Tweet
It is quite obvious that even at the best of times in its political history Pakistan is, and continues to be, a non-representative democracy (the term non-representative being used here to imply lack of representation rather than a form of indirect democracy). Finding meaningful representation at the national and provincial levels remains an elusive goal for the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. Pakistan’s hollow democracy does not empower the masses of Pakistan and common people’s interests and concerns fail to inform the country’s political agenda.
The idea behind representative democracy is that at the national level where direct democracy — i.e. legislative participation by the entire population — is an impossibility, highly educated and well trained representatives who act as guardians of the public interest be elected to the legislature. A high level of education does not necessarily imply having a formal degree from an institution of higher learning; candidates can be learned and wise without having a testimonial in the form of a certificate. The elected representatives are not always expected to vote exactly according to the wishes of their constituents but they are supposed to understand the needs of the people they represent and provide leadership by exercising their best judgment in voting on issues. In Pakistan, this entire notion of representation has been turned on its head. Instead of well educated, wise, and learned representatives, the people end up electing swains, country bumpkins, and fake degree holders along with a few polished demagogues who profess to represent the commoners’ interests.
The problem started right at the inception of the country. Mr Jinnah is supposed to have complained of the disproportionate composition of the Muslim League in favour of the landed interests. Unlike the west, where democracy was the natural consequence of plebeians attaining greater freedoms and consequent representation at the expense of the ruling classes, Pakistan’s democracy started as a reinforcement of traditional patterns of subordination and non-representation; the big landlords became the leading democrats of the newly established country. The fact that at independence there was virtually no modernising industrialist class that could demand real democracy and rule of law did not help matters. In time, an industrial as well as a middle class of sorts did develop, but by then the rot had already set in and politics in Pakistan came to be characterised by a combination of rural and urban power monopolies at the top. These monopolies have prevented vibrant political parties from emerging. Commoners who are supposed to find representation through political parties have little success when the parties are dominated by powerful rural-urban elites. The entrenched political elites, much like the ancient feudal lords, create patron-client networks and dole out party tickets and favours in their own best interests. Given rotten choices, people end up voting rotten parliaments into power. Elections, sometimes relatively free and fair, do create a façade of democracy, but the real substance of democracy in the form of accountability of the rulers, enhanced human and civil rights, civilian control of the army, independent institutions, and real mass participation in the democratic process is never achieved. In fact these ideals are hardly even sought after.
People go to the polls knowing full well that they are voting incompetence, corruption, venality, and greed into the highest offices of the country. The masses have no alternative, for the choices have already been circumscribed by the elites, and those who have the wherewithal for running as independents are hardly the masses to begin with. The non-representative character of the elected is evidenced not only in their apathy towards public-friendly legislation but also in their blatant public support of the corrupt and unprincipled behaviour of their top leaders — their patrons rather, to be more precise. Such politicians are apologists, licking at the heels of the powerful and they are galore in Pakistan’s political parties. Since the tainted political lives of the top leaders are no secret, the followers’ unequivocal support for the patron’s behaviour raises a deeper issue about Pakistan’s democracy. The issue simply is that in order for such collusion of the unprincipled to come about, unethical concessions must be extended and promises of condoning bad behaviour must be made. Such politics of quid pro quo naturally leads to bad governance. Corruption feeds upon corruption until the behemoth of corruption engulfs the entire society and deforms our values.
The consequences of the non-representative character of Pakistani politics are many. The foremost outcome of this debauched system of politics and governance is that people have lost faith that the government works for their welfare. To the common man, the successive governments he voted into office have become one more set of predators amongst many others that prey upon his rights and privileges as a citizen. In this adversarial relationship, mistrust of the state institutions has become commonplace and a culture of cynicism has taken root. The culture of non-representation has also helped demoralise the people of Pakistan. The people can see that they are not the arbiters of their own affairs. They feel powerless and this, in turn, breeds despondency, discontent, and eventual alienation from the system. Furthermore, without accountability, grabbing political power has become a very lucrative endeavour — a means of multiplying one’s wealth many times over. This is especially true of the top leadership of the major political parties whose tenure in office has happily coincided with fabulous increases in personal and family wealth.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ralphshaw11@gmail.com
The idea behind representative democracy is that at the national level where direct democracy — i.e. legislative participation by the entire population — is an impossibility, highly educated and well trained representatives who act as guardians of the public interest be elected to the legislature. A high level of education does not necessarily imply having a formal degree from an institution of higher learning; candidates can be learned and wise without having a testimonial in the form of a certificate. The elected representatives are not always expected to vote exactly according to the wishes of their constituents but they are supposed to understand the needs of the people they represent and provide leadership by exercising their best judgment in voting on issues. In Pakistan, this entire notion of representation has been turned on its head. Instead of well educated, wise, and learned representatives, the people end up electing swains, country bumpkins, and fake degree holders along with a few polished demagogues who profess to represent the commoners’ interests.
The problem started right at the inception of the country. Mr Jinnah is supposed to have complained of the disproportionate composition of the Muslim League in favour of the landed interests. Unlike the west, where democracy was the natural consequence of plebeians attaining greater freedoms and consequent representation at the expense of the ruling classes, Pakistan’s democracy started as a reinforcement of traditional patterns of subordination and non-representation; the big landlords became the leading democrats of the newly established country. The fact that at independence there was virtually no modernising industrialist class that could demand real democracy and rule of law did not help matters. In time, an industrial as well as a middle class of sorts did develop, but by then the rot had already set in and politics in Pakistan came to be characterised by a combination of rural and urban power monopolies at the top. These monopolies have prevented vibrant political parties from emerging. Commoners who are supposed to find representation through political parties have little success when the parties are dominated by powerful rural-urban elites. The entrenched political elites, much like the ancient feudal lords, create patron-client networks and dole out party tickets and favours in their own best interests. Given rotten choices, people end up voting rotten parliaments into power. Elections, sometimes relatively free and fair, do create a façade of democracy, but the real substance of democracy in the form of accountability of the rulers, enhanced human and civil rights, civilian control of the army, independent institutions, and real mass participation in the democratic process is never achieved. In fact these ideals are hardly even sought after.
People go to the polls knowing full well that they are voting incompetence, corruption, venality, and greed into the highest offices of the country. The masses have no alternative, for the choices have already been circumscribed by the elites, and those who have the wherewithal for running as independents are hardly the masses to begin with. The non-representative character of the elected is evidenced not only in their apathy towards public-friendly legislation but also in their blatant public support of the corrupt and unprincipled behaviour of their top leaders — their patrons rather, to be more precise. Such politicians are apologists, licking at the heels of the powerful and they are galore in Pakistan’s political parties. Since the tainted political lives of the top leaders are no secret, the followers’ unequivocal support for the patron’s behaviour raises a deeper issue about Pakistan’s democracy. The issue simply is that in order for such collusion of the unprincipled to come about, unethical concessions must be extended and promises of condoning bad behaviour must be made. Such politics of quid pro quo naturally leads to bad governance. Corruption feeds upon corruption until the behemoth of corruption engulfs the entire society and deforms our values.
The consequences of the non-representative character of Pakistani politics are many. The foremost outcome of this debauched system of politics and governance is that people have lost faith that the government works for their welfare. To the common man, the successive governments he voted into office have become one more set of predators amongst many others that prey upon his rights and privileges as a citizen. In this adversarial relationship, mistrust of the state institutions has become commonplace and a culture of cynicism has taken root. The culture of non-representation has also helped demoralise the people of Pakistan. The people can see that they are not the arbiters of their own affairs. They feel powerless and this, in turn, breeds despondency, discontent, and eventual alienation from the system. Furthermore, without accountability, grabbing political power has become a very lucrative endeavour — a means of multiplying one’s wealth many times over. This is especially true of the top leadership of the major political parties whose tenure in office has happily coincided with fabulous increases in personal and family wealth.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ralphshaw11@gmail.com