Democracy as a political system is alive and well. But as an ideal, democracy faces serious challenges from the brave new world of globalisation, the media explosion and the technology revolution. It has been under multiple threats: by liberalism, populism, authoritarianism and extremism. And now it is under attack from itself. Let me explain.
The subject of democracy is a most confused and confusing debate, where it is easy to confuse form with substance, concept with practice and illusion with reality. The fundamental concept of democracy is self-governance. A democratic system holds that power resides in the people, who delegate it to their representatives in trust so it can be exercised on their behalf. This is self-governance. And it is realised through form and substance.
Form is electoral democracy, comprising a constitutional framework and an institutional structure including parliament, the judiciary and media. The substance consists of policies executed through institutions that enjoy autonomy and integrity, supported by strong rule of law and a just social order.
Policies must benefit the people. To put it starkly: were the people to decide themselves without intermediaries, would they choose policies that bring them harm? No wonder, good governance is central to the realisation of the concept of democracy. That is the substance without which democracy will be hollow.
What the common person seeks from democracy is justice, security and economic opportunity, which are all critical to their survival. That is where democracy has not delivered. And it is happening globally in most countries subscribing to or pretending to subscribe to Western liberal democracy.
Let us look at the advanced democracies like the US. The euphoria incited by the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History’ had surged into a kind of liberal triumphalism whose nexus with globalisation went on to create enormous world prosperity. But along with prosperity came a new breed of global elite and concentration of wealth in the hands of what has become known as the top one per cent.
Money had always influenced politics to a degree. But with big money came big influence. And as money and politics began chasing each other, it gave a new opportunity and role to the mushrooming 24/7 cable television – to be a broker between special interests, politics and the public. The media interpreted the world around people, and made choices for them, even choosing their politics.
In America, Fox News thrived on grievance and alienation, and there was enough of it caused by global and domestic forces. People felt victimised and excluded at the hands of elements they did not understand, prompting them to look for scapegoats. Fox catered for them with xenophobia and right-wing politics blessed by the religious right. That led to a divided country, followed by polarised politics and radicalised political parties, especially the Republican Party.
The system gave people only an illusion of power by playing on their grievances without redressing them. So it took a salesman and marketing genius to brazenly use populism and sell illusion as a reality. Social media allowed him to reach millions directly in an instant, without scrutiny from mainstream media. Social media incites emotional responses to issues, sharpens social divisions and supercharges grievances. That has pushed both Democrats and Republicans to the extremes, of Democratic socialism on one side and Christian nationalism based right wing policies on the other. That has made compromise so hard, without which democracy cannot function or even survive.
In developing countries, democracy faced a different set of challenges. The power structure in most countries remains dominated by a narrow ruling elite that has neglected mounting socio-economic problems and multiple internal conflicts for years. A genuine democratisation of many such societies has, to varying degrees, been sacrificed or compromised for the personal, oligarchic and dynastic interests of the ruling elite. Pakistan is one of those countries.
With regional, linguistic, and cultural plurality in Pakistan and strong local identities seeking self-realisation, democracy is a necessity, not a choice, for national unity, political stability and economic development. But that is not happening.. A misplaced focus on faith has fostered extremism and hindered openness and tolerance. Feudal dominance has inhibited education, gender equality, openness to modern ideas and a competitive political process. And the military’s preeminence has led to the dominance of security over development. This is hardly a life-supporting environment for democracy.
Is revolution the answer? Revolutions are generally bad, except those that emerge from national resistance or people’s movements involving a collective mobilisation of society, as in China and Vietnam. Nor is an authoritarian/technocratic system the alternative. It may spur economic growth but often at the cost of human freedoms and the political process. It tends to be centralised and monopolistic, neglecting or reinforcing regional disparities, regressive social structure and power imbalances.
To compare the best of one system with the worst of the other does not get us anywhere. This confusion is partly responsible for the long survival in Pakistan of a system that looks like democracy but does not work like democracy. It has given us all the flaws of democracy without any benefits of an authoritarian system.
Societies are like a system or a structure. Unless it has failed or is failing or has collapsed, a society has an operating system based on certain ‘principles’. Pakistan is like that. It is being run (successfully) for the benefit of the ruling establishment, which is maximally served while people are minimally satisfied. Policies are designed to achieve that fundamental objective. The system is not receptive to good policies, not because of lack of knowledge but for the simple fact that there is a fundamental clash between the policies that sustain the system and the policies that are good for the people and the country.
The realist in me tells me that the hybrid system is not going to go away anytime soon. There is no effective resistance to it or a movement for change. Systems change through political action, whether initiated by electoral politics, prompted by social movements, or dictated by authoritarian leadership. Electoral politics sustains the present system, and there is no movement for change, social or otherwise, for the lack of which people too share the blame. So I am afraid that is the system we have to work within, however unpalatable it may be to our democratic ideals.
Since it is there, the hybrid system, while still serving the elite interests, should create room to enhance its public acceptability by taking some hard decisions that are so essential to Pakistan’s structural reforms and the country’s future.
Both civilians and the security institutions need each other. Civilians need their acquiescence to the politics of the status quo. And the security apparatus needs civilians for the ‘democratic’ cover of its primacy as a national institution. Thus, civilians should be forced to make hard decisions that go against their politics of patronage, privilege and status. Civilians should also persuade security not to resort to hard power in dealing with some issues. For example, the Baloch people have genuine grievances that need to be addressed politically. Pakistan’s economic future hinges on the political stability of Balochistan and reconciliation of its people.
The military has done well in defending the country, as we witnessed in Pakistan’s response to Operation Sindoor. Since then, it has also been a factor in the extraordinary resurgence in Pakistan’s diplomacy. Its political dominance is assured domestically; it should use this enhanced public image to initiate the much-needed structural reforms in the country, without which Pakistan will not see political stability and economic progress. Without this progress, Pakistan’s diplomatic rise will have no lasting value. For their part, the civilian leadership has shown the capability, if not the political will, to have stabilised the economy. Let us build on the good that both have shown to be capable of. Change, whether incremental or marginal, is still better than the status quo.
Countries change not because they have become ‘democratic’. They become democratic because they have changed.
