Is our democracy working?
The writers of our constitution merely copied Westminster paying little heed to the need for developing further checks and balances to allow the democratic institutions to evolve and take root. Remember England has a system that is fully in motion having evolved over centuries.
We, on the other hand, have to start a new system.
As any mechanical engineer will be able to tell our learned controllers of thought, the laws of motion tell us that starting up a system is harder than maintaining the momentum of a system that is already running. We have to jump start the democratic system and then try to warm up the engine so that it will maintain its momentum.
As our friendly mechanical engineer will tell us, this requires considerable power and careful monitoring. You cannot just turn the ignition of election once and have a perfectly working system. Other safeguards and perhaps continuous and rapid ignition thrusts may be required. For example, might not quick, annual elections for, say ten years at least, enforce more responsible behavior from the politicians.
And could more constitutional amendments not be made to introduce a variety of checks and balances that seek to distribute power and not concentrate it, for concentration of power is indeed corrupting.
Historical evidence has shown:
- Time and again we have seen that elections, as currently conducted, return the same individuals that have pillaged the country both in our democratic and non-democratic periods.
- Elections alone, have failed to produced responsible or even itnelligent government. The methods of government, the law books, and the institutions remain unchanged whether we have democracy or not. Success has not been achieved after many attempts at jump-starting.
- The engine of democracy is clogged by a legislature that time and again involves itself not with its principal task of legislation but with personal aggrandisment and childish games.
Perhaps, it is time we learnt from our learned mechanical engineer.
Let us carefully look at our design of democracy and see how we can alter it to achieve a democratic outcome and not just observe democratic form.
Let us seek to better define democracy and that which we want from democracy. Having defined the term and our objectives, let us consider the best means available to achieve those objectives. Only thus might it be possible to foster the development of an elected leadership more interested in delivering democracy and our society’s objectives to us than in lining their pockets.
Might not a debate on the modalities produce a better design for democracy?
Our elected representative such as they are have begun to debate an amendment. What surprises me is why are our intellectuals silent on this important issue? So Please tell me what amendments to the constitution would you like to see.
Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque was the former head of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economists (PIDE).
Can somebody elucidate Did our history start before Mohenjodaro or did it start with Qasims raid and Lodhis foray . In my earlier posting I had ment some mech to seperate religion from governence I did not mean to separate goverment from governence I was not being factual or sarcastic just a Freudian slip or a typo
Trying to run democracy without secularism is like trying to run a car in an ocean. Even if you copy the Ferrari design, it’s still gonna drown, irrespective of how many years are spent in perfecting it’s mechanics.
Democracy is only meaningful in secular societies that have reasonable amount of prosperity. Trying to change an ocean to a solid ground so that a car can be run on it is futile. Instead change your machine, it is not meant to be democracy.
@Reading Lord: As usual you missed the sarcasm, not your fault though. Too much liberalism is harmful for critical thinking.
I smiled when you referred Allama. By the way this is same Allama who has said stuff like “Tariq ki Dua” which promotes “Jihadism” and directly sync with “Talibanization” of US and Liberals.He also said shair like
“Aik Houn Muslim Haram ki Pasbni k Liye
Neel k Sahil se Taba-e-Kashgar Tak”
which is against “Nationalism” and promotes One Ummah concept(again, Talibanization).
Next time when Iqbal is referred, it should be kept in mind that he did not just say ,”Deen-e-Mullah fi’sabilillah fasad” but Also wrote various stuff which did not fit with definition of secularism,liberalism. Google is your friend.
Talking about irrational things, May I need to remind that Nadeem F.Paracha is quite irrational yet he is not a religious. He’s pretty much..ummm.. liberal ;).
The political system in Pakistan has been vulnerable to capture by particular social groups. These rent seekers are successful now at winning mass elections and so our system needs a corrective: I propose a citizen body chosen by lot. A random lottery would entitle a person to membership in a body of 100-200 Pakistanis who would be a random sample of the population at large. These individuals would be given a comfortable allowance and accommodation in Islamabad. In exchange they would primarily be asked to comment on public policy. Each may or may not also be given a small fund for development projects in their districts. How many of our legislators actually know what a regular sort of person is really like? These funds and these individuals would be a valuable check and corrective to any built in tendency towards state capture and rent seeking by a particular social strata.
A few rambling thoughts…
1) Feudalism. Who is going to abolish the infamous ‘feudal’ system? And is ‘feudalism’ in Pakistan manifested in only the landed-aristocracy? I think not. ‘Feudalism’ is a mindset above all and is found in many segments of the Pakistani society. Dr. Safdar Mehmood in a Jang column within last 2.5 years masterfully dwells on this topic.
2) I don’t want to go into the correct, but impratical ideas about ‘we’ doing this or ‘we’ doing that as some kind of cohesive and concerted force. Who is this ‘we’? To me this ‘we’ is Pakistanis in the judiciary, in the civil society, in the military, in the political parties, in the media, in the farmlands, in the factories….This ‘we’ is already a power player in Pakistan and the results of this ‘we’ are already in front of us. The failures and achievements of this ‘we’ are already in front of us. I know ‘we’ talk about the failures of the politicians with a lot of glee but the failures of the judicial system–from Justice Munir in the 50s to Justice Iftikhar Chowdri in 2000 (LFO)–and in between Justice Tarar of the Quetta suitcase-of-money fame– are no less damaging for Pakistan. Similarly, Ayub’s regime gave Bangladesh. Zia’s gave the Jihadi, heroin, and Kalashnikov culture. And Musharraf’s legacy is rampant suicide-bombers-for-hire.
3) 1973 Constitution should NEVER be abolished! Even General Zia–who had open contempt for the Constitution and distorted it–never dared abolish it altogether. It took Pakistanis more than quarter-century to come up with a consensus document and in foreseeable future I don’t see the possibility of repeating that singular great consensus. There should an open discussion about the various changes in the Constitution. I know that Ardeshir Cowasjee of Dawn–a perpetual Bhuttos hater–likes to cite ZAB’s ‘undemocratic’ changes all the time and so that can get us started on that.
4) Finally there is something of a great hope: A paradigm shift is taking place throughout the world (except perhaps in Burma and North Korea?) where ‘information’ is less and less controlled and is coming from more and more varied sources. The recent turmoil in Iran was a good example of how States/Countries are being rendered less effective in maintaining status-quo. Pakistan is no exception to that. Yes, the ‘chattering classes’ in Pakistan are a minority but then where do the majority get their views from other than newspapers, theaters/cinemas, television, radio if not from the minority sources in Pakistan? Pakistani media is very free, determined, and high-spirited. I don’t think any military Bonaparte or a civilian leader can get away with repression, corruption, nepotism on a large scale anymore. The media will have a corrective influence in Pakistan; it is already having that influence.
Another issue is that of the state bank’s independence. I’m not very qualified on this but economists, such as the author of this piece himself, need to debate the pros and cons of making the state bank constitutionally independent. Could a more independent state bank result in less printing of money and hence lower inflation? Would an independent state bank unduly restrict the govt in monetary policy?
Also, what should be the composition f the state bank’s board of governors?
And for heavens sake, we need to get out of this pre-occupation with whether Pakistan should be called the Islamic republic of Pakistan or the secular republic of Pakistan. All those who present secularization or Islamization as the solution to almost everything need to shut up instead of allowing every discussion to be held hostage by a single issue obsession. There are plenty of issues on which we can make solid progress without having to bring in this almost unresolvable debate all the time.
There are the familiar issues like making the election commission independent, the method of appointing judges and holding them accountable, provincial autonomy, 58-2b etc.
Some other important issues that should be given more attention:
1. Devolution of power. Instead of abolishing devolution, the system needs to be improved by giving the district govts some fiscal autonomy. Local Nazims should be elected directly and the local govt elections should be held on party basis. The police should not be under the Nazims though.
2. An institutionalized system of accountability and transparency. For example, we need a constitutionally independent NAB for the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases. That way, NAB can be a force against corruption without becoming a tool for political victimization of the opposition.
3. Intra-party democracy. The constitution requires intra-party democracy in principle but the relevant clauses are toothless. The constitution should clearly require that all parties must have elected national, provincial and district leaders. Secondly, it should make it mandatory for parties to hold debates between the candidates for all their intra-party elections. Lastly, the parties must be required to make these debates open to the media in addition to posting the unedited recordings on-line. That will bring some transparency into the process.
4. Reforms that can help in reducing the entry barriers to politics for ordinary citizens. For example, there should be local radio stations all over the country and during the election time, all the candidates should be required to participate in live debates. With everyone getting equal air time, all the candidates will have a reasonable opportunity to get their message across to the voters, and this way, the role of money can be reduced a bit. This particular point does not necessarily require a constitutional amendment, but should be part of a reform proposal for democracy.
5. An amendment that makes it harder for the government to legislate by ordinances instead of going to the parliament. Any ordinance should automatically stand anulled at the first meeting of the national assembly or the senate after its issuance, unless the house passes the ordinance in that session.