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).
This is a bit unrelated, but it may be of interest to some in this forum:
Excerpt:-
“Under the campaign, the director general of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has been instructed to monitor and check the spread of any malicious stories or messages regarding the country
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.