe laws and do not take matters into their own hands, the government willenforce the laws and punish any transgressor who breaks the law. If thepeople see laws being broken, its enforcement ignored and the guilty notbeing held accountable for their crimes, then the contract between thegoverned and the government is broken and is no longer valid. In such cases,the people have the right to take steps to protect their own interestsand to secure for themselves, through their own actions, a more equitableexistence. This is what is happening in Pakistan. The people, dismayedby the government's inability to protect them are acting in their own self-interestat the expense of others. The end result of this type of behavior is theadvent of the Hobbesian state of nature and the life of an ordinary citizen,under such conditions, is solitary, brutal and short.


Consequently, Pakistan can not be considered as a country ruled by ademocratic government. As long as there is violence in Pakistan and peopleare dying as a result of it, because of the government's inability to protectthem, Pakistan will remain in a political state of nature. The ethnic conflictsbetween various Pakistani provinces; the rule of terror in Karachi; theeconomic subjugation of the country by a minority all prove the singularpoint that no matter what government is in power and how it was elected,it is not the legitimate government of the people. The present disintegrationof Pakistan is the result of its people losing faith in their governmentto be an effective arbiter of their destinies. Pakistan, regardless ofany government, will never be a true democracy unless the government takessteps to restore the people's confidence in its ability to protect theirinterests. In order for Pakistan to be considered a democracy, its governmentneeds to enforce the rule of law without any exceptions and it needs toreassert its de jure authority as the legitimate government of the people.


This does not mean that democracy can not thrive in Pakistan, but democracyin Pakistan will never take root unless the conditions are right. For thoseconditions to be right, the government has to take effective steps to stopthe bloodshed. It has to justify its own existence in the eyes of the Pakistanipeople and more importantly, it has to prove by actions, not words, itscommitment to the welfare of the Pakistani people. In order for democracyto flourish in Pakistan, the people have to believe in the sincerity oftheir government. The ultimate fate of Pakistani democracy rests in thehands of its population. Only they are capable of transforming Pakistaninto a democracy by their own free will. Governments in Pakistan cannotclaim the title of being democratic and neither can they force the peopleto be democratic if they themselves do not amend their ways. The finaltriumph of democracy,in Pakistan will be determined by the perceptionsof the ruled and by the deeds of the rulers and not by hollow electionsthat do not express the true consent of the governed.