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).
I like some of the suggestions already posted. Nothing revolutiary or new (1) break the hold of the l large land holders by some mechanism of distribution to the land workers( i am afraid to give the example of our eastern neighbor as that will be tantamount to blasphemy to some) (2 ) reserve a certain amount of the budget to education, health infrastructure and other social sector budget items and at the same time fix an upper limit to the defense budget (3) restore the recently dissolved local bodies so that more politics and budget is decentralised and moved away from Islamabad and the second most difficult suggestion after the one in #1, (4) find some mech. for separation of government and political governence In this last one we can try to follow the example of the USA. remember that the usa comes out as the most religious conservative society in repeated surveys and we are always talking about in god we trust and one people under god and we still have the spectacle of the court actions which are replicas of the famous monkey trials and whether the 10 commandments be allowed to be displayed on federal property etc
The so called resident liberals would like to propose following amendments.
1)Change the name from Islamic “Republic of Pakistan” to “Pavitr Desh” since Pakistan’s history starts from Ashoka rather than from Muhammad Bin Qasim and in order to keep ourselves intact with our forefathers’ background, we should use sanskirit/hindi term for the country.
2)Remove all those amendments which appear “religious” and make our liberals sleepless in Karachi,Lahore,Islamabad and Seattle.
3)Add an Amendment which gives government liberty to apply “Hud” on those who says Allah Hafiz instead of Khuda Hafiz because it hurts
Jinnahliberals’ Secular Pakistan.4) The wannabe reformist NFP might like to remove all Islamic posters. (http://bit.ly/zSu3u)
5) The so called peace lover and “Pakistan lover” Hoodbhoy might wish to have an amendment to disarm Pakistan and “Reshape” and “Re-imagine” Pakistan by bowing infront of India
6) Columnists like Hanif might dream for an amendment which gives him liberty to fetch Halwa from Molvis since he was found complaining about Halwa on death of mian tufail
I also think the expansion of the ATP community to the facebook generation is a very welcome thing.
I am very much NOT of the facebook generation.
I think we should focus on realistic changes rather than getting to extre about changing name etc. At least lets do the sensible things that can be done.
First, I do think we need more provincial autonomy and also more provinces.
Second, constitutional measures for balance of power and check against future military interference needs to be added.
Third, I think the constitution should mandate certain develoment expentitures (e.g., a percentage floor on education and health spending) that will force governments to comply to development needs.
For all the talk of