Discourse on democracy

The best choice for the job?

Once at Harvard Law School, Barrack Obama connived with a coup. His class of Re-inventing Democracy overthrew its professor, Roberto Unger, by popular consent. The class, playfully,‘elected’ a student to be the ‘professor’ and decided for Unger, to instead, attend as an ordinary student. It was their attempt to show their professor that while he advocated re-invention of democracy in the world, his own class was run in a hierarchical manner where he “taught by lecturing” and his students “learned by trying to digest what he said since he set the agenda, the content and the tenor of the discussion.”

The professor got the point and asked his ‘radical’ democrats to develop a syllabus, an agenda and a reading list. The task was never finished, presumably, because of their lack of experience. While Obama and his mates had been rhetorically sound, the task for which they were elected (democratically) was beyond them. The professor was indeed the best choice for his job.

When it comes to democracy, however, choosing the best representative to do the job of governing a society is less simple. Unlike a professor, who has solid academic credentials i.e. a degree, published works etc. to earn a job, a politician, whose job is in no manner less important than that of a professor – rather more important than a professor in many ways, does not require any concrete credentials which allow him to contest for the public office. While there are mechanisms in place to test the veracity of documentary claims made by a professor applicant, in the case of a politician, no similar practice is followed. Even when a few criteria do exist, Article 62, 63 in case of Pakistan, these are either intangible or not implemented rigorously.

“Democracy” as the American jurist, Oliver Holmes said, “is what the crowd wants.” While many here in Pakistan present spirited critiques of the system, hardly anyone has plausible alternatives to offer. The idea that the masses cannot correctly select the best candidates for themselves is widely believed. Clever canvassing is considered prime determinant in winning elections. The skill they put to use most frequently and unscrupulously is rhetoric to build a verbal alternative to reality, and with various machinations, ensure it is bought by the electorate.

Many thinkers have craved for an informed electorate. John Stuart Mill had wanted every adult to vote “but only after compulsory secondary education had been instituted and had time to take effect.” The problem again is quite complicated. There is hardly any connection between being “educated” and choosing wisely the right representative for oneself. All those familiar with the content of our curriculum would testify without hesitation that it is not geared towards such an end.

In the absence of a populace that can make reasoned judgment, electioneering is simply a contest at populism. In the words of Bernard Crick, a political theorist, “Political leaders can cry education, education, education but with their manipulation of the media, sound-bites, and emotive slogans rather than reasoned public debate.”

Thanks to the almighty media corporations, this seriously flawed system of elections is never seriously debated since it is part of the capitalist outlook. Hardly any critique of this imperfect system, which, in the context of Pakistan, facilitates the rise of the moneyed class and allows them to entrench their hegemony, finds its way to the public space. Whatever critique of this practice of democracy manages to find its way to the public arena normally is archaic and presents the anachronistic model khilafat in a sentimental manner and fails to articulate or address myriad problems in its implementation in the post-9/11, post-Ottoman and post-nation state world.

It would be interesting to raise the following questions in this context: Why is it that countries cannot be run like universities or organizations where a team which is considered more experienced or wise selected on the basis of transparent, solid credentials and allowed to run the affairs? Can’t states be run in a similar manner where excellence is preferred over every other virtue? Arête had been a Greek word used to mean just that. Even in India, during the chaotic denouement of the Mughal era, Shah Waliullah had expressed a similar desire in terms of the rule of the best as opposed to the divine right of the king to rule. But this hardly simplifies the matter as the question remains as to who should judge the arête of the would-be rulers.

In our country, democracy is far from “reasoned public debate.” Canvassing here is not what thinkers ideally visualize for a democracy. Here, the basic understanding of those who have to elect is faulty as no attempt has ever been made to teach them about how democracy actually functions. Here, in the recent elections, everybody wanted quick fixes and the contesting candidates knew how to exploit. Every single candidate and party claimed to end its miseries and the electorate gullibly suspended its disbelief.

The most glaring problem with our version of democracy has been our politicians’ sheer lack of capacity for informed debate and legislation. They are adept at winning elections, but once they reach the parliament, most of them are unable to discuss and debate in a manner that is conducive to effective legislation. There is a hangover from their electioneering and mutually hostile attitude becomes the biggest hurdle in their way to achieve something meaningful for the masses. Shifting hostilities between various houses has almost become a tradition in the country. Even a modicum of team work is absent, what to talk of synergizing for a better Pakistan.

Ideally, our parliamentarians have to argue, bring their experience, knowledge and wisdom to perform tasks related to management of human societies. One cannot imagine a task grander or nobler than this. It, however, turns into a farce when our street-smart politicians make a mockery of this worthy occupation. Mostly, when they open their mouths it is either some shallow rhetorical outpouring or a tirade against someone. Regretfully, most of our media thrive on such nuggets and fail to strongly criticize this disdainful attitude. Rather, practitioners of such outpourings are tacitly supported and celebrated in the media as they, advertently, assist media houses in upping their ratings.

Our opinion makers need to change dynamics of the discourse we come across in the public space. Brushing essential issues under the carpet would not make them go away. Democracy does not operate in a vacuum. Celebratory ditties of democracy sung by politicians have to be deconstructed and not gullibly bought by our intellectuals. Sincere means of transforming the populace into smart electorate have to be initiated. Civil society, opinion and policy makers must stop being at the mercy of the daily unfolding of dramatic outcomes. They must realise when foundations are shaky, gilding the façade does not help.

The writer is currently pursuing a PhD degree and teaches at Government College University, Lahore. He can be contacted at [email protected].