Democracy or civil authoritarianism

Are we better off preparing for an “abrupt change”?

But what she didn’t mention or conveniently overlooked was the fact that in Pakistan, the development of democratic culture is still in its nascent phase and her hopes for a “public resistance” in the face of a military coup are unrealistically optimistic.   

A former US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Robin Raphel, at a recent seminar in Washington said that democracy in Pakistan has flourished in the last few years and chances of a military takeover are remote. “The military does not want snap elections,” said Raphel while adding that “the chances of a sudden change of government in Pakistan are remote as the military is not prepared to bring down the civilian set-up.”

She also said that if the military attempted to stage a coup, it might face unprecedented resistance. “Like the military, the public too has changed and may resist any abrupt move,” she said. To credit the development of democratic norms in the country, she argued that major parties, parties PPP and PML-N have come a long way from establishing a reputation as warring factions ready to topple each other’s governments by using all available democratic and non democratic methods. “The transfer [2013 elections] also happened because Nawaz Sharif was willing to wait for the next election, which he did not in the 90s.”

Ambassador Raphel may be right when she says that major political parties in Pakistan – with the exception of PTI – have matured to an extent that they are willing to let each other work and avoid serious collusions with non-democratic forces in the country. But what she didn’t mention or conveniently overlooked was the fact that in Pakistan, the development of democratic culture is still in its nascent phase and her hopes for a “public resistance” in the face of a military coup are unrealistically optimistic.

In respect to the lack of development of democratic culture in Pakistan, the main argument is that the prevailing political elite structure in the country lacks democratic essence in its party organisations which gradually descends into masses and encourages already entrenched feudal and tribal structures. In Pakistan, votes or party loyalties do not switch primarily on the bases of parties ideological leanings which could cater to voter concerns; rather, party loyalties and voters preferences are linked with the candidate’s social, ethnic, cultural and political background and support base. Hasim Hassan in his book, An American Experience contends that “there have been recent events in Pakistan pointing out the lack of democratic culture. If the culture of democracy is not established by the politicians then political, ethnic, religious, linguistic divide will occur and result in anarchy.”

Rajiv Kumar agrees: “Its [political elite] dynastic hold over the parties, personalised rule and considerable over entry into leadership ranks has kept ‘democratic’ politics confined to inter-elite political relations, which has remained closed and exclusive. This raises serious questions about the representative nature of the assemblies and political executives that rule in the name of democracy.”

Recently, a military coup in Turkey was averted by the masses who willingly confronted their own brothers in uniform to protect the country’s hard earned democratic setup. While it’s an altogether different question how the current Turkish President, Tayyip Erdogan’s rule has been shoddier than an authoritarian regime, public’s rampant pouring into streets and defiance in the face of brute power does not reflect a support for a person rather for an institution: democracy. Even the worst of Erdogan’s political rivals stood beside him to protect the country’s civilian’s dominance.

In Pakistan, however, political differences among civilians are expressed by inviting the military for takeover. Inaptness in governance, breakdown of the rule of law and debilitated justice process are compensated by allowing military to dispense justice and rule the country.

“…the military’s consistent emphasis on the implementation of the civilian part of the National Action Plan, the formation of the military courts to dispense justice and frequent security interventions across the country to stabilise the security situation (Karachi presents a case) are cases where civilians are not front line combats.”

Above all, on political leadership’s part, there is a concerted effort to prevent the true dissemination of democratic values in society. This is reflected through political parties ruling patterns: reforms, infrastructure projects and governance methods are catered to root already entrenched tribal, ethnic, biradari or other loyalties.

In contrast to any other developed democratic society, people in Pakistan often link their survival with the military’s rule rather than a civilian rule. The military’s hyperactivity on the face of civilian’s corrupt and inefficiently run public sector litters the latter’s image which has often resulted in with masses’ awe-inspiring welcome for the military takeovers rather than resistance and standoff.

For instance, the military’s consistent emphasis on the implementation of the civilian part of the National Action Plan, the formation of the military courts to dispense justice and frequent security interventions across the country to stabilise the security situation (Karachi presents a case) are cases where civilians are not front line combats.

The posters asking for the military takeover a month ago, among other things, are a reflection of a loss of trust on democratically elected leaders. There is no surprise why international community prefers to deal with the military instead of the country’s civilian leadership: one can disagree with the way the military has been operating to fulfill its own institutional interests but it cannot be lambasted for the failures of the civilian’s autocratic rules.

Ambassador Raphel smartly captured this view: in Pakistan, “erosion in public support for democracy is worrying and might lead to a situation where the people might be forced to welcome an abrupt change, as they did in 1999.”