The
people's day
Shafqat
Mahmood
The author is
a former Senator and a former federal and provincial minister
July 06, 2001
The din of
democracy was briefly heard before the final round of the local government
elections. This has been a strangely muted campaign. The usual crash and bang
was missing until the last few days. Perhaps the military's presence cast a
shadow that dampened the rowdyism inherent in us. I say this because elections
in our part of the world are boisterous affairs. It is one big party in which
normally sane people start to behave like delinquents and the marginally
unbalanced go totally bananas.
Not this time or at
least not to the extent that we are normally accustomed to. There were some
posters and a few cars and Rickshaws were plastered with photographs and
symbols. But, no one knocked on my door to ask for votes and there was no
traffic blocked because of corner meetings. There have been some fights and
regrettably an occasional killing but much less than usual. Has the military's
penchant for discipline permeated the masses?
I do not think so
and this is not so bad. While there is a need to be disciplined about some
things in life, work for instance, the ability to have fun when the opportunity
presents itself must remain. Elections for the ordinary people are party time.
The rich and the famous come calling. All kinds of offerings are made, sometimes
money but quite often a new road, a school, or a health facility. The people
hear that they are important and they are the ones that matter. No one quite
believes this but it is fun to be wooed.
Some people trash
democracy because the leadership that is thrown up is so bad. They need to go
out during campaign time and talk to the people. They are having the time of
their life. No one bothers about them really and they know it. Yet, elections
provide an opportunity to make demands, get some old issues resolved, and get
new ones on the agenda of the ruling elite. Above all it is a time to have a
feeling of self worth.
All these good
things happen because every few years the people have a little piece of paper in
their hand - their right to vote. This truly empowers them and this is no
intellectual cliche. We, who are purveyors of words, get into high-flown
rhetoric when describing democracy. We use words and expressions like
empowerment, popular will, the right to franchise etc, and borrowing from
Lincoln, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. These words
are eloquent but the reality is even more expressive. The people standing in
line to stamp their approval on some and reject others is something truly
magical.
Election day is a
day of the people. They may be poor, they may not have a high stature in
society, and they will soon be forgotten. Yet on this day they have the riches
of the world in their hand and that is no ordinary feeling. Have you ever
wondered why only the poor vote in such large number on our country? I say this
because the elite does not vote. They hate standing in a line rubbing shoulders
with the hoi polloi. It is either too hot or too cold. The fact is they don't
need empowerment through the vote. Their money and status has already given them
power. They do not need any other crutch.
For the people,
this right to vote may be the only crutch. That is why democracy is so
important. Not because it gives some feudals and other elites the right to lord
it over us. But, because it gives the people a voice, however fleeting, in the
affairs of the state. The people may not always make the right choice or their
leaders may betray them. Yet, this is no reason to punish them by taking their
right away. In the lexicon of humanity, such a denial has to be a cardinal sin.
The people and
their leaders are two different entities and sometimes their agendas are not the
same. Lucky are those nations whose leaders and the people march to the beat of
the same drummer. If this does not happen, it is not the fault of the people.
They have a right to choose their leaders and if one set fails they should have
the right to choose another and so on. This is the way it is in countries that
have practised democracy for long periods. Somewhere along the line good leaders
also come in and they make up for the one's who have failed. The system in the
end works.
I am labouring this
point a bit because of a constant debate in our country about the merits of
democracy. Particularly, among the intelligentsia there are many who have become
disillusioned. I keep getting mail from concerned Pakistani's all over the world
who are unhappy with the kind of leadership our democracy throws up. Many have
unfortunately come to the conclusion that a doze of military dictatorship may
actually be good for us.
They are no doubt
influenced by the fact that there is greater focus on governance today than it
was during our democratic decade. There is no high level corruption which is a
change from the past. I also suspect that the affable personality of General
Musharraf and his anti fundamentalist credential plays a large part in this
perception. But, one must remember that the same military had also thrown up a
Ziaul Haq. What we have today is not a system it is only a happenstance. What we
need is a system and humankind has devised none better than democracy so far.
Democracy would
never be as neat and clean as a well-run, honest dictatorship. Yet, an honest
dictatorship may well be a contradiction in terms. Our past experience and the
experience of dictatorships in the other parts of the world, only demonstrates
how absolute power so totally corrupts. The Zia period at home, the Suhartos,
the Sanni Abachas, the Mobutos and many others are all examples of corrupt
dictatorships. We are fortunate to have an honest and benign dictatorship today
but for how long. Unchecked power is a heady wine that takes people in strange
directions.
Democracy at its
best is better than dictatorship at its best but both are not possible in the
real world. Democracy is largely based on give and take and it is not always
above board. Special interests in the United States and their influence in
Washington are an example of the marginal morality of many transactions in a
democracy. Reprehensible as it is, there is little way out. Elections cost money
and the special interest contribute. There always is a pay back time.
In Pakistan we
would call many practices that go on in the United States as corruption. The
revolving door between government and lobbying has a particularly bad
connotation in our society. The word 'chatti dalal' is used to describe people
who take money get a particularly problem resolved. It is also against the law.
Yet it is perfectly legal and part of the system in the United States.
The difference
between good and bad democracy is not only honest or dishonest leadership. It is
a system of checks and balance and the institutions designed to ensure this that
must work. The problem in our democracy has not been bad choice of leaders.
Leaders all over the world will make a buck if they can. The real failure has
been the non-performance of the institutions designed to keep bad leadership in
check.
The judiciary has
been a huge disappointment. The parliament allowed itself to be hamstrung. The
bureaucracy, instead of standing up to corrupt demands, caved in and became
willing partners. The Armed forces largely confined themselves to their narrow
service interests. These institutions without which no democracy anywhere can
work did not perform in our country. This has been the real failure.
The true test of
patriotism for our military government is to help in creating institutions that
make our democracy viable. It may seem strange to expect the military to build
democracy but that is why I call it a test of its patriotism. Democracy is the
only way forward for us. The military should not only accept this but also play
a positive role in ensuring that it works in the future.