Do We Deserve Democracy?


Written by S.G. Jilanee • Special Features • June 2008

A question has arisen, as Mahatma Gandhi would say. And it is serious. That question is whether Pakistanis are eligible for democracy? Or is the cacophony that fills the air, just a lot of hot air? Newspapers overflow with lengthy dissertations in praise of democracy. Speakers with impeccable and many with not so impeccable democratic credentials go overboard at seminars, singing hosannas to democracy, highlighting its blessings and lamenting its failure to take root in Pakistan. Pen-pushers of all hues and stripes, from scholars and other pundits to tuppenny hacks start their harangue on the subject with ritually heaping all the blame on dictators. Democracy in Pakistan has been disfigured not only by dictators, but also by its acclaimed ‘champions,’ creating genuine doubts whether the country is at all fit for democracy, writes S.G. Jilanee

Politicians have even launched movements in the past under various rubrics such as Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) and Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) to display their genuine concern for democracy. Yet, when it comes the very people, who had hitherto been its most ardent supporters, make a Mukhtaran Mai of it, with virtual gang rape.

Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan was a strict constitutionalist. His notion of Pakistan was of a democracy, based on Islamic social justice. But, had he lived long enough he would have seen for himself the unraveling of his dream, because the idea of social justice, Islamic or otherwise, is alien to the Pakistani mindset.

Pakistan has a culture that is incompatible with democracy as it is understood in the West, though even there it is seldom practiced in its pristine form. Pakistanis are most comfortable with absolute rulers. Seven hundred years of Mogul rule, with Lahore as their second capital, had spawned a community of cringing courtiers, fawning flatterers and groveling sycophants. For generations the inhabitants of Lahore played active role in the endless wars of succession among Mogul princes. Submission to absolute power, therefore, became their second nature.

The British successors to the Mogul rule were equally patronizing of the courtier class. Like in the past this class of people recruited soldiers. However, this time they were not to fight on the native soil, but turned over to the Brits for cannon fodder. The rewards were similar, -titles and jagirs.

As a consequence shame disappeared like dodo. Corruption and chicanery, intrigue and conspiracy, became synonymous with politics. It started with the demise of the nation’s founder and has continued unabated for all of sixty years now. An op-ed contributor, Shakir Hussain has summed it up beautifully saying, “In Pakistan’s cutthroat politics, Punjab surely takes the cake with its vicious maneuvering and mercenary approach.-(The shotgun governor; The News 12 May 2008)

Because Punjab enjoyed a population larger than the combined total of the other three provinces, the culture spread all over the country. Corruption became so endemic that the terms ‘lota’ and ‘horse-trading’ had to be coined in the political lexicon. The first describes the rats who change sides in response to temptation; the second alludes to the practice of buying the loyalty of members of rival parties. Where members of rival parties refuse to sell themselves, they are often abducted and kept incommunicado to prevent them from voting on important bills in the parliament. This is how democracy is practiced.

The situation is further compounded by religious fanaticism, ethnic divide and, finally, utter hypocrisy. In fact the last named drips from every ‘pore and orifice’ of Pakistanis, especially its elite and educated class.

Religious fanaticism first manifested itself in the anti-Qadiani riots of 1954. But when the Qadianis were declared non-Muslim by a beleaguered prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, instead of winding up their hate business, they spread their tentacles farther. Now it has become a free-for-all among Deobandis, Brelvis, Sunnis, Shias and Wahabis.

Ethnic divide is most pronounced in the bitterness between Punjabis and the rest as a result of demographic imbalance and its aftermath. But the collective hostility of native Pakistanis, -Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Sindhis and Baloch against the immigrants (Mohajirs) provides the most glaring example of ethnic hatred.

Even Mian Nawaz Sharif, who is being hailed today as the avatar of democracy, once raised the slogan of “jag Punjabi jag, teri pug nu lag gaya daag,” to emphasize Punjabi-Sindhi ethnic divide, during election contest, because his rival, Benazir Bhutto, was a Sindhi.

When he was prime minister, Sharif unleashed a gang of ruffians to chase Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah out of the court because, in a display of judicial independence, Sajjad was hearing a case against him.

It is shameless hypocrisy to accuse the generals of obstructing the course of democracy, because some of those who are today’s most vocal champions of democracy were the ones who lent their full support to dictators in the past. The Jamaat-e-Islami quoted the Quran to rally support for Ayub. It supported Yahya. And it appealed to Gen. Ziaul Haq to overthrow a democratically elected government. Another prominent political leader to invite military takeover, was Tehrik-e-Istiqlal chief, Air Marshal Asghar Khan, with his appeal circulated to army officers. Though the above two formed the vanguard all other anti-ZAB parties comprising the Nine Stars were behind General Zia’s coup.

Yet, the Pakistani media and lawyers and civil society never denounced them as traitors to democracy and accomplices of dictators. Even the liberals did not take the mullahs to task.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above submissions is that the country lacks the very basic requirements for democracy, such as toleration of dissent, a spirit of accommodation and mutual respect for national institutions. Instead it has democratic fascists, liberal extremists and secular fundamentalists galore.

The oxymoron is no exaggeration. Those who chant democracy and free expression, gag dissenting voices. The latter are hardly allowed newspapers space or TV time. Dissenters such as Dr. Sher Afgan and Naeem Bukhari are humiliated and even beaten up,. Lawyers who refuse to join the pro-Iftikhar group have their license cancelled. Yet no champion of democracy protests this fascism.

When the police manhandled Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry’s supporters, he jumped with all alacrity to take suo moto notice of the incident and directly inflicted punishment on the culprits, even encroaching on the powers of the executive, because he was not trying a criminal case. On the other hand, when his supporters beat MNA Farooq Sattar, the same Chief Justice didn’t even utter a word of disapproval.

Pir Ali Mohammad Rashdi, a famed scholar had come to the conclusion that democracy is incompatible with Pakistani culture. He had therefore advised Ayub Khan to declare himself king. The same idea was reflected in Iskander Mirza’s theory of ‘controlled democracy,’ Ayub Khan’s ‘Basic Democracy’ as well as the reference to Pakistani ‘genius’ and ‘psyche,’ respectively, by Ayub and Zia.

The worst obstacle to democracy in Pakistan is not the power lust of ambitious generals or even the feudal culture. It is demography. When pundits glibly draw India’s example to highlight the wide ethnic differences among its people, they ignore that India does not present the example of Pakistan’s Punjab versus the rest.

Since independence, India has split many of its old provinces to create new states. It recently cut up U.P. the home of Nehru-Gandhi to create Uttaranchal. In Pakistan the provincial boundaries fixed by the British are treated sacrosanct. Autocracy is the best answer for such rigid mental attitudes. They don’t deserve democracy at all.