Sham Democracy, But Still A Possible Solution.

The political history of Pakistan is marred by repeated military coups and a rich tradition of people sacrificing

their lives for the restoration of democratic rule in the country. Ironically, successive civilian governments failed

to deliver on public goods.

One of the main reasons for this failure is the classist nature of our ruling elite. Pakistan failed to dismantle local

power configurations. Patron-client relationships especially in the context of governance failure remained intact.

The dynastic nature of political parties, lack of voter’s education, poverty and the increasing role of money and

violence in politics make the political arena exclusively a male prerogative. Electoral processes keep on

bringing the same old tribal, feudal and capitalist class in power. Within this larger context, the return of the

time-tested political elite, having no commitment to people’s welfare in the 2018 election is no surprise.

Elections in Pakistan have been notoriously flawed and blemished with political engineering and violence.

However, the level of brazen pre-election manipulation in election 2018 has been unprecedented. Also the way

‘electables’ changed their political loyalties shamelessly before the election and the formulation of unnatural

alliances of political forces in the post-election phase to form government shows that there is a death of ideology

in Pakistani politics.

It is inquisitorial why people in Pakistan who have experienced only an illiberal, elite form of democracy

remained committed to the democratic rule in the country? This is clearly evident from the voter turnout,

consistently rising since 1988 — 35% in 1997 to 51.85% in 2018 election.

Democracy is the only system of governance that brings citizens to the centre of power politics. It establishes

the principle of equality amongst citizens irrespective of their class, gender, ethnicity or religious background.

Democracy invests the power of vote equally in poor and the marginalised sections of society. Elections compel

the arrogant political elite to reach out to the poor, beg for votes and make promises for their uplift. Continuity

in the democratic system of governance has the potential to open the gateway of accountability of elected

representatives. We have already witnessed people holding candidates accountable for their performance during

their election campaigns. Voters’ aggressive questioning stunned ‘electables’. Many candidates could not digest

public accountability and were seen leaving the crowd angrily. Continuity of the democratic system is critical. If

politicians know that they had to face the electorates in the next election, they would be forced to improve their

performance.
Transfer of power through election in the last two terms has already unleashed promising social dynamics in the

political arena of the country. Political parties are forced to give representation to the marginalised sections of

society to promote their pro-people image. Women, religious minorities, persons with disabilities and

transgender communities also found some space in democracy to voice their issues and field their own

candidates in the election.

The number of women who contested the election in 2018 is unprecedented in the electoral history of Pakistan.

Out of 171 women candidates for the National Assembly, 105 were awarded tickets by the political parties.

Similarly six candidates from religious minorities got elected and five transgender contested election. Electoral

democracy, even though flawed and failing to deliver, is the only system that has the potential to create space

for the representation of all segments of society.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, dominated by the old political elite, has transformative claims. The only way to

correct the dysfunctional politics of the elite is through building strong people’s resistance movements. Civil

society must mobilise the social and political imagination of people to reclaim democracy. The democratisation

of democracy and strong public accountability is the only way to ensure that the wealthy and powerful in the

upcoming government do not use state power to serve their own vested interests but use it to improve

governance and people’s wellbeing.

DEMOCRACY WITHOUT DEMOCRATIZATION

Equality of citizens and inclusion of their voices in political decision-making is a fundamental

element of democracy and democratic governance. The experience of democracy varies depending

on the specificities of socio-cultural, economic and political context of the country. The world has

experimented with different liberal, social, elite and managed forms of democracies.

At a recently-held Asia-Europe People’s Forum in Ghent, Brussels, attended by over 450 women

and men belonging to diverse backgrounds from over 48 countries across Asia and Europe, a deep

concern was expressed over the continuing challenges to the participatory democratic governance in

the context of their respective countries. There was not a single mature or not so mature democracy

that reported full realisation of civil and political rights. Global corporate capitalism and policies of

liberalisation that have resulted in massive poverty and inequality were identified as the key

structural barrier to inclusive democratic governance.

People in Pakistan pin a great deal of hope in democracy. It is important to keep in mind that

democracy as a system of governance works within a larger socio-economic context that is shaped

by patriarchal values and capitalist exploitation. Major challenges to participatory democra cy come

from inequalities largely transformed into political exclusion of socially marginalised sections of

society.

Pakistan’s journey to democracy has been quite turbulent. Only the last two democratically -elected

governments were given a chance to complete a five-year term, first in 2008-2013 and the second in

2013-2018. Even though elected governments also failed to deliver on public services and continued

with the same social, economic and foreign policies of military dictatorships that had hardly serv ed

the country well.

This year’s election was a vote for “change” and people voted the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)

into power. However unprecedented measures taken by “government of change” in the first two

months dashed all hopes of the poor for a “Naya Pakistan.” Brutal economic decisions of the newly-

elected government set in motion steeper price hikes of utilities and food items, that have frustrated

the poor and marginalised those who trusted Imran Khan’s goodwill the most.

It is important for us to understand that democracy is not about elections alone. In the absence of

democratic values in society and lack of democratisation of political structures, democratic process

of the election simply reinforces the existing power configuration and entrenche s them even further

by entrusting them with state power.

Though well-meaning Imran Khan with a team drawn mainly from the political old guard is unable

to take hard decisions that could have brought real change. It is not something new that a newly -

elected government has inherited a near-to-default economy. This has been the mantra of all elected

and non-elected governments that the pervious government had left the economy in a shambles and

the treasury is virtually empty. Yet, none of the previous governments created as much economic

havoc as the PTI has.

It is disappointing that the “government of change” chose the usual easy path to transfer economic

burden onto the poor and the marginalised by increasing utility prices and slashing health and

education budget. It sounds bizarre but why Imran Khan cannot give a call to the feudal class,

business community and political elite to come forward, make sacrifices for the sake of the country.
Wealth tax can be imposed on income derived from agriculture. Our feudal class has not been

paying nominal taxes (only 1%) whereas agriculture’s share in GDP is around 19 %. These are the
tough decisions that people were expecting from Khan’s government to take in “Naya Pakistan .”

GENDER INEQUALITY
akistan is ranked at the 141th position in the Global Gender Gap Report (GGGR), 2014, the second lowest spot
on a list of 142 countries. The report, produced by the World Economic Forum, assesses the magnitude of
gender disparities in the four areas of health, education, economy and politics. Researchers and academicians
may have reservations over the methodology used in conducting such an assessment, thinking of them as
flawed. Nevertheless, the bottom position held by Pakistan in the world community certainly resonates with the
ground realities of women in the country.

The status of women in any society is linked to the overall socio-cultural, economic and political development
of the country. Pakistan is faced with multiple social, economic and political crises. Crushing poverty, high
unemployment, extremism, religious bigotry, sectarian conflicts and the breakdown of rule of law affect every
citizen. However, the majority of women, especially those belonging to the working class and peasantry, are hit
harder and suffer the most from societal conflicts and the erosion of the state because of their class and gender.
The stark gender disparities in all spheres of life in Pakistan are the result of gender role ideology and the low
investment in women’s human capital by the family and the state.

Women are the poorest of the poor. They lack access to the fundamental rights of education, health,
employment, protection from violence and human dignity. Only 18 percent of women have reached secondary
and higher education (UN Human Development Report, 2013). According to the World Development Report of
the World Bank, 28 percent of women hold jobs in the formal sector of the economy. Some 70 percent of the
labour force working in the informal economy, which is three times bigger than the formal economy, consists of
women. The health status of women is extremely poor with the highest maternal mortality rate in the world. As
many as 250 women die every 100,000 live births. Every ninth woman in the country is at risk of getting breast
cancer. Women’s voices are missing in policy making as they are hardly present in a decision-making position
within community structures and also in public institutions. Out of 21 percent women in parliament, 17 percent
have come indirectly on the reserved seats and not a single woman has the status of full minister in the cabinet.

Pakistan is considered one of the most dangerous places for women to live. The prevalence rate and the
gruesome nature of crimes committed against women is nerve wracking. Women are frequently killed in the
name of honour, sold and exchanged as commodities in marriages and to settle disputes amongst men. They can
be killed for giving birth to female children, even for singing and dancing. Incidents of rape, gang rape,
kidnapping, trafficking, acid throwing, sexual harassment, cutting off hair and chopping off facial features to
punish and humiliate them are frequently reported in the print and national media.

There are two key reasons behind why the country is a most dangerous place for women: a) the existence of a
legal basis to commit violence against women in legislation such as the Hadood Ordinace, Qisas and Diyat law,
law of evidence and honour killing law that makes honour killing a compoundable offence, and (b) the culture
of impunity in cases of violence against women. The conviction rate in gender-based crimes is negligible.
Justice is even denied in the most high profile cases of violence such as in the case of Mukhtaran Mai and the
Kohistan video. This clearly signals the state’s unwillingness to protect women from the oppression of private
patriarchy.

The lack of the state’s willingness to redress gender disparities is discernible from the discriminatory legislation
that continues to be on the statute book. Pakistan is signatory to several human rights conventions and covenants
including the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) that
obligates state parties to bring domestic law into line with international human rights standards. Pakistan’s legal
framework continues to treat women as second-class citizens.
Apart from the depressing ranking of Pakistan in the GGG report, the most striking feature in this report, for me,
was to spot Rwanda at the seventh position on this list. It is a country riddled with ethnic conflict, a genocide
and civil war in which an estimated 800,000 people belonging to the Tutsi and Hutu tribes were killed in 1994.
The social and economic fabric of this society was in complete shambles. And yet the country climbed to the
seventh position in the GGG index in just one decade. It has 56 percent women in parliament, the highest in the
world.

There is a lot to be learnt from the experience of Rwanda. The most important underlying factor in making
Rwanda a land of gender equality is the state’s commitment to gender equality and the recognition of women as
key players in nation and state building. In addition to granting women legal equality, institutional targeting of
women and gender accountability of state institutions helped Rwanda bridge the gender gap in such a short
period of time.

If we wish to be counted as a civilised nation, we need to treat our women as equals. The will of the state to
remove disparities is the most critical. However, it should be clear that no state can achieve the goal of gender
equality without removing the material and structural basis of gender disparities. In a class context, demanding
gender equality means equality in sharing miseries, poverty, unemployment and the disadvantages of men.
Thus, issues of gender equality must be linked with social justice in society. The fight for gender justice must be
linked to social movements fighting for class justice.

Two faces of democracy

IT seems that a section of population in Pakistan is perpetually infatuated by the presidential form of
government. Although a unanimously passed Constitution of 1973 had settled the question in favour of a
parliamentary system 46 years ago, the question keeps coming back periodically. At times, it seems as if some
interested quarters are test-ballooning to see if a critical mass of public opinion is supportive of the presidential
system. The question is once again doing the rounds these days, especially on social media and some electronic
media outlets.
Despite the passionate pleading by some media persons, there doesn`t seem to be any real support on the
ground for a shift to the presidential form.
None of the federal or provincial legislatures have ever debated the question, what to talk of passing any
resolution in support of the presidential system.
Even if there is little support for the presidential system, there is nothing wrong in expressing opinions in its
favour or advancing arguments in its support. It is equally acceptable that advocates of the presidential system
try to convince public opinion in favour of their point of view using the democratic means available to
everyone.
A healthy debate based on logic, facts and figures is a part of the democratic culture and if at any point in time
the majority of public opinion turns in favour of the presidential system manifesting in a referendum, and both
houses of the parliament amend the constitution accordingly, there will be nothing wrong in making the switch.
After all, Sri Lanka made that switch following democratic norms some years bacl( and Turkey has done the
same only a year ago.
It is, however, surprising that when there are more pressing issues facing democracy in Pakistan, a segment of
public opinion considers it important to debate the pros and cons of the presidential system. The subject of an
effective local government system, for example, is far more central to the cause of deepening democracy and
bringing the fruits of democracy to the grass-roots level. The question about the type of local government
system is urgent too as the provincial governments arebusy shaping the future local government system in each
province ahead of the next local government elections.
There seems to be a consistent support for a parllamentary form of government in Pakistan over the past many
years. The first constitution of Pakistan was passed by the Constituent Assembly in 1956 which provided for a
parliamentary form of government. Earlier, Pakistan had inherited a parllamentary form of government from
Britain after independence and continued practising it for 11 years when a military coup toppled the
government of prime minister Sir Feroze Khan Noon in 1958. The 1956 constitution was abrogated following
the declaration of martial law and the military leader General Ayub Khan experimented with a unique form of
presidential system which had to be abandoned under widespread public agitation leading to another martial
law in 1969. When the country returned to democracy after the traumatic period of martial law, a civil war and
dismemberment of the country, a new constitution was unanimously passed in 1973 which again provided for a
parliamentary form of government. Despite the military interventions and extended military rules, the 1973
Constitution and the parliamentary form of government returned whenever democracy was restored. It is
because of consistent public sanction that the Constitution and the parliamentary system of government
continue in Pakistan to date.
Ten general elections have been conducted in Pakistan under the 1973 Constitution so far but the change in the
system of government never figured as an issue in any of these elections. A review of the election manifestos
of major political parties further testifies that none of the mainstream political parties has ever proposed the
presidential form of government. All these facts indicate that changing the parliamentary form of government
to a presidential system has never been a public issue or an issue among the political parties and legislatures.
The presidential system is usually preferred because it is considered relatively stable whereas prime ministers
can be removed with relative ease through a no-confidence motion passed with a sim-ple majority. Over a
period of time, the Constitution has evolved and so has the parliamentary form of government in such a way
that most of the shortcomings associated with it have been overcome.
Because of the frequent changes in governments during the initial 11 years of parliamentary democracy in
Pakistan, several provisions were built into the 1973 Constitution to guard against political instability.
The Constitution has further evolved since and the prime minister`s position has proven to be quite stable, at
least politically. Judicial, military and presidential interventions aside, no prime minister has been removed
through a no-trust motion in the National Assembly since the passage of the 1973 Constitution. The
presidential power to dissolve the National Assembly and send the prime minister home which was introduced
and reintroduced into the Constitution by the military rulers has also been done away with. Floor-crossing by
members of the National Assembly to destabilise the government has also been made extremely difficult
through constitutional provisions. With these innovative provisions, the parliamentary system in Pakistan has
become almost as stable as a presidential system.
Even in a presidential system like that in the US, the stalemate between the legislature and the president can`t
be ruled out. There have been several breakdowns in the past years including a recent one in the US federal
government because of differences between the Congress and the president on the budget. The argument of
instability is therefore equally applicable to a presidential form of government.
Pakistan has been successfully practising the parliamentary system for the last many decades and there is
apparently no justification to artificially replace it with a presidential system under the pretext of a mythical
instability.

Betting on presidential rule

WHETHER Pakistan will be better off with a presidential system of government or not the debate is perennial.
But the proposition now seems to have assumed a more serious connotation. There is a growing scepticism
within the ruling PTI and the establishment over the viability of the existing parliamentary democracy.
In a recent media interview, President Arif Alvi revealed that the PTI has seriously been discussing whether to
switch to a presidential rule. For many in the party, only a centralised power structure could ensure political
and economic stability in the country. Such arguments are not new. They manifest an increasing tendency
towards authoritarianism. It`s more about the crisis of governance rather than failure of parliamentary
democracy.
Surely, the parliamentary system has its flaws and does not havean enviable record when it comes to
performance.
But a unitary form of government doesn`t provide a solution to the problems. In fact, an attempt to
return to a centralised state will have very serious political repercussions. The controversy over the 18th
Amendment is also a part of the move to weaken the federal structure. Such attempts could widen various
political and ethnic fault lines.
What is needed is to reform the existing system rather than move toward a more centralised power structure. A
major problem hindering the democratic process is 1. that there has been no fundamental change in
Pakistan`s political power structure.
A small power elite has dominated the country`s political scene under both civilian and military rule. The
extractive nature of the state`s institutions has prevented the country from embarl(ing on a path of economic
and political progress.
Despite the economic and social changes that have occurred over the past 70 years, the stranglehold of family-
oriented politics has been perpetuated. A limited number of influential families continue to control Pakistani
legislatures. A sense of dynastic entitlement dominates the country`s political culture, impeding the
development of institutional democracy.
With few exceptions, almost all the political parties are an extension of powerful families with hereditary
leadership. This decadent power structure has been strengthened by authoritarian military regimes that have
ruled the country for the largerpartofitshistory.The controlexercisedby a narrow oligarchy has impeded the
critical structural reforms needed for sustainable economic development and for strengthening democratic and
economic institutions.
Another challenge hindering the democratic process is that Pakistani politics has increasingly become region-
based, with even the mainstream national political parties now focusing on their provincial strongholds. This
regionalisation of politics has also been a factor in the country`s failure to build a national narrative on critical
issues. While the 18th Amendment has turned Pakistan into a truly federal democracy by giving the provinces
greater autonomy, the failure to further devolve power remains a major problem.Some promoters of the
presidential form of government contend that the economy performs much better under authoritarian regimes.
This is a completely flawed argument. The relatively high economic growth achieved under military rule had
mainly been driven by massive foreign aid as payback for the military`s services in various American wars.
The increasing dependence on foreign financial support had also been a major factor in our failure to carry out
any structural reform that could put the country on the path to sustained economic progress. There had been
very little investment in the development of human infrastructure. Education, health and population planning
remained on the lowest rung of priorities.
That has been one of the major reasons for our backwardness. Imran Khan does not hide his admiration for
Ayub Khan and other military rulers for their development work. But he forgets to mention much else. Thirty
years of direct military rule has also been responsible for the country falling behind in all social indicators.
Interestingly, all the military governments in Pakistan had tried to civilianise themselves, thus strengthening
the power structure that remains the basic obstacle in the way of the development of democratic culture and
economic progress.
Whether the presidential order suits the country more is a futile debate. It will not be possible for the PTI
government or for the establishment to change the Constitution. Imran Khan is neither Recep Erdoñan, nor is
Pakistan Turl(ey. A unitary form of government cannot keep a multinational country united. A presidential
form of government does not provide the solution to our complex political and financial problems.
Instead of trying to change the system, the government must focus on removing the shortcomings in the
existing political order by working with other political forces. The country cannot afford to experiment with a
system that has long been thrown into the dustbin of history

A system for the people

Listen

The suggestion in some circles to replace the current democratic system with that of a presidential one seems to

have triggered a debate about parliamentary politics.

Sceptics believe that the suggestion reeks of a conspiracy to derail the system, fearing it might tear down not

only the social fabric of the country but undermine the federation as well which has been harmed by a cabal of

conspirators who broached the similar ideas in the past.

It is true that the presidential system proved to be catastrophic for the country. General-cum-president Ayub

Khan sowed the seeds of the country’s dismemberment by showing contempt for the Bengalis, who have been

seen by many as the vanguard in Pakistan’s movement; Ayub’s successor presided over the fall of Dhaka in

1971. They also dragged Pakistan into cold-war rivalries, turning the country into a stooge for Western interests

that used Pakistan as a launching pad against the mighty Soviet Union.
Gen Ziaul Haq not only unleashed a reign of terror – sending political workers to the gallows, imprisoning

activists, gagging media, banning political associations and flogging journalists – but also plunged the country

into the quagmire of sectarianism, ethnic strife, Kalashnikov culture and drugs warfare. His retrogressive

policies led to the rise of obscurantist forces that are now tearing our social fabric apart. His patronage of

extremist elements encouraged a myriad of such outfits to challenge the authority of the state, pushing Pakistan

into a bloody religious insurgency that claimed more than 50,000 lives and caused a loss of over $200 billion to

the country.

The policies of self-elected president Gen Musharraf also inflicted deep wounds on the soul of the country. He

banished the two most popular leaders of the country, creating a political vacuum to be filled by the religious

right. Orthodox forces made great political strides during his tenure, demonstrating a presence in parliament

they had never enjoyed in the past. His disastrous handling of Balochistan triggered a nationalist insurgency that

is still causing havoc.

However, the blunders of these dictators should not blind us to the sheer incompetence of civilian leadership,

misgovernance of our elected representatives and the rampant corruption that was committed in the name of

democracy. The dictatorial attitude of our political elite does not want powers to be devolved to the grassroots

levels. Which is why we should question why our political parties have always been reluctant in holding local

bodies’ polls in time and why only dictators have held such polls (albeit with malevolent intentions). Yes,

autocratic regimes failed to ameliorate people’s lives but why did democracies not extend relief and succour to

the hapless public?

It is very unfortunate that our pompous political elite tends to act like an elected monarchy that hates to be held

accountable for its misdeeds. It talks about the sanctity of parliament but hardly attends its sessions; the N-

League in particular hardly showed up in parliament. Ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif made more foreign trips

than trips to the National Assembly and Senate. His ministers followed the same path.

Politicians may hurl insults at Imran Khan for stuffing his ranks with political turncoats but which political party

can claim an exception in this matter? The first government of Benazir Bhutto doled out the award of

democracy to those that derailed the system again and again. Nawaz Sharif stabbed Mohammad Khan Junejo in

the back, while also establishing the notorious Ehtesab Commission, imprisoning journalists and attempting to

become the ‘ameer-ul-momineen’. Despite being stung by political opportunists in the past, he opened his doors

to such elements in 2008 and 2013 – only to be betrayed again.

Our political elite also remained scornful towards the idea of devolving powers. What is the justification for

strengthening the colonial-era police system? Which definition of democracy allows the sort of local bodies

system we have in Sindh and Punjab? Which democratic principles permit the Sindh government to even keep

in its own hands work such as cleaning up garbage, laying out building rules, cleaning the city and supplying

water? Do politicians in the UK run local governments through a coterie of district police officers and deputy

commissioners? Are the French or American governments run by a cloistered group of bureaucrats? In our case,

former Punjab CM Shahbaz Sharif not only hated attending assembly sessions, he would also love to run the

largest province with the help of a few bureaucrats and deputy commissioners.

These things could have been overlooked if the situation of the people on the ground had been improved. But

the bitter truth reflects the apathy of the political elite towards the very people that vote them into power. More

than 60 million people live below the poverty line; 67 percent are bereft of adequate housing; 44 percent

children are stunted; 25 million children are out of school; 80 percent diseases are water-born; hepatitis has

become epidemic in parts of Sindh and Punjab; Balochistan is witnessing the highest mortality rate and

malnutrition in terms of population proportion; more than 20 million Pakistanis are condemned to live like semi-

human beings in squatter settlements and slums; and millions of the youth are jobless. The story does not end

here. The rising inflation, the sledgehammer tactics of the police against the most vulnerable groups of society

and discriminatory laws against minorities fly in the face of tall claims by politicians.

This criticism of democratic leaders does not mean that one should start heaping eulogies on the alternative.

After all, it was democratic forces that struggled for Pakistan, gifted it with a constitution, made tremendous

sacrifices for the restoration of democracy, abolished some retrogressive laws, consolidated defence by

acquiring nuclear technology, addressed some of the grievances of federating units, attempted to normalize ties

with neighbours, introduced heavy industries, brought back war prisoners, detected the threat of extremism and

gave a neutral outlook to Pakistan’s foreign policy.

The threat of derailment of the system could be real. The victory of Netanyahu in Israel and a possible triumph

of Trump in the next elections could trigger a political chaos in the region. The history of Pakistan tells us

whenever the region was engulfed by a conflict or a proxy war, the country lost on the democratic front. The

spectre of war should haunt the democratic forces of the country because tied with it is also the future of our

republicanism. To counter any possible attempt to a radical change in the current system, political parties should

come up with revolutionary plans to transform the lives of the common people, ensuring the free provision of

basic amenities and devolving of powers at the grassroots levels. When people see improving standards of living

under the current kind of democracy, they will resist any attempts against the system. But if people’s grievances

remain unaddressed, they will not bother to support a system that gives them nothing.
STEPS TO STRENGHTEN DEMOCRACY.
 Improvement in our bilateral relations with India, although unlikely in the foreseeable
future, and greater confidence and mutual respect between the Afghan and Pakistani
leadership, should contribute to strengthening the democratic government and democracy
in general.

 The insurgency in Balochistan that has been going on for years has sapped the energy of its

people. It has compounded the provincial government’s problems besides reducing its

power — which from the beginning has been weakest among the provinces.
 Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan, the lingering dispute of Kashmir and
our adversarial relations with India in general have contributed towards giving the military
great prominence and a major role in state affairs.
 Lack of genuine interest in the functioning of Parliament by Prime Minister Imran Khan
and his predecessor has also weakened democracy.
 Intense personalisation of politics is further weakening democracy. No doubt personalities
matter, and their conduct, reputation and ability of the leaders are an essential element of
politics.
 A preeminent focus on security due to our highly-strained relations with India, the
turbulent situation in Afghanistan, and insurgency in parts of the country has deprived the
country of focusing on its people and strengthening of institutions.
 The role of the judiciary is critical in governance and promoting democracy.
 Bureaucracy in Pakistan also needs to undergo major internal reforms.
 Sufficient attention has not been given to the development of civil society. As a
consequence, awareness in public about their rights and responsibilities remains vague.

Our best era

PAKISTAN turned 72 this month.
Political instability gave it a new regime type in each past decade. An inapt focus on short-term growth
may see the Ayub and Musharraf eras as the best ones. But an indepth, integrated lens covering durable
economic, political and security progress gives a different view. Durable political progress means fair and
regular polls that improve governance and the rights of all societal groups. Durable economic progress is
about growth, but also its apt drivers, quality and equity. Durable security comes from durable political
and economic progress.
The patterns on these three axes in the three army eras were similar. Coups were justified based on
civilian misrule. Such misrule is common in poor states, yet most armies do not step in. Each era
promised real democracy, but gave rigged polls and autocratic rule, which excluded key parties and ethnic
groups. Governance was poor and even Ayub`s famed bureaucracy focused on elite services. Legislative
progress was weak. Each era ended with the fake political system ending when it was finally forced to
hold fair polls (1970, 1988 and 2008), with oddly PPP winning each time.
Growth was high. But driven by politicised short-term US aid, it ebbed once aid ended. Some say we
were an Asian tiger then. Actually, we were an American poodle. Ayub-era growth spurred industry, but
mainly light industry, unlike fast Korean forays into heavier industry under army rule. Huge inequity
created major regional tensions then. Zi a`s and Musharraf`s growth was facile and did not upgrade the
economy much. Sans durable political or economic progress, each era produced longterm violence, which
ironically all came from the same US ties that gave only shortterm aid and growth. So, given the mega
failures on all three axes, they rank the three worst eras.
While Ayub-Yahya and Musharraf eras resulted in more violence, Zia left deeper national imprints by
founding the flawed structures of today`s Pakistan. Socially, this included bigotry, deep conservatism and
politics of faith. Politically, it meant a move from issues-based to corrupt patronage politics.
Economically, it meant a state that ran high fiscal and external deficits and debt levels, abdicated its role
in spurring industry, and chased IMF loans. The security mix included raising militants to achieve
regional aims.
Then there were four civilian eras. There was the 1947-58 era of the original sin where, unlike India, we
shunned democracy. Bhutto`s era started promisingly by giving a strong consensus constitution andan
 egalitarian economic vision, but later gave autocracy, poor economy, Baloch insurgency, and finally
rigged polls. His civilian era most closely resembled autocratic eras. The 1990s era of political musical
chairs run by Pindi saw slow growth and misrule.
Finally, there was the 2008-2018 decade which curbed Musharraf-era militancy.
Operationally, this was due to the army. But strategically, the point is that, instead of curbing militancy in
its own era, it had planted its seeds then. Once in the saddle, it developed political compulsions from
which it was only freed by democracy`s return. Everyday governance remained poor even after 2008. But
political progress occurred via the emergence of more open and tolerant politics where the media, civil
society and opposition were freer.
While Musharraf vainly promised new leadership, it emerged in this era with PTL The first-ever
institutionalised free polls and civilian-led peaceful transition wereheld in 2013. Key legislative work was
done that autocrats never did, eg, on devolution, electoral reforms and Fata merger. A key failure was on
local bodies.
A notable aim was to replace short-term security-linked US ties as growth driverwith long-term Chinese
economic ties.
Growth increased. But this policy did not give results quickly. So it too ended with large deficits and debt
and crashed growth.
But overall, this era had better political and security results than others. Hence, it ranks as the best era, but
one still with many gaps. So startlingly, even muchmaligned corrupt politicos from inept parties gave
better results.
Unluckily, our best era was ended by those who gave us our worst eras. Despite past lessons, we are back
to the illusion that political progress can be sacrificed for economic progress and security aims by having
a `selected` regime. But in deeply fractured states like ours, political progress is most crucial as without it
one cannot have durable security or economic progress.
Autocracy is up, but governance and economy remain abysmal. Thus, this political experiment of our
paternalistic ideological guardians may end too, but only after inflicting deep wounds on society

CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY
DEFYING the doubters, the National Assembly will complete its five-year term next week.
Notwithstanding the thunderbolts that frequently jolted the political process, the system has survived.
Transition from one elected government to another now appears a reality, though there are still a few
hurdles to cross.

It will indeed be a high point in the country’s rocky democratic journey. These five years like the
previous ones have also been extremely tumultuous, in which yet another elected prime minister has
bitten the dust. The unceremonious ouster of arguably the country’s most powerful elected figure
continues to cast long shadows over the fragile democratic political process.

Already barred from the electoral process for life, the exit may mark the end of Nawaz Sharif’s long yet
chequered political career, though not the end of the Sharif political dynasty. The elections would
certainly lead to a changing of the guard but can that bring any qualitative transformation in the
system?

It remains to be seen whether the much-touted transition could change the existing power dynamics
and bring political stability to the country or would it result in further weakening of the elected bodies,
with non-elected institutions filling the void. The apprehensions about installation of a hybrid political
system with the military and judiciary becoming an informal part of the power troika are not without
reason. In fact the country is already experiencing this creeping phenomenon.

Instead of an improved quality of democracy, Pakistan has been sliding in the opposite direction.

It is not just imbalance of power and persistent confrontation among various institutions of the state
that has caused the disorder; the political leadership too is responsible for undermining the
democratic process. Parliament has been reduced to a chaotic debating club with the leadership
showing no deference to the elected house.
Members and top political leaders alike show little respect for legislative proceedings as attendance
frequently falls way below the 25pc mark leading to premature adjournments and even prorogation.
During the four years when he was in power, Sharif seldom attended parliamentary sessions. His
slogan “give respect to the vote” sounds hollow, given his utter contempt for the elected forums.

Some of the opposition parties too have been responsible for undermining the role of parliament. The
PTI boycotted the National Assembly for almost one year and Imran Khan never refrained from
expressing his disdain for the elected forum. He rarely appeared in the house, even after the party
ended the boycott.

Moreover, when they did deign to be present in the assembly, parliamentarians would hardly
participate in debate, even on important national and foreign policy issues thereby rendering the
legislative body ineffective. This has also led to the inability of the lawmakers to resolve political and
institutional crises. Unsurprisingly, the country failed to make a steady transition towards improved
democracy.

Despite the fact that Pakistan has entered the longest uninterrupted period of elected civilian rule in
its history, democracy appears to be weakening. While elected governments and political leadership
ceded space in policy spheres, the military has increased its overreach into areas outside of its
professional domain.

With parliament and the civilian law-enforcement agencies having been rendered ineffective by the
elected leadership, weak governance has allowed the judiciary to extend its role. Some judges too
appear to have succumbed to populist pressures when they give mostly unwarranted observations
during the course of judicial proceedings.

Lack of internal policy cohesion and focus on national issues has further weakened the democratic
process. One of the factors obstructing the growth of a democratic culture and ethos has been the
absence of democracy within the political parties. Most have turned into family enterprises or revolve
around personalities.

There is no tradition of internal party debate on critical policy issues and it all depends on the whims
of the leaders. Party elections are a sham and conducted merely for the sake of fulfilling a legal
formality. The swiftness with which politicians change their party affiliations overnight for the sake of
expediency, and the manner in which political parties woo so-called ‘electables’ illustrate the lack of
principles in our political culture.

Instead of a steady transition towards an improvement in the quality of democracy, Pakistan has been
sliding in the opposite direction more rapidly since 2013 when the PML-N returned to power and
Nawaz Sharif was elected as prime minister for a record third time.

According to a report by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency, while
the quality of democracy in 2013 scored its highest in four years at 54pc, the scores slid 10 percentage
points in 2014 to 44pc, rose a little to 50pc in 2015 and slipped again to 46pc at the end of 2016. The
situation has become worse in the past two years.

The challenge to democracy in Pakistan has worsened because there is a lack of crucially required
reforms. There has not been any substantive improvement in the fundamental functioning of key
democratic institutions. The failure of parliament in resolving issues such as the Panama scandal and
the inability of the government to take the lead in formulating national security and foreign policies
have further eroded civilian control.

The government’s failure in institutionalising a consultative decision-making process too has been a
major factor in the expansion of space for unelected institutions such as the military and judiciary.
Another aspect of the systemic failure of democratic governance is its inability to deliver on critical
economic, social and political issues. That has resulted in waning public faith in democracy.

These are the vital issues plaguing the country’s political process. The coming elections are critical to
the future of democracy in the country. Following this exercise, the new parliament and the
government will have to address these key issues in order to consolidate governance and deliver to the
electorate. It is apparent that democracy cannot function without the rule of law. There is a need for
fundamental structural reform to achieve these objectives. Will our leaders learn from their own
shortcomings and take the country to democratic stability?

DEMOCRACY DEFICITS
WINSTON Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons in November 1947, stated: “It has been said
that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried
from time to time....”

Democracy is a noble concept of governance. Yet, historically, its practice has been frequently flawed.
Democracy’s embrace must be thus accompanied by safeguards against its susceptibility to abuse and
distortion.

In ancient Greece, where democracy was born, populism unleashed the Peloponnesian Wars. Many of
the Roman Empire’s unending wars were fought to quench its citizen-mob’s thirst for glory.

British democracy did not extend, until almost the end, to its extensive empire. The ‘mother of
parliaments’ doggedly opposed basic human rights and self-determination for Britain’s colonies until
the empire was near collapse.

How ‘free’ is the ‘common’ Pakistani voter to choose qualified and honest representatives?

The US Declaration of Independence declaimed that “all men are created equal”. But this did not
include the African slaves owned by the framers of that declaration and the Bill of Rights. Nor did
democracy protect the Native Americans from the most thorough genocide perpetrated in recent
history.

Hitler and Mussolini came to power through the democratic process and then aborted it. Today, in
Europe, the ghost of fascism and racism has been resurrected by economic recession and the influx of
African and Arab refugees. Italy, Austria and Hungary are now governed by elected neo-fascists, who
are also gaining electoral strength in Germany, Holland and Scandinavia. The UK’s disastrous Brexit
was decided by ill-informed chauvinists in an ill-advised referendum.

‘Middle (and ignorant) America’ has elected Donald Trump with his promise to ‘make America great
(and white) again’. His anti-immigration policies and trade protectionism, together with a whimsical
and impetuous foreign policy, threaten to trigger another recession and erode the structures of the
global cooperation.

The dangers of populist democracies are writ large in the electoral victory of Narendra Modi and the
BJP in India, propelled to power by a slick electoral machine playing on false promises of prosperity
combined with an appeal to the base sentiments of national chauvinism and religious hatred. The
anti-Muslim card is likely to be played again, this time specifically against Pakistan’s support for
India-held Kashmir’s freedom struggle, to secure Modi’s re-election next year. The threat of another
India-Pakistan war is thus a byproduct of the workings of the world’s ‘largest democracy’.

Pakistan has been often ‘named and shamed’ for its patchy adherence to democracy. The debate on
the virtues of military versus democratic governance is a false one. Democracy is preferable. What is
required is to rectify the grave flaws in Pakistan’s democratic process and governance, and thereby
avert the periodic domestic crises which have created the conditions for military intervention in the
past.

In a separate speech in December 1944, Churchill opined that “the plain, humble, common man ... is
the foundation of democracy” and it is vital “to this foundation that this man or woman should” be
able to choose his or her elected representative “without fear, and without any form of intimidation or
victimisation”.

How ‘free’ is the ‘common’ Pakistani voter to choose qualified and honest representatives? It is well
known that in Pakistan’s rural areas, votes are dictated by feudal lords and tribal loyalties. ‘Electables’
are, almost by definition, anti-democratic. In many constituencies, votes are either bought by
monetary or other incentives or coerced by threats of physical or pecuniary harm. Poor and
uneducated voters are swayed by false promises. Religious and hate-filled sectarian slogans are
invoked to influence Pakistan’s conservative electorate. Most political parties allegedly receive foreign
funding designed to influence electoral results and their policies. Sections of the media have also
become susceptible to monetary influence. And, sadly, some of the ‘champions of democracy’, the so-
called civil society and NGOs, are themselves at least partially funded by external sources.

Beyond the vote, democracy cannot serve its purpose in an environment of pervasive corruption and
open abuse of power. Accountability, adherence to the rule of law and checks and balances on
executive, legislative and judicial powers are essential to the legitimacy of democratic governance.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, there are few institutionalised mechanisms to ensure these prerequisites.
Once in office, elected prime ministers and presidents — even more than military dictators — have
consistently abused their power to extract privilege and profit, for themselves or their families and
cronies. The legislature’s oversight functions have been circumscribed, not by the so-called
establishment, but by parliament’s apex leaders themselves. Judicial recourse is cumbersome and has
been often also susceptible to coercion and corruption. And when in the past, upon occasion, the
judiciary displayed independence, it was ejected or, literally, ‘taken over’.

The damage done to Pakistan’s economic prospects by the accumulated excesses of the last ‘decade of
democracy’ are now starkly evident: Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves are being drained by the
day; exports are stagnant; investment is frozen; the rupee is in free fall. Recourse to another IMF
bailout is inevitable. Yet, it will not provide sustainable reprieve unless the underlying challenges of
generating sufficient revenues, eliminating wasteful expenditures, and mobilising domestic and
foreign investment are not overcome.

Economic vulnerability has, in turn, eroded the nation’s ability to address the external challenges
posed by a belligerent India, a chaotic Afghanistan and a hostile America.

The credibility of the July 25 elections is threatened not only by foreign-instigated terrorism but also
by a political and media campaign led by leaders enmeshed in the delayed and uneven process of
accountability. The prospects of a peaceful election and the expeditious formation of the next
government are in doubt. It would be in the nation’s interest if the polls are held peacefully and fairly,
and its results accepted by all parties.

The incoming government will have to assume enormous and immediate responsibilities: to ensure a
peaceful transition; address the economic emergency; deter Indian aggression; help to achieve peace
in Afghanistan; and restore cooperative relations with the US. It must also introduce effective and
institutional checks against the abuse of power, ensure good and transparent governance and
overcome the visible deficits in Pakistan’s democracy.

SUGGESTIONS FOR DEMOCRACY

THE Lahore Resolution portrays a vision formulated through a consultative, democratic process.

The creation of the original State of Pakistan in 1947 and its post-1971 renewal represent a
continuation — with periodic suspensions — of participative methods to achieve state stability and
national cohesion.

Whether through non-official mechanisms such as political parties (most of which are internally non-
democratic!) or through official elective institutions such as Parliament, the democratic principle,
often elusive, remains a fundamental ideal.

This dimension was distorted by four military interventions. Yet ironically, even in the military-led
phases, the democratic facet was strengthened by the promotion of elected, truly empowered Local
Governments (2001-2008) and the introduction, irreversibly, of private electronic media (2002
onwards). But just as the uniquely created national concept and the equally uniquely created State of
Pakistan continue to evolve from the “baby” age of 70 years, so too should democratic systems be
always improved and enhanced.
Like the on-going evolution of Pakistani national identity which can be termed “Pakistaniat”,
democracy in Pakistan is a dynamic work-in-progress. During the past 70 years, procedures,
categories and compositions of our electoral system and elected institutions were sometimes
advanced.

For instance, seats in legislatures were increased to reflect growth of population. There were also
substantive improvements. For example: reserved seats for technocrats in the Senate (1985); power to
the indirectly elected Senate to initiate Bills to amend the Constitution (1985): 17 per cent reserved
seats for women in the Senate, National Assembly and the four Provincial Assemblies, along with 33
per cent reserved seats for women in Local Bodies (2002) — all the above four changes occurring
during military-led governments.

The 18th Constitutional Amendment of 2010 is an excellent example of how civil, political, elected
governments can forge a progressive consensus to decentralise power. Yet the same 18th Amendment
regrettably added exclusion of non-Muslims from being eligible for election by the National Assembly
as Prime Minister. This came on top of the prior exclusion of non-Muslims from eligibility for the
Presidency.

Why are some of us in the 97 per cent so afraid of the only three per cent?!

To address new challenges and complexities that arise in times of rapid change and to deal effectively
with issues specifi c to Pakistan’s needs we should debate and eventually adopt entirely new features,
such as the ten listed below. These features could strengthen, deepen and reinforce democratic values
and practices.

The ten proposed reforms will seem a wishlist. So be it. Like long journeys that begin with small steps,
practical changes can begin with impractical-looking dreams. Substantive changes in electoral and
democratic systems and structures require overwhelming consensus between members who are
already part of existing systems.

Any reform that potentially disrupts familiar privileges and predictable continuity is likely to be
strongly resisted. Yet as in some other countries and, on occasions, in Pakistan too, our legislators
have transcended personal interests. We can begin by debating certain proposals so as to benefit from
open, sustained public discourse and eventually shape constitutional and legal instruments for
reform.

The quorum quandary

The first step should be to decisively reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the quorum problem. This is a
virus which infects virtually all legislatures. Even when there is substantive business to consider,
majority ruling parties or coalitions are frequently unable to ensure the minimum required
attendance.

All legislators, especially directly- elected representatives, face enormous pressures on their time to
address voters’ and constituencies’ problems, myriad issues which require personal involvement.

However, there is absolutely no justification for the recurring tendency of the vast majority of
legislators to remain absent from forums in most sittings. Being elected to a legislature is one of the
highest honours that can be bestowed.

Persistent absenteeism insults those very citizens who have granted this distinction to their
representatives. To deal with extreme apathy, extreme disincentives would be fully justified. These can
be heavy fi nes, loss of voting privileges, and expulsion for an x number of future sittings. Different
options can be candidly debated before adoption.
Make v

oting compulsory
A second critical need is to make representation in legislatures authentically participative, and
representative of the electorate. The country’s entire electoral system is an unthinking imitation of the
first-past-the-post system used by Westminster and widely practised, as in the USA, India and
elsewhere. But merely because the system is practised elsewhere does not oblige us to follow suit.

Our conditions require innovation or adaptation. To illustrate the virtual absurdity of this system, let
us assume there are five candidates in a given constituency. Four candidates get more votes on a
combined basis than the fifth candidate who leads the rest simply because of obtaining say, just one
vote more than the second highest competitor.

Yet the fifth candidate goes on to represent all those who voted against him and who are larger in
number than those who voted for her or him. To cap it all, only about 50 per cent of the registered
voters bother to vote. Which means the winner also represents those who did not vote at all. To make
the first-past-the-post system both non-participative and un-representative of public opinion.

Two reforms can redress this anomaly. One: to make voting compulsory for all citizens aged 18 and
above, as is done in over 20 countries of the world, including Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, Belgium,
Egypt, Greece, Singapore. In such a system, there are penalties in case of failure to fulfil an essential
duty in a democratic state i.e. to vote, to elect representatives and thus take individual self-
responsibility for the composition and performance of legislators.

Two: it is equally necessary to allow for a second round of voting in situations when the candidate with
the highest number of votes has secured less than 50 per cent of the total registered votes. In a second
round, of, say, the top two vote-getters, only the candidate securing a minimum of 51 per cent of the
total registered votes should be eligible to represent a constituency.

A directly-elected Senate
The third reform is required to address the fact that Pakistan is possibly the world’s most
asymmetrical federation. Punjab contains more people than all the other three provinces combined.
Another province — Balochistan — comprises an area almost as large as the other three provinces. But
it has the smallest population. A directly-elected Senate with financial powers would alone be able to
ensure equity and equanimity between all constituent units of the Federation.

In the existing directly-elected National Assembly with sole final financial powers, the large numbers
from Punjab give an unfair advantage to one province alone over the other three less populated
provinces.

With a directly- elected Senate comprising equal numbers from each province, the two principles of
population, and of Federalism, would be evenly balanced with both Federal Legislatures representing
direct-voting choices.

A directly-elected President
A fourth reform worth consideration is to enable the President to be directly- elected. At one stroke,
this would promote inter-provincial convergence and national cohesion. When a Presidential
candidate would need to secure significant numbers of votes in, say, Gwadar, Balochistan as well as,
say, in Gawalmandi, Lahore, we would move faster and closer towards national integration.

Currently, as per the Parliamentary system, a Prime Minister, theoretically, needs not win a single
vote from any of the smaller provinces such as Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
As long as she or he wins from a single constituency from Punjab and as long as his party wins a
majority of seats, the individual has a good chance to become Prime Minister of a State comprising
four provinces, without voters in three provinces placing their confidence in him.

To date, the country has had only indirectly-elected Presidents e.g. President Ayub Khan via the basic
democrats process or Presidents Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf through referendums.
When residents of all provinces become directly connected to the election of the Head of State who
would also be the Chief Executive, the federated state would be enormously strengthened. To allow for
the virtues of a Parliamentary system to co-exist with a directly- elected President, adaptation could
be attempted from the French model.

A shared Presidency
The fifth suggestion arises as an alternative to a directly-elected Presidency and is associated with twin
considerations. Firstly, to give each constituent unit of the Federation a continuous involvement at the
highest level of the State. Secondly, to reduce the role of superficial charisma. This could be achieved
by adapting the Swiss model whereby members of a Council of Ministers that represents the
constituent units of the Swiss State share the term of office with each member becoming Head of State
for a given period e.g. 12 months.

Directly-elected women legislators

Sixth: while the reserved seats for women in all three tiers of the legislative sectors have made a
distinct difference in giving women a new political profile, there is a need to consider options by
which, on a rotational basis, a certain percentage of seats could be contested only by women
candidates. This would endow far greater legitimacy, authority and credibility to women’s
participation in political affairs than does their participation through reserved seats.

The seats earmarked for women-only candidates could be shifted across provinces over several
elections spread over a 15 to 20-year period so that all constituencies are able to provide opportunities
to capable women leaders.

Local is focal
Instead of describing Local Government bodies as the “lowest tier”, the seventh reform should reverse
the whole sequence by placing the grassroots level, community- based tier at the apex of democratic
structures. And, by holding their polls before the Federal and Provincial polls.

It is only when these institutions in which citizens and their representatives are able to frequently
interact with each other at a neighbourhood level, become truly empowered and entrenched will we be
able to build purposeful structures at the Provincial and Federal levels.

Health and Education — national, not provincial alone

Though the 18th Amendment substantively devolved power from the Federal level to the Provincial,
there appears to have been a dangerous abdication by the Federal Government of responsibility for
the social sector, including the vital subjects of education, health and population growth.

The eighth measure would require the Centre to retain a holistic, harmonious, unifying national vision
for the qualitative nurturing and well-being of citizens, without interfering in, or curbing the authority
of the Provincial Governments.

Political parties reforms

The ninth and tenth reforms should deal with political parties. One possible measure is a formula by
which political parties that fulfi l criteria of genuine representation and enjoy a given number of certifi
ed members, receive funding from the public exchequer. As practised in several countries, state
funding of political parties, in whole or in part, could eliminate the scope for corruption and under-
hand practices by which illicit money and political parties are synonymous. Candidates routinely
grossly under-report actual expenditures on election campaigns.

Creation of a Political Parties Commission

The tenth measure should be the creation of a Political Parties Commission. While the Election
Commission does presently register and validate political parties, it already has a vast, multi- layered
responsibility to conduct elections and deal with the numerous pre-poll, poll and postpoll issues.
Whereas, a Commission exclusively tasked with the monitoring of parties would make a notable
contribution to the evolution of stable democratic organisations.

This body would exclusively regulate the functioning of political parties, conduct internal party
elections to prevent manipulation, discourage perpetuation of family dynasties and cliques, demand
complete transparency and accountability, and encourage equity and fairness in the award of party
tickets and in the formulation of party policies.

To guarantee that such a Commission acts impartially, political parties could be represented in the
Membership of the Commission which could also include independent eminent citizens, serving or
former judges, and administrators.

Doubts probably already exist for each of the above ten proposals. Just as the likelihood that for every
possible solution, there is a new problem. The critical task is to dispassionately examine each option to
refine and enhance democracy, to move from 1940 to 2040 — and beyond — with processes and
systems that cope with new realities and challenges

THE year 2018 was tumultuous for Pakistan’s democracy. In the

preceding year, Pakistan’s score in formal measures of
democratic health, like the Polity and Freedom House indices,
remained somewhere between a flawed democracy and a hybrid
regime. In the absence of updated measures for 2018, it is worth
taking stock of progress or regression in key arenas of
democratic activity. These include elections, parliamentary
processes, party politics, and overall civil society space. This
stock-taking is made more significant by the fact that
perceptions about Pakistani politics and the health of democracy
are now increasingly mapped onto partisan lines.
Elections: A third transition of power through the electoral process has, for the time being, further
cemented elections as the only ‘game in town’ — ie as the only way of winning and losing executive
office. This remains an unequivocal positive because, while the context and nature of elections
remains riddled with question marks, the ancillary gains of citizen-centric accountability often bear
fruit in the long run. Simply put, regardless of how controlled or coerced an election process is, it
retains some value in creating a more responsive government. While vote-choice may be structured by
things like who’s allowed to compete and campaign, increased opportunities for electoral
accountability compels politicians to listen to citizens.

At the same time, the 2018 elections did raise serious questions from both a procedural and
substantive perspective. As is the case in most elections, the opposition did not accept the electoral
process as free and fair. International observers echoed some of their sentiments by saying that the
pre-election process was marked by an uneven playing field. Finally, recently concluded local

government by-elections in Karachi saw a significant divergence from the surprising results of four
months ago. At the end of the day, the perception of fairness is what matters, and on that count,
Pakistan’s electoral health is suspect.
There are also ongoing procedural issues with regards to the way that elections are administered. The
ECP was found out on several fronts during the polling process, most notably through technological
shortcomings. The relatively smooth functioning of the same systems in around 40 by-elections since
July shows that the issue was likely of coordination and load-testing.

The political party landscape remains wracked with judicial complications and ongoing
accountability pressures.

Parliamentary processes: If the PML-N’s tenure in power was characterised by executive

centralisation and disregard for parliamentary procedure, the new ruling party’s first few months
signal continuity, rather than rupture, with these trends. Since August, the legislative process has
remained at a standstill due to conflicts between the government and the opposition. In Punjab, in
particular, partisan conflict appears to be quite pervasive.

Similar issues are plaguing activity at the National Assembly level. As a result, the formation of
committees was not initiated and legislative responsibilities remained unattended. There are also
persisting concerns that the new leadership in the National Assembly is not equipped or experienced
enough to deal with the functioning of the legislature. Overall, the new government appears to prefer
executive over parliamentary authority in its functioning, as demonstrated by the continued absence
of the prime minister from parliamentary responsibilities.

Political parties: The political party landscape remains wracked with judicial complications and
ongoing accountability pressures. The politics of both main opposition parties, the PML-N and PPP, is
currently buried under the weight of NAB action against their compromised leadership. Given the
timing of these events, there remain pervasive doubts over the nature of the anti-corruption
campaign, with perceptions once again divided along partisan lines. With party leaders busy fighting
off corruption cases, the year has seen chances of any institutionalisation and professionalisation
within parties dissipate.

At the same time, post-election analysis shows that voter identification with parties seems to be
growing, especially in urbanising parts of the country. This can be considered a positive since it may
compel parties to invest more in their structures, pay more attention to their supporters, and develop
more coherent policy platforms in the long run.

Democratic space: Finally, 2018 was marked by two interrelated negative trends on the space for civil
society. The first was new types of regulatory pressure on the development sector, with a host of
restrictions introduced by the government. This has reduced the space available to INGOs in the
country, with many being refused registration. The cascading effect has also been felt by local NGO
partners, who have had to close down their operations. Overall, the registration process for local
NGOs has been made significantly complex, dissuading the sector’s overall growth. Many of these
regulations have been passed on the pretext of security concerns and questions over the use of
funding.

The second trend is the ongoing crisis in print and electronic news media. This crisis lies at the
intersection of increased state heavy-handedness (especially the military’s influence), a financial
crunch induced by withholding of advertising by the public and private sector, and a history of poor
financial management practices by media house owners. The outcome has been channel shutdowns, a
number of layoffs, and persisting delays in the disbursement of salaries to media personnel.

The state’s overall regulation of the media sphere has also taken on a new, more coercive trajectory as
the military repeatedly weighs in on the regulation of social media, and the government appearing
more than happy to comply with a host of censorship requests.

Collectively, events in these four areas of democratic activity do not provide much cause for optimism.
Each provides its own evidence for democratic regression to varying degrees. Most of all, it is the
increased de jure and de facto restriction on dissent and free speech that may prove to be the most
harmful in the long run. In the absence of any organised opposition, the reversal of these trends does
not look likely in the year ahead.

STATE OF DEMOCRACY
THE elections are upon us. The campaign season is under way, as is endless punditry. All important
and fascinating — but coming at the cost of the only question that really matters beyond elections:
what does all this mean for the country?

Pakistan is approaching its second successive democratic transition. The data point is important. For
long, there has been an argument that consolidating democracy here requires three to four successive
terms of civilian rule. The logic flows directly from the theory of democratic consolidation which
highlights uninterrupted rule by legitimately elected governments as an indicator of the strength of
democracy in a country. The premise: as democratic transitions become more predictable and stable,
undemocratic governance options become unrealistic and obsolete; people and politicians generate
greater trust in the sanctity and fairness of the democratic system; and crucially, the system begins to
sift out the corrupt and incompetent and, instead, rewards those willing to move beyond short-term
selfish interests. Upshot: improved governance and economic performance.

Put the theory to the test and you’ll find mixed empirical evidence. There are countries whose
experience conforms but others where merely democratic continuity didn’t translate into appreciably
better governance outcomes. The probability of success tends to be linked to two factors: (i)
democratically elected governments, no matter how poorly performing, are accepted as the only game
in town. Undemocratic choices or influences are no longer considered viable; and (ii) on-time
democratic transitions become predictable and do not end up in witch hunts against the losing side in
polls.

Neither holds up in Pakistan’s case. Ever since the Panama crisis escalated, the belief has been that
non-political forces are directly or indirectly gaming the political system. From the theory’s
perspective, the problem is neither that a sitting prime minister was ousted — in a parliamentary
system, an in-house change doesn’t necessarily qualify as an interruption of the system — nor that
conspiracy theories make it impossible to determine what really is happening. The real issue is the
belief itself that institutions other than parliament wield the leverage to disrupt the organic political
process and orchestrate political outcomes. The Nawaz Sharif-establishment duel has led to this belief.
There has been an aura of uncertainty. While it seems more and more likely that polls will take place
on time, this hasn’t been a foregone conclusion.

The system favours those playing the politics of patronage.

Put mildly, Pakistan isn’t following the optimal trajectory posited by democratic consolidation theory.
Uncertainty and unpredictability remain entrenched and till they do, they will tend to skew political
incentives towards short-term parochial gains. This would imply a more protracted journey from
uninterrupted civilian rule to mature politics and improved governance.

There are also voices more willing to put their faith in individual messiahs as a route to good
governance. The typical Pakistani version is that what we really need is an honest leader willing to
work in the national interest. This line of thinking isn’t without precedent. A prominent strand of
comparative politics literature sees individuals as real-change agents and stresses their centrality in
charting the destiny of nations. The rise of countries like Singapore, South Korea, etc is often owed to
such charismatic leaders.

But it isn’t clear how such a person is to emerge. The political system in Pakistan is rigged in favour of
those willing to play patronage politics. No amount of street credibility or individual honesty has been
able to break the pattern. Imran Khan is an example. After years of resisting, he has made the same
compromise Nawaz Sharif of yesteryear did: bank on status quo power institutions and on electables.
We have also tried military rulers — right-wing and liberal and ones ostensibly financially clean.
Nothing seems to work.

The reality is that Pakistani rulers face structural constraints so entrenched that it is impossible to
circumvent them. Any ruler must work with a minority of the national resource pie to cater to the
development needs of 200 million. Everything else goes towards administrative expenses, debt
servicing, and defence. Even the most visionary leader would have to work with a public sector whose
capacity is abysmal, and within the constraints of a national security and foreign policy paradigm that
stymies innovation.
Even the best individuals need the system to open up. For that, democratic consolidation is necessary.
But the argument for it continues to weaken if uninterrupted civilian rule doesn’t produce better
outcomes within a reasonable period. This is the paradox we face. The next elections will likely
produce more of the same.

LAHORE, Dec 15: Speakers at a Justice and Peace Commission

workshop on democracy and human rights on Sunday did not
see much hope for democracy in a country which was directly or
indirectly ruled by the army and where state institutions were
used in the interest of a privileged few rather than the people at
large.
Prof Dr Mehdi Hassan said the fact that eight elections had been held in the country in the last 15
years did not mean that democracy was being practised in letter and spirit. The people have been
totally ignored by rulers. The future of democracy in the country is dark since no party has the
capability or the political will to bring about a radical change in the status quo.

He alleged that none of the 158 registered political parties in the country had set a criterion for
membership. This leads to anti-political practices like floor-crossing. He said every party had
opportunists surrounding its leaders and striving for power only.

He alleged that the political affiliation of a politician could be moulded either by an offer of a ministry
or the threat of a NAB reference.

Pointing to causes of failure of democracy in Pakistan, he said policies were made for a patronized
class only.

He was of the view that economic, social and diplomatic problems could not be solved through closed-
door administrative decisions and must be resolved in consultation with the people.

Prof Mehdi warned that as along as armed forces were ruling either directly or indirectly, democracy
could not be expected to take roots in the country.

He said that apart from playing a pivotal role in ruling the country since 1954, the armed forces had
been consuming a substantial part of the annual budget in the name of defence against a ‘threatening
neighbour’. Army was the wrong instrument to be used for ideological defence of the country, which
could only be strengthened by the people while living in a truly democratic setup, he added.

He urged that Pakistan should normalize its diplomatic relations with India. Had the countries been
surviving only on a strong defence, the former USSR would not have fragmented, he observed.

Prof Mehdi also accused the army of fundamentalist proclivities, saying that all religious parties were
a creation of armed forces under the “pseudo-Islamic” stance of Gen Ziaul Haq. The degrees awarded
by religious institutions were declared equivalent to graduation by the former military regime just to
let the religious leaders contest elections, he added.

He said that while looking towards judiciary and bureaucracy for rescue would be futile, members of
the political parties should collectively pressurise their leaders into adopting pro-people policies for
promotion of democracy.

HRCP director I. A. Rehman alleged that the autocracy had taken the country hostage against national
interests. He claimed that some 130 laws had been passed by the former military regime this year, 50
of them after Oct 10. He said the rule of law was damaged by such acts. A law is justified only if it
applies to all and is rational and based on legitimate use of public authority. All this is amiss in
Pakistan, which has led to a democratic crisis.
He alleged that judiciary had been protecting the actions of military regimes rather than fulfilling its
most important duty of protecting people’s rights. He said the judiciary was still working under the
PCO, which had become ineffective following the constitution of a political setup in the country.

He observed that a bureaucrat or a politician who became part of the government setup using corrupt
means could not be expected to act for the good of the public. He said the actions of government
functionaries should be placed under check, political rights of the people be defended and personal
friction among employees be reduced to promote an amicable working relationship in all institutions
of the country.

Supreme Court Bar Association president Hamid Khan said intelligence agencies had been conspiring
jointly against the democracy right from the beginning. The establishment had tempered with the
elections results of some 30 to 50 seats in the Punjab alone to secure a lead for the PML-Q, he alleged.

He further alleged that the NAB had been used to sabotage democracy and create a king’s party
through a discriminatory accountability of corrupt politicians. He said “NAB-affected” politicians had
been included in the National Alliance and allotted ministries.

According to him, even the constitution had been restored in such a way that it would benefit the
king’s party. The verdict of Supreme Court on LFO and judicial appointments was a big
disappointment as far as independence of judiciary was concerned, he added.

Former Punjab law minister Afzal Haider said the government decision to restore joint electorates had
strengthened democracy by making it possible for the minorities to participate in mainstream politics.

Justice and Peace Commission executive secretary Aftab Alexander Mughal said the minorities in
Pakistan had always been working to strengthen the country and would extend cooperation in this
regard in future as well.