- Merit must govern, not heredity
No one ever accepts responsibility for any disaster, lack of policy to serve the nation may it be financial, economic or diplomatic, murders, transparency in working or any other. Four years have passed since Model Town massacre; a few days ago the CJ of Supreme Court was forced to take suo moto notice of the delay in decision.
We have reached this state of affairs progressively and with dedicated focus. Instead of being democratic in nature, Pakistan has turned ‘dynastocratic’ for all practical purposes. Whereas power is craved for, the accountability and responsibility that goes with it is shirked. Vested interests supersede national interests. The political parties over years have failed to represent the common people in the true spirit of democracy.
There are two principles built-in within the very definition of democracy. These are equality and freedom. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. This explanation raises many questions: Do our political parties within their cadre allow its workers equal access to power? Can a worker within a party structure have the opportunity to rise to the status of the chairperson of that party in due course? Unfortunately, in Pakistan, we remain stuck in the groove of dynastic dynamics and have not progressed from this point.
From PPP to MQM, to PTI to PML-N and all shades of parties in between, we see the mantle of leadership worn by the one who originated the party – much like a family heirloom passed on from one generation to the other. Is this the much touted democratic order? Where is the democracy within the party cadres themselves? Is heredity to determine who heads the party and merit to be ignored? When heredity becomes the cornerstone of political parties, this in turn inevitably leads to sycophancy and appointment by favoritism not merit. There is no accountability within the party from those who purport to lead the party.
The second part of the definition deals with the right of Pakistani citizens protected by the Constitution. These rights are determined from Articles 8 to Article 28 in the Constitution. Among them is Article 25 which professes that all citizens are equal before law and have a right to equal protection of law; Article 14 deals with inviolability of dignity of man and subject to law, in the privacy of his home is inviolable, so on and so forth. However the violence against Zainab and many like her before her, the murder of Shahzeb Khan (to quote two recent examples only) are huge question marks for our system.
Many think “elections” is synonymous with “democracy”. One often hears that once the system is “allowed to continue” it will lead to a “better democracy”. Those advocating this thought process fail to appreciate that there are elections is a step only in the process of democracy. It is not democracy itself.
The second step must be ‘none of the above’ option (NOTA) on ballot paper thereby giving an option to voters to reject all contesting candidates in a constituency
Democracy is a method of deciding who shall rule. It does not determine the morality of the resulting government. At best, democracy means that government has popular support. But popular support is no guarantee that government will protect your freedom.
How these ‘democratic leaders’ respect the law that they are first and foremost supposed to uphold is reflected in the unfolding saga of Panama Leaks. Nawaz Sharif, having been disqualified by the Supreme Court by a panel of five judges unanimously, in the words of Justice Khosa who opened with reference to well-known novel of Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather”, stated “In the above mentioned sorry and unfortunate state of affairs a conclusion has appeared to me to be unavoidable and inescapable that in the matter of explaining the wealth and assets respondent No. 1 has not been honest to the nation, to the nation’s representatives in the National Assembly and even to this Court.”
Instead of accepting the decision of the apex court with grace, Nawaz Sharif went about to change the law that disallowed a disqualified person from heading a political party. He was successful in achieving this objective largely with the help of Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and BNP-Mengal (with Senator Jehanzeb Jamaldini). Triumphant, in denial of his loss of face internationally, Nawaz Sharif returned to head his party making a mockery of democratic norms.
A number of fiery speeches against the superior judiciary were delivered, he then challenged the July 28th Judgment of the top court. On numerous occasions Nawaz Sharif’s government has chosen a similar path of confrontation with the army as well – Dawn Leaks is one example.
What has happened over these years during PML-N’s tenure is Nawaz spending more time confronting other institutions and following schemes that should have been in the sub-text rather than the main text. This has created a yawning vacuum.
Will elections deliver in a broader frame work where the same dynastocratic or/and autocratic leaders award tickets and ministries on basis of favouritism, funding the party and rewarding blue-eyed, ignoring their competency in areas they have no expertise?
The first step that must be taken is to conduct in-party elections on every three yearly basis. However, merit must govern, not heredity. No one must be allowed to contest more than twice for a party seat. The same must hold good for the MNA and MPA elections as well as seats for senators.
The second step must be ‘None of the above’ option (NOTA) on ballot paper thereby giving an option to voters to reject all contesting candidates in a constituency. Many who oppose this concept state that it as a step against democracy. Is it? If the voters are allowed the chance of rejecting all, it offers them a broader base than to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. In a number of cases, one hears of people refraining from voting particularly in the urban areas because they do not want to vote for the same electable who has brought in no change for the better. Urban areas are marked by low resident interaction, an absence of the ‘baithak’ (general commuting place for residents) culture. This is not only true of upscale areas but also lower-middle income neighbourhoods.
The logical outcome of NOTA will be those elected will be more answerable to the voters. This will make them more answerable in terms of broken promises to people they represent. It will also make them more answerable to the people in cases where rampant corruption committed, if any. In the final analysis let the people decide whom to vote for.
That is the essence of democracy. This should also mean they cannot be appointed as advisors and chairpersons of organisations. Though NOTA will not solve everything, it will certainly involve greater number of people in the process of elections, offering transparency, giving a weapon to the masses to be exercised judiciously. In case of straight 50pc voting none of the above, security of all candidates must be seized and said candidates banned for contesting for ten years; parties need to put up fresh candidates instead of those put up earlier. This option relies heavily also on the transparency of the election process itself.
End Note: “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” – Aristotle
