Guest Post by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa
Pakistan’s political situation today raises more questions about the future of politics and democratic rule in the country than it did in the past. Clearly, democratic rule cannot be engendered through covert deals. Secret agreements made in the name of transition to democracy exacerbate the problem, because any political leader who comes to power using such methods would not want to be exposed to the norms of transparency and accountability.
We get into the old cycle of the military using such leaders who employ questionable methods for coming to power, and then dumping them soon afterwards on the pretext of national security or curbing corruption. It is a game of cat and mouse which has been played for the past 60 years and will continue to be played as long as our leaders are driven by short-term gains and shy away from focusing on long-term objectives.
Notwithstanding individual political alignments, the general understanding in the country is that political parties need to improve themselves as much as the military needs to curtail its ambitions.
The reality is that most educated people, especially the youth, frown upon the idea of Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif returning to Pakistan. Their contention is that why allow such corrupt people back into the country.
The counter-argument, of course, is that how could one even suggest that the former leaders are corrupt when nothing has been proven against them in the courts. But then, their corruption is a matter of perception. Just because the present regime has failed to prove anything in a court of law does not mean that the former rulers are clean in the eyes of the common man. For him, their greatest sin is that their questionable politics has contributed to the death of the political process in the country. A damaged political party can survive but a maimed political process is lethal.
The educated middle-class, especially the youth, challenges the existing leadership and the people’s ability to remove it through the vote. This is the damaging impact of years of authoritarian rule and the death of the political process when people stop believing in the power of elections to remove questionable politicians.
Sceptics argue that how can the people who are poor, uneducated and dependent on their feudal masters vote without being influenced? Haven’t we seen votes being purchased in the past? Do we expect that in a feudal/tribal system people can vote independently?
These are credible arguments but then the counter-argument is that such a closed political system is the by-product of a civil-military authoritarian system and is top-down rather than bottom-up. This means that the common man is more likely to vote fairly if the authorities stop meddling with the electoral process.
Let’s look at India where people vote leaders in and out despite having the same crisis of poverty and of votes being bought and sold. The autonomy and independence of institutions and the fairness of the electoral process allows people to have greater power to take political leaders to task.
But then, as some would argue, India does not have feudalism which Pakistan does. This is correct but even a feudal system could change once those at the helm of affairs allow people the freedom to exercise their right of choice.
Let’s step back for a minute and look at the connection between feudalism and the state of Pakistani politics. The basic question is: how does feudalism contribute towards peculiar choices at the time of elections?
Pakistan is a post-colonial bureaucratic state where laws, rules and regulations exist to strengthen those in power and the bureaucratic state itself. In such a state, politics is basically used for regime legitimisation and nothing else. In a bureaucratic state, laws are made not to dispense justice but to strengthen the bureaucracy and protect the interests of the most powerful.
For instance, the National Accountability Bureau or the accountability structures of the previous regimes were actually put in place to strengthen the regime and not the process of accountability. In fact, no regime wants to get rid of corruption. The accountability systems were made to strengthen and institutionalise corruption rather than get rid of it.
Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that people should try to align themselves with one powerful group or the other. Since power groups are the only ones capable of delivering benefits to its members or those who align themselves with it, people find it expedient to support one powerful feudal or the other.
Let’s look at the rural life. People vote for candidates on the basis of how much an individual has helped them in their time of need. A number of questions cross their thoughts. Did the candidate help me get my son, brother, husband or close relative out of the police station? Did he/she help me with the registration of my case with the police? Did the candidate help me with the revenue department? Did he/she help me get electricity or construct a road to my village or hamlet?
A close look at the voting pattern in any village shows variation. The total number of votes that a family or individual used to get has decreased, often substantially. The reason that people continue to vote for significant families/individuals in their area is because in the country’s existing socio-political and administrative system no one can survive without aligning themselves with someone powerful to ensure that the system fulfils at least some of their demands.
The civil and military bureaucracy does not have this problem because they are already part of a powerful clique. The common people need to align themselves with someone powerful so that things are done for them and rules and regulations are applied as well.
The popular conception that the common man has no life in Pakistan is true and explains the ethos of a post-colonial bureaucratic state dominated by feudal behaviour. Even educated people would like to challenge the law every now and then to show their relative power.
In fact, there are people who feel proud of themselves for flouting the law. It is a common sight in Pakistan to see the affluent and educated breaking the law and then getting help from an influential friend or family member to flout his connections.
Let’s go back to the miserable common man of Pakistan who does not have influential relatives or friends but only the option of trading his vote for some help and consideration. This common man does deny his vote even to the most influential which explains the variation in the total number of votes cast or number of votes obtained by an individual candidate. But then, why expect this man to change the system or blame his/her lack of education when the real culprits are the powerful, educated and affluent people in state and society?
Ask any affluent Pakistani about why he/she has broken the law and the answer will be because it is necessary to survive. This is as if the state or its systems are a gift from God and not manmade and so cannot be changed. Given this apathy, the common man will wait for his Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to come and share morsels of the advantages of the state. The problem lies with how the powerful use the state system rather than the lack of education among the poor.
About the Author: The writer is an independent analyst and author of the book, “Military Inc, Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy.”
Note: This article also appeared in Dawn of Sept 28, 2007. Photo of for this article is taken from flickr.com.
Apparently, Aaj and geo tv have gone off air during their ongoing coverage of the brutal beating of lawyers and journalists in Islamabad.
I cannot seem to understand the endless polemic on this web-site and others. Just as since the martyrdom of Liaquat Ali Khan, the game Pervez Musharraf is playing has happened before, these speeches by arm-chair intellectuals too have happened before. In my school in Karachi, I read a play by William Shakespeare called Julius Caesar which proved that people have a very short memory. How many of us remember that were it not for the C-130 crash in which US ambassador Arnold Rafael suicide-bombed General Zia on 17 August 1988, General Zia too would have contested elections as Chief Of Army Staff?
I support Pervez Musharraf (for a different reason though).
Why do the people like Dr Siddiqa not now attack the Supreme Court for its decision to give him permission to contest elections just as they attacked Pervez Musharraf earlier?
I heard Dr Ayesha was really sick. She cancelled a speaking appointment at Stanford. Hopefully everything’s ok.
I am no expert on this subject. But I’ll try give my honest opinion. I apologize in advance if it hurts some ones feelings.
First and foremost if everyone, from top to bottom, is getting some sort of benefit out of the status quo, why would anyone want to change the quasi-democratic system we have?
Most post-modern democracies in Europe call themselves “Welfare States”. Guess after the end of the Second World War and in the early days of the Cold War it had become quite clear that the purpose of the state was to strive for the overall good of all citizen and not the majority. Majority in Europe’s experience had brought about Communists in Russia and Fascists in Germany, Spain and Italy – If I am not wrong, they were all either elected by popular vote or by popular rebellions led by the masses.
Since the end of the war democracies across the world have fought against popular movements, whether they were led by industrial labour, peasant or the Leftists middle class politicians. Today most popular movements – Green, Anti-War or Pro-Rights – are called “Fringe” elements in the U.S. and Europe.
So forget about democracy if you take the popular route. In fact street power is what most of your politicians, generals and industrialists fear the most – same as most of their compatriots in the West.
My question is simple – Who would fight for democracy in Pakistan? Who is desperate enough to shed sweat and blood for the sake of a system of governance they aren’t even sure would protect what they love the most? And what do people in Pakistan actually love the most? Freedom (read civil liberties)?
As a 40-year-old Pakistani, I can tell you with full confidence that it’s not freedom our masses would die for. Of course they monetize their votes, because they don’t give two hoots about the spirit of democracy which is quite opposed to the values of our “popular culture”. We can argue how this popular culture came to be, but the reality is that it exists.
We will continue to struggle with a quasi-democratic state as long as there are enough entrepreneurs trying to rise from the middle class and become master of their destinies. They will take side with the status quo in suppressing popular movements, whether they’re for democracy or not, but at the same time they would force the state to open up and give people freedom and civil liberties needed to turn their start ups into industrial empires.
That is what has happened in India. The credit of relative smooth functioning of institutions in India goes to the rising middle class who kept pushing the bureaucracy back and promoting politicians who would guarantee economic reforms and political stability.
Interesting analysis, though you give the educated middle-class youth far more importance than they deserve - most revolutions, or at least mass movements derive their support base from the grassroots i.e. the common man. The illiterate, the poor, the downtrodden are more politically conscious and active - a greater percentage of the lower classes is bound to vote during elections, not the middle class. The latter’s more adept at debating politics in cosy living rooms and cafes.
The hard working and patriotic people of Pakistan do not deserve the suffering resulting from the hostilities, turmoil and agony of the present situation. The people of Pakistan and the Pakistani Diaspora are wondering if anyone in Musharraf’s close circles might dare to advise , “Mr. President! Tear down this wall of division and opportunism. You have already ruled the country, almost unopposed and unrestricted, for eight years. Let the new breed of leadership emerge and democracy flourish. Stop using your commando instincts as you are not in a hostile territory fighting an enemy. Don’t be delusional; this uniform is not your skin, your skin is in fact your skin; don’t depend on those political jugglers and hustlers, who wanting to save their skins, will not hesitate to make you a scapegoat, and please keep the army out of this mess. The army already has various challenges on its hands; let it perform its constitutional duty of securing the nation’s borders and handling external threats. Please let the electorate process take its natural course. Let Benazir Bhutto and the Sharifs return to Pakistan. Let them have their day in court and let the judiciary decide the cases against them without any state duress and manipulation. Let hold timely and free elections for national and provincial assemblies, before the Presidential polls under a neutral caretaker government. Let Pakistan embark on the road of democracy so that the people of Pakistan can reach their deserving place in the global community.”
We of the subcontinent find it easy to put our trust in individual leaders to guide us and to deliver us from our problems – while we ignore the systemic weaknesses – and when they fail us, we turn upon them in ferocity. The reality is that politicians come from among us and they share our same faults and virtues. Democracies are inherently more expensive to operate because those require more resources – both for the purpose of outreach to get to the masses (to entice them to vote for us) – and also because the democratic process itself is slow (since consensus of any kind takes a lot of time to develop), therefore is more resource intensive. Yes, the greed of individual leaders may be one reason for corruption but it is not the only reason – it is perhaps not even the driver. It is impossible to run in and win an election without significant resources, so corruption will stay (like it does in day-to-day affairs of state) until an alternative scheme for funding campaigns is developed. In the USA, it takes place via matching funds from the Treasury. Even that is not enough, therefore the various interest groups who contribute to the campaign end up gaining a lot of clout. The best one can hope for is to have a system of checks and balances (but excluding the armed forces) so nobody feels that they can simply get away with whatever they do.
Ayesha, very nice analysis and rightly put. The powerful plunder the country more than any conquerer of the region might have done. When a common Pakistani gets tired of the corrupt politicians , s/he looks up to General ‘ I am God’….and then to get rid of the General s/he relies on C-130s to save the nation.