Democracy in Pakistan: The Missing Link?

Urstruly #1

You ask:
“What is wrong with having a framework (of morality) to guide democracy and save it from your ever-changing morality. Why is it wrong to have a democracy, which derives its morality from the revelational knowledge-base?”

Iran is probably the only Islamic country where you have a theocratic state and electoral democracy… Does it work? It is my understanding that administrative structures/institutions have hardly noticed any change in their “inner” workings… they are as corrupt, if not more, as they were in the days of Shah.
Also, several well-known Iranian religious scholars, and certainly an overwhelming majority of people have expressed dissatisfaction with the absolute authority of mullahs over everything under the Iranian sun!

The difficulty is that opposition/dissent of absolute authority of Mullahs in Iran now amounts to opposing Allah! Life can get very difficult in theocratic state my friend.

Re: Bilal

A well penned article timed just before the advent of the Local Body polls in Pakistan!

One can only hope that democracy thrives in Pakistan. With the recent rumors abounding concerning the restoration of assemblies, I am skeptical about ``real`` democracy in Pakistan, because it would seem that the ``guardians`` of democracy in Pakistan, the intelligent agencies, will engineer another civilian government to replace them and then two or three years down the road, the cycle will continue again as the military will conquer Pakistan for the fifth time ``in national interests``!

Before we, as a nation, embark on the road towards democracy, it would beneficial if we could answer a simple question concerning our identity and whether we are for theocracy or democracy. The failure to answer this question lies at the root of all our problems and unless we decide who we are as a nation, no political plume d`nom will solve our problems!

Pakistan needs a period of true anarchy before it devolves into a democratic system, because the present political system in Pakistan is an artifical creation of the military mind. Democracy in Pakistan will only exist when Pakistanis will learn to tolerate dissent and would be willing to accomodate a sense of a civic compromise; between total control and plurality of opinions, which chafe at those political controls. Pakistan would have to cease being a theocratic or an ideologue state, because these two conditions do not allow for a healthy political dissent since as it considers dissent to be anti-thetical to its raison d` etre.

Democracy means listening to the messenger without killing the messenger. Are we capable of this act of political maturity, when our history would suggest otherwise?

If time is a crucible in which we all burn, then we will continue to burn for a long time in our quest for democracy, because it will be a long time before a true democracy will flourish in Pakistan. Pakistan will go through a anarchic period, resembling a civil war, because the present political fascade needs to be torn down and replaced with a more equitable and representive system and sadly, such drastic political volte-faces are not justified by mere tinkering of the system, but, rather, with the complete overhaul of the system itself.

Ciao!

Friday, December 15, 2000

General Musharraf, Don`t Restore the Corrupt Parliaments; Pakistan Military Must Set Up A Real Presidential System by Syed Adeeb

For details, see: : http://www.InformationTimes.com

Blessing in Disguise
Najam Sethi`s E d i t o r i a l
The Friday Times (Pakistan)
December 15, 2000

For details, see: http://thefridaytimes.hypermart.net

Dear Prof. Bilal,

Let me put in a further two cents worth, as if I haven`t spouted off enough already. A necessary but not necessarily, ;-), sufficient condition for any effective democracy is the rule of law. I suggest that, along with local body elections, the present government seriously overhaul the existing legal code, remove the contradictions and convolutions that have crept into it over the years--mainly from our attempt to bring it into conformity with the Sharia--and make a serious attempt to enforce it. We don`t need to start from scratch as I am sure we have enough intelligent lawyers to let us overhaul the existing provisions of the law. After a few years of reasonable strict and I hope impartial (OK, thats asking too much, how about less partial?) enforcement of EXISTING law and some practice with local bodies that are actually accountable under the law, and more money being spent on schooling the illiterates, we might be in a position to make a stab at trying democracy again.

Any comments anyone?

Regards.

PS: Prof. Bilal, I think you erred slightly in the two references to James S. Mill. If I remember correctly--faulty memory, right? ;-)--James S. Mill was the father and John. S. Mill was the son. James S. was afraid that the masses could not be trusted with too much democracy as they would immediately vote themselves all of the goods of the rich. John S. agreed with this to an extent but felt that Man was perfectable (over time). That is, given democracy slowly, he would learn to use it wisely. This is why, among other checks and balances, he was in favor of a weighted voting system--e.g., educated, middle-class taxpayers would get five votes while illiterate, casual day laborers would get only one and people on welfare none. This would ensure that the leadership of the nation would remain where it belonged: in the hands of the industrious, hardworking, middle-class. Of course, every effort was to be made to educate the workers/lower-classes to enable them to take their full position in the affairs of the nation. To get them used to taking responsibility, they would be allowed to vote once. Very paternal but something along the lines of Field Marshall Ayub`s Basic Democracies idea: the masses need to be taught democracy slowly.

Lead Letter to the Ed Published DAWN: Dec 15th

Polarization of society

TODAY in Pakistan, there is very little concept of a meaningful Pakistan citizenship as befitting a free people. Sectarian and ethnic identity is how individuals are defined by the state in its relation to society. (And why not, if the government itself uses this form of identity to impose a rigid quota system on jobs and opportunity, instead of merit as the sole criteria).

The reason for this failure to create ``Pakistaniyat``, is the failure of successive governments to provide for the participation of the people in the running of their own country in a meaningful manner and the fact that the national decision-making process has been confined to an un-elected few for much of Pakistan`s history. Thus, relatively few have developed a stake in Pakistan (witness the large number of people fleeing abroad today), and some people have dubbed it, ``a failed state``. This is the strongest case for a democratic Pakistan I can make.

Zia attempted to create a Pakistani identity on the basis of religion alone, but as the Quaid-i-Azam recognized in 1947, even among the Muslims there are significant religious differences. That attempt of Zia to create this definition of a citizenship (``Pakistaniyat``) based on religion, in the absence of representative democratic institutions, and in fact, as a deliberate substitute for them, has led to religious wars being fought in Pakistani streets today, and the polarization of society as never before, 20 years down the road.

That Pakistan has been cursed by corrupt, unaccountable `democrats`, reflects poorly on the workings of the institution of an independent judiciary. What is needed is a powerful, independent prosecutor`s office to investigate and bring charges of corruption against sitting members of the ruling party to deter the plunder as it occurs, and bring them to account and disqualification, while they are in office. This is the democracy Pakistan has never had.

The present government is to be commended for encouraging the growth of real grassroots democracy that will give ordinary Pakistanis a meaningful stake in the country`s affairs.

However, a military government, however transient, needs no thoughtless encouragement from its own citizens to abridge their constitutional liberties. In the Pakistani culture of autocracy, no individual rights can ever be taken for granted.

The growth of law making by ordinances as opposed to the passage of laws by freely-elected parliaments composed of representatives of the people has already worked to erode the very notion of any positive individual rights.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Bilal Ahmad

Thankyou for your response. I will try and imbibe the best out of it.

I am still at odds to understand your statement so far, which majority are you talking about? If you are talking about the majority against the tyranny of which Muslims were forced to make a nation state of their own, I totally agree....

Yasser Hamdani

Bilal Ahmad,

My question is simple...

When a group of people bound together by whatever interests or commonality strive for something and arrive at it through a constitutional arrangement, why should their cause be blamed for the bigotry and intolerance shown by other groups to their achievement? What motivated the murderous rampage in East Punjab? Was it not the intolerance of the fact that Pakistan was created?

You talk about blatant misuse, and what do you say of the Modern Secular India? Are the Golden Temples, Babri Mosques, the plight of the christians, the subhuman conditions of the Dalits, the oppression against the valiant Tamils,

the murder and rape of Kashmir, Nagaland, Assam, North East India? hidden under the cloak of hypocritical Gandhian ideals to which India adheres to? If Gandhi was sincere in what he said, his soul will not find rest of what is going on in India .. not reason enough for Pakistan?

Yes we have fallen short of our ideal as Pakistanis, but we can work on it... Political defeatism is not the way out however.

In any event this is an old argument and I dont wish to argue again and again and again and again with the same fools! This ends here....

Yasser Hamdani

Bilal Ahmad,

And one last thing Mr Ahmad, My generation did not shatter the dream of Jinnah... Yours did...

If we wish to redeem our pledge.... You should atleast be shameful of your generation`s role and not discourage us by your brand of political defeatism the hallmark of your generation.

Have a nice day,

Yasser Hamdani

And I cant engage in debates anymore because I have exams....

2 Fuzair:

The hinderances to sociological and economic imperatives has continually cut out the progress that Pakistani society has made with regards to democracy. The progress is significant not so much to any initiative the political parties may have taken (they`ve taken very little), but to what they will have to take (and were forced to take) considering the changing socio-economic forces.

The last census (I believe) shows the urban portion of the Pakitsani population to be over 40%. However, the electoral district demarcations do not reflect this change in population movement. Large rural populations will be included in the same district as part of a cities population to negate the effects of urbanization. Keeping in mind Pakistan`s rural-feudal minded politics, urbanization- resulting from socio-economic reasons- would be considered a threat. Thus a continual persistance with old electoral demarcations.

My point is that there is an evolutionary process going on as forces of society and `informal` economy move. Cities of Pakistan witness a 5-6% population growth rate vs. the 3% figure nationally. Safe to say, the larger percentage is due to population movement and not an urban birth boom. And this movement HAS to translate into political change. Democracy- truncated or not- will cater to that. Dictatorships hinder the possibiilty for this change to occur as they inherently favor a status quo (military ones especially). If we assume an evolutionary process unfolding, we have to be liberal with patience. My 22.360 years have seen that Pakistani society has witnessed socio-economic changes which will HAVE to be translated into political reality (positive and negative). `When` should not be so much a concern - but examples show change is only made when things reach a boiling point.

As far as `revolution` goes, that`s always seemed an out-of-place possibility. Some societies cannot show revolutionary zeals- their zeals rest with strong charismatic personalities i.e Bhutto.

Though I`m resentful of Islamic politics in Pakistan, Iran has shown (for itself) to be above the base-practice of Islam. Being the only `real` Islamic republic, it has shown a remarkable level of sophistication. Practices of Islamic concepts of `ijtihaad` aside, Iran was blessed with certain other factors that helped the clergy i.e. deep respect of the Mullah by the local population - in Pakistan the Mullah has no respect.

Lead letter to the Editor in Dawn, December 15th

Polarization of society

TODAY in Pakistan, there is very little concept of a meaningful Pakistan citizenship as befitting a free people. Sectarian and ethnic identity is how individuals are defined by the state in its relation to society. (And why not, if the government itself uses this form of identity to impose a rigid quota system on jobs and opportunity, instead of merit as the sole criteria).

The reason for this failure to create ``Pakistaniyat``, is the failure of successive governments to provide for the participation of the people in the running of their own country in a meaningful manner and the fact that the national decision-making process has been confined to an un-elected few for much of Pakistan`s history. Thus, relatively few have developed a stake in Pakistan (witness the large number of people fleeing abroad today), and some people have dubbed it, ``a failed state``. This is the strongest case for a democratic Pakistan I can make.

Zia attempted to create a Pakistani identity on the basis of religion alone, but as the Quaid-i-Azam recognized in 1947, even among the Muslims there are significant religious differences. That attempt of Zia to create this definition of a citizenship (``Pakistaniyat``) based on religion, in the absence of representative democratic institutions, and in fact, as a deliberate substitute for them, has led to religious wars being fought in Pakistani streets today, and the polarization of society as never before, 20 years down the road.

That Pakistan has been cursed by corrupt, unaccountable `democrats`, reflects poorly on the workings of the institution of an independent judiciary. What is needed is a powerful, independent prosecutor`s office to investigate and bring charges of corruption against sitting members of the ruling party to deter the plunder as it occurs, and bring them to account and disqualification, while they are in office. This is the democracy Pakistan has never had.

The present government is to be commended for encouraging the growth of real grassroots democracy that will give ordinary Pakistanis a meaningful stake in the country`s affairs.

However, a military government, however transient, needs no thoughtless encouragement from its own citizens to abridge their constitutional liberties. In the Pakistani culture of autocracy, no individual rights can ever be taken for granted.

The growth of law making by ordinances as opposed to the passage of laws by freely-elected parliaments composed of representatives of the people has already worked to erode the very notion of any positive individual rights.

OMAR MIRZA

New York, USA

Re: ahmadb#8

Great article -- you said it right. Reply #8 -- right on target, again! I wish to congratulate you on writing a lucid article. Of late, many authors (while making valid points) did not really know how to articulate their thoughts well. Your article was a refreshingly different.

Also, BTW, did you notice that Musharraf has plans to annoint himself President after deposing the current one? (http://news.india-today.com/ntoday/newsarchives/100/12/15/n79.shtml)

This is a despicable, cowardly manner to get around a court order for the army to return to the barracks. This is a new nadir in demonstrating arrogance and abuse of power that the Musharraf regime has reached -- closed door deals on everything from the NS release to changing the system of government overnight without debate, with nary a thought as to how the average Pakistani feels! Does Musharraf not know that the Presidential system works well only with lots of checks and balances (e.g. independent courst and not those swearing by a PCO, and an independent legislature)? Does Musharraf not know that the Presidential system works well only in homogenous societies, and not in multi-ethnic ones like Pakistan. Even if, over these objections, should a Presidential system be adopted, should there not be any debate first to win over all ethnic groups (especially those that can never hope to high office in a winner-take-all system? What will be the relationship between the President and the legislature? How will deadlocks be broken?

As if the Zia Ul Haq family has not damaged Pakistan already, his son is being considered for the post of a minister. Musharraf is no Ataturk.

Re: Fuzair #3

``The US constitution can be amended, albeit with great difficulty, when people realize that it is getting out of touch with society, but the Koran (in the present circumstances) is the fixed and unchanging 1500 (OK, 700 hundred if you are a liberal Muslim) year old and hopelessly obsolete Word of God delivered to a 7th Century, not terribly sophisticated, society. Do we really need to abide by the 1/40th rate of taxation (zakat) fixed in the Koran?``

You have hit the nail on the head, Fuzair. I think that by declaring Pakistan to be an `Islamic Republic` (a fact so obvious that there was no need to advertise the Republic as such), the Pakistan constitution framers have unwittingly pitted the Koran against a liberal interpretation in a needless contest. Now, with the damage done, all government actions have to be vetted against the Koran (as if good governance was not hard enough already). Back-tracking now will be difficult and not easy. I wonder if Mr. Jinnah is turning in his grave in dismay at the mere thought?

This paper would probably have earned a B in a course on political science in the Junior year, a C in the senior year and a polite rejection from journals of academic repute. Here is why:

1)It tries to dissect democracy as some sort of a physical pheonomenon measurable by certain rules and laws. Whereas this approach is adopted ad nauseum in more physical sciences(change one variable keep the rest constant), its application to an amorphous concept such as democracy is dubious to say the least.

2)The linkages between culture and democracy have been given a short shift in the article.Trying to apply Dahl`s metrics to the Pakistani situation is akin to applying robotics laws to the antics of Nawab Nasrullah. Each one of Dahl`s requirements encompasses contentious issues even in the so-called modern democratic societies. I`d be happy to provide examples if the author so desires. The metric breaks down completely if applied to democracies in la-la lands like India.

3)The army is described as an institution that will oversee the transition to democracy(and maybe a democratic mindset). This is like expecting Dracula to all of a sudden develop a penchant for Rooh Afza(bad example I know). PM and his cohorts asked to read this article will probably fall asleep in exactly 22 seconds. Army has never given up power in Pakistan voluntarily and never will. Democracy to them is a necessary evil that has to be controlled at all costs.

There are probably dossiers of information on the likes of Bilal Ahmed in the ISI offices on Jail road. Its filed under ``Indian Agents``........:)

later

-sac

In response to Fuzair (Reply # 16)
Dear Fuzair:

Yes, you are right. My first reference should have been John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) not ``James`` S. Mill, while the second one should have been James Mill (1773-1836) who was the father of John Stuart Mill. James Mill spelled out and advanced the utilitarian doctrine of the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

Thanks for the correction. I apologize for my sloppiness.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I am not sure if James Mill had a middle name.