Is civilian dictatorship preferable to other forms of dictatorship?
Nawaz’s move to ‘consult’ with Asif Zardari on ‘important national issues’ – while the ruling party carefully stokes civ-mil tension even as both keep up the same-page façade – has brought media focus back to the institution of democracy, and the need to preserve its sanctity. But the PM’s posture since taking power has also triggered a parallel debate; does representative government really mean more power to the people, and should democracy still be the preferred system if it allows the incumbent to concentrate power around a preferred clique, even engineer a civilian dictatorship of sorts?
Nawaz raised the first red flag with his talks initiative with the Taliban. He favoured negotiations over military action on the campaign trail, but the manner of his reconciliation process has drawn widespread criticism, including accusations of misrepresenting public mandate.
One, the decision reflected confusion at the highest level of government, since it came when he had prepared everyone, especially the military, for a North Waziristan (NW) sweep. Two, he consulted only with the right wing religious lobby in deciding the fate of the Taliban, and both negotiating teams clearly represented a narrow fundamentalist outlook not accepted my a majority of the public. He left religious minorities, liberals, and even the military – who have suffered the most from Taliban’s insurgency – out of the decision making loop.
Three, far from talking from a position of strength, the government seemed going out of its way to cuddle the TTP hierarchy, even releasing prisoners without a reciprocal gesture, and chose not to inform the army. And four, he refuses to change course even as the Taliban accuse the government of double dealing and refuse to extend their ceasefire.
There is talk of tension in Islamabad, that the military has become increasingly unhappy with the back-and-forth on the talks, and will not allow them to linger indefinitely. And N raised the second flag when his inner circle decided to go all out on Musharraf. The military had kept quiet till the indictment, but after the fallout over the ECL proposition, and Saad and Asif jabs, it became clear more differences would emerge sooner rather than later.
Long road, wrong road
And then we had the crucial Nawaz-Asif meeting, complete with broad smiles backing confident claims. Among other things, they said, there had been a spirited renewal of the commitment to preserve the democratic process. It seems to have had the desired effect too, to an extent. Talk of institutional clash seems toned down a notch, even if only temporarily.
But the question of people benefitting from democratic government more than authoritarian ones still remains unanswered. And does netting the military suffice to make democracy work?
“The notion that politicians clashing with the establishment and government scoring wins over the military implies success and strength for democracy is ridiculous”, said Sajjad Mir, prominent analyst and journalist.
“For democracy to be functional, all state organisations must demonstrate a democratic culture. Just the exercise of voting is not enough, it is a far bigger process”.
There is talk of tension in Islamabad, that the military has become increasingly unhappy with the back-and-forth on the talks, and will not allow them to linger indefinitely.
Simply imposing a political system, however desirable, is unlikely to work in the long term, according to Mir. And forced democracy has had its share of failures recently, like Iraq, Ukraine, etc. Unless proper checks and balances are put in place, and respected, the tendency to concentrate power around a select elite faces little opposition, and those who wield power benefit instead of the people, much like a dictatorship. And our system is without such preventive measures or checks.
But Pakistan’s internal situation and geopolitical realities are such that democratic nuances have little to do with who is comfortable while in power in Islamabad. The government depends largely on foreign funding, even for its day-to-day functioning. And more than Pakistan’s citizens, it is important for those paying our bills to be happy with Islamabad’s policies.
“The present government is confident because it seems to have foreign backing, especially America’s,” added Mir. “Zardari did initially but then he lost their trust, just like Musharraf before him. It is not a good thing, but that’s how the world works. And while democracy might not be on the right long term path, it is still preferable to an outright dictatorship”.
But there is also the question of providing equal opportunities to all citizens, the basic functioning rule of democracy.
“Pakistan’s intended democratic model was reflected in MA Jinnah’s famous Aug11 speech,” said Dr Mehdi Hassan, senior analyst and academic. “But unfortunately Pakistani politicians have proved incapable of framing and following a constitution that ensures equal rights for all beyond mere words.”
Dr Hassan also reflected on a deeper aspect of democracy, which is central to impartial governance yet missing from our system of politics.
“No democracy can function properly until the state is completely secular,” he said, and “religiosity in the governance system impedes democratic advances”.
And the way religion as an institution has been allowed to overshadow Pakistani politics, there is no real chance of real democracy taking root.
“With elections and transition of power, we have taken the first steps on a long road, but from there we have also taken the wrong road forward”, he added. “Unfortunately, no Muslim country in the world is democratic”. Not even Lebanon, where 19 religious and sectarian representations make up a unique balance in parliament.
More unfortunate signs
So it would seem our democratic evolution has led us to the point where the elected leader’s personal outlook, and that of his close circle, and the need to please foreign paymasters, play the key role in policy making, even if they run contrary to public mandate.
And there are more signs that N’s understanding of democracy underscores the need to keep as much power as close to him as possible.
“Their initial public mandate cannot be faulted, but the government does seem lacking in some respects,” said Khurshid Kasuri, former foreign minister and one of PTI’s senior most leaders.
Pakistan’s internal situation and geopolitical realities are such that democratic nuances have little to do with who is comfortable while in power in Islamabad. The government depends largely on foreign funding, even for its day-to-day functioning. And more than Pakistan’s citizens, it is important for those paying our bills to be happy with Islamabad’s policies.
“Democracy is about more than just coming to power. It also means sharing power, and the way the prime minister likes to keep important ministries to himself shows clear reluctance to even procedural delegation of duties”.
The PM reluctantly let go of the defence ministry when the Supreme Court asked him to appear in the missing person’s case and till recently held the commerce ministry portfolio as well. He is also still the foreign minister and the ever loyal Ishaq Dar his most trusted advisor.
“Other than the ministries, the prime minister is also reluctant to appoint heads and board chairmen of important institutions”, added Kasuri. “It is always easier to exercise power and manipulate people when appointees are doubtful about their tenure, etc”.
Then there is the friction with the military, which prompted the meeting with Zardari, and the subsequent show of democratic political strength. Steps like alienating the army in the talks with the Taliban, and scoring political points in the wake of Musharraf’s trial are unfortunate, according to Kasuri, and reflect political priorities that are far removed from the interests of the people, supposedly the backbone of the democratic process.
The people yearned for an end to the insurgency and policies that ensured a stronger economy when they voted for change last year. Privately, most people journalists talk to, including lawyers, analysts, even members of the bureaucracy, confess a growing distaste for democracy, especially since the present administration took office. And few deny that everyday life, especially for middle and lower groups, was better in the time of Gen Musharraf, now fair game for ruling party loudmouths and facing possible death penalty in this treason trial.
This government’s soft approach to the insurgency has been as ineffective as its civilian predecessor’s non-approach. And its contribution to the economy has been minimal, where other than the eurobond sales its only achievement has been a slight, artificial uptick in the rupee. And that too allegedly comes with a price to pay in international politics, leaning with Saudi Arabia and helping arm al Qaeda militias overthrow a sovereign government (Syria).
There is no denying that fruits of democracy reach politicians that fought long and endured military persecution to achieve people’s rule, but they remain far from the people themselves, no matter how directly or indirectly they exercise power over their rulers.