By the people, for the people
At the start of 2017, one thing is certain that there is trust deficit between people and democratic order. A democratic order allows the emergence of a state that is supposedly for the people by the people. But in last two decades, there seems to be a widening gulf between state and the people. In my view, the gap between state and people, in the West, accelerated with President George W Bush and his ally UK PM Tony Blair deciding to impose a war on Iraq based on lies and questionable intelligence. The trend further got a boost when Arab Spring turned into an Arab Autumn as oppression was reimposed by suppressing the uprising of the people. It resulted in civil war in Syria supported by foreign powers and a regime change gone bad in Libya. This resulted in an influx of refugees into Europe which was incapable of dealing with the crisis and resulted in the rise of the extreme right which handed a mandate to Brexit and Donald Trump in USA. The question that is now on the mind of many political scientists is what is the state’s relation to the people and how they can be brought closer rather than allow growing apart which could risk demise of the whole system.
Oxford University Press defines a state as “A nation or territory considered as an organised political community under one government”. In this definition, there are two main issues one internal and the other external from Western liberal democratic perspective. Internally government is erected by the mandate of the people but once the mandate is granted it becomes something other. Once elections end a citizen gives up his right to speak on behalf of the state or to have voice in affairs of the state. He transfers this right to his elected politicians. Although in modern times opinion polls and special interest civic organisations have tried to regain some of it. But still, the issue is not fully resolved. The dissatisfaction of people with a government that runs the state confirms this point.
Externally the definition considers State as an island with no link or association with other states. This is derived from the principle of sovereignty of a state granted by the UN Charter. This considers state as a close system with no input or output with other states. This is also no longer valid because of the emergence of the globalisation of trade and communication revolution in the form of social media. Turkish coup was debated globally while it was still going on and this chatter contributed towards mobilisation of people to thwart it. American claims that Russians influenced their elections through penetration of emails is another example of that. American lead economic sanctions on Iran were against the traditional definition of a state because they influenced a state to act contrary to their own wishes.
Karl Marx tried to address this dilemma of a democratic state as an outside agency to manage a community. He considered that State is an oppressor of people rather than its benefactor and suggested that state should be dissolved and instead a commune should be constructed where work and resources are collectively performed. He suggested that the commune should be representative of people that not just legislate but execute as well. But the problem is that he looked at state just as an economic entity and disregarded the social, cultural and religious aspects of it. The result was the dictatorship of politburo that was supposedly making decisions in the name of the people but did not consult with it or allowed them to have a voice in it.
The revolutions against the dictatorship of monarchs resulted in the establishment of democracies or constitutional monarchies. But what will happen when there is an uprising of people against a democratic system. In my view, we are at the first stage of revolutions where people reacted at the ballot paper by giving a mandate to extreme right ideas and candidates. They expect this to disrupt the established system so that a vacuum is created for the emergence of a new order. We can call it a soft revolution. There is growing anxiety about what will fill this vacuum. In the absence of structural changes the expectations are that it produce anarchy and violence.
Now lets look at it from Pakistan’s perspective. Article 7 of Constitution of Pakistan defines State as “the State” means the Federal Government, a Provincial Government, a Provincial Assembly, and such local or other authorities in Pakistan as are by law empowered to impose any tax or cess.
In other words, State is bureaucracy, elected government and tax imposing authorities. Elected government apparently works as a bridge between the state and the people. But it is this bridge that seems to be shaking as authoritarian leaders control political parties to serve their self-interest. Parliament is weak and does not speak for the issues of the people. Will of the state is applied selectively rather than uniformly resulting in social injustices. Tax is imposed but no accountability is provided on how this money is spent to benefit people. Considering the dilapidated condition of public schools, hospitals, and roads suggest state has failed to use resources properly and embezzlement have happened in project execution. Rising gap between rich and power is another indication that State is serving elites rather than the people.
Uprising of the people on the streets has been a political tool to force the state to amend its ways. The greatest damage done by PTI is to blunt this tool of an uprising by organizing two failed and untimely dharna and lockdown. It has enabled PML-N to control state organs with an iron grip and use State to serve the agenda they desire without any serious challenge. This is an unsustainable situation and cosmetic stability will only provide a false sense of security. We need drastic structural changes including a complete overhaul of the 1973 constitution. No political party on the horizon is ready to do that because all of them are controlled by elites of the country and it is not in their interest to change it. The question then is whether we are moving towards a bloody revolution or a soft revolution is possible through the emergence of a political platform that has people’s support and mandate.
