Essay on Democracy

[Waqar Abro]

Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process, to set plans for positive social action. A man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?

The notions of goverment and of democracy are independent notions and do not, from what I can see of the case, depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely, naturally come about; and will do so, whether, or not, it has the consent of the people, -- real or imagined. Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of hobbes and locke, I believe, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the people; indeed, I believe, with many others I suspect, that our long established democratic governments in the world (the United States and Canada being among them) did not come about by the general will of the people, at all; nor is it necessary that it should be maintained by the will of the people.One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government: It may not be. What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence, which, as it happens, is the hallmark of western democracies. It may be, that the only thing needed is but the trappings of democracy.

An individual or group of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive force. From history we can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained, and maintained. However, it has long been understood that people might come together and explicitly agree to put someone in power. The best of the thinkers saw a process, -- call it democracy -- by which groups might bloodlessly choose a leader. That each of the governed should have a say, or at least an opportunity to have a say, is a high flying ideal; but any system by which the peace is kept is an admirable system and democracy, such as it has evolved, has proven, in many cases, to be just such a system.

A precise definition of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. walter bagehot gave it a more uncelestial definition: "Each man is to have one twelve-millionth share in electing a Parliament; the rich and the wise are not to have, by explicit law, more votes than the poor and stupid; nor are any latent contrivances to give them an influence equivalent to more votes.

In considering the word, "democracy," what I first drawn to your attention is the suffix, "-ocracy." This suffix expresses the operative meaning of the larger word, "democracy"; it is the indicator of the dominant, superior, or aspiring class who would rule; it is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning strength or power. Any word might be added to this suffix, which will then indicate the type of rule, such as: plutocracy (rule by the wealthy), ochlocracy (mob-rule), angelocracy (government by angels), etc. Democracy is the rule by, or the dominion of, the people; it comes from the Greek word, demos. It is often referred to as popular government. Democracy, historically speaking, is to be compared with monarchy, rule of one; or with aristocracy, rule of the "best-born," or rule of the nobles.

Whatever its origins (and we will consider its origins) democracy has come to mean a principle or system to which most all political parties of the western world, no matter their political beliefs, would subscribe. It is politics. It goes beyond the periodic act of voting; it is characterized by participation in government, viz., involving members of the community in governmental decisions, allowing them to take part in anything at all which amounts to a public demonstration of popular opinion.

1 - Grecian Democracy:-

The first democracy, of which we have record, is that which was practiced in ancient Athens. In his capacity as a history writer,Aristotle, in his work, The Athenian Constitution (350 BC), writes that the Athenians practiced democracy only to the extent of putting and keeping in power members of a very exclusive group, a group which formed but a minority in the universal group we stylize as society. The Athenian constitution was oligarchical, in every respect. The poorer classes were the serfs of the rich. They cultivated the lands of the rich and paid rent. The whole country was in the hands of nine magistrates, called archons, who were elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. These ruling magistrates held their positions for life, except for that latter period when they served for a term of ten years. In time, this Greek notion of democracy was set aside in favour of the draw.

"... the method of election in the choice of archons is replaced by lot; some way must be found to keep the rich from buying, or the knaves from smiling, their way into office. To render the selection less than wholly accidental, all those upon whom the lot falls are subjected, before taking up their duties, to a rigorous dokimasia, or character examination, conducted by the Council or the courts. The candidate must show Athenian parentage on both sides, freedom from physical defect and scandal, the pious honoring of his ancestors, the performance of his military assignments, and the full payment of his taxes; his whole life is on this occasion exposed to challenge by any citizen, and the prospect of such a scrutiny presumably frightens the most worthless from the sortition. If he passes this test the archon swears an oath that he will properly perform the obligations of his office, and will dedicate to the gods a golden statue of life-size if he should accept presents or bribes."

Durant in Our Oriental Heritage continued to write that the head man, the archon basileus, must "nine times yearly ... obtain a vote of confidence from the Assembly" and any citizen may bring him to task for an inappropriate act of his. "At the end of his term all his official acts, accounts, and documents" are reviewed by a special board, logistai, which is responsible to the Council. "Severe penalties, even death, may avenge serious misconduct."

Grecian democracy, however, such as it was, was soon covered over with the murk of the middle ages. Democracy's re-flowering in the world, in respect to the rights of the people, first appeared in England with the glorious revolution of 1688. A study of an era known as The Enlightenment, is the study of the beginnings of modern democracy.

2 - The Enlightenment:-

Out of the Dark Ages, in gradual awaking stirs, came the Age of Reason. The enlightenment was fully established and growing vigorously by the eighteenth century. As the shackles of oppression, so firmly clamped on during the middle ages, became loose, men sought to apply reason to religion, politics, morality, and social life. With the coming of the enlightenment men began to express their minds; no longer were most all men cowed by the great mystery of the universe, and, their minds, through ignorance, ruled by fears: The Enlightenment was a time when human beings pulled themselves out of the medieval pits of mysticism. It was a spontaneous and defused movement which fed on itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in natural law and universal order sprung up, which not only promoted scientific findings and advancements of a material nature; but, which, also drove the great political thinkers of the time, such as: Francis bacon (1561-1626), Bernard mandeville (1670-1733),Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1766),Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-88), David Hume (1711-76) and, of course the brightest political light of all, John Locke (1632-1704).

3 - Democracy In Action:-

In a monarchy, or, for that matter, any state where rule is carried out by a privileged class without consulting with the masses in any direct way, it was recognized, at least in the 18th and 19th centuries, that what was needed was a submissive, a confident and a stupid people. Such people in these earlier centuries existed in predominate numbers. Sadly, yet today, even as the 21st century dawns, it is rare, even in the western democracies, to find many people who are independently working through for themselves and taking fixed positions on important political concepts such as democracy, freedom and government. For democracy to work there must, as a prerequisite, be a people educated and be a people ready to inform themselves of the great issues which face them. Unfortunately, a politically educated public, this important ingredient to the proper working of democracy, is missing.

First off, it must be recognized, that the country is not run, at least not in between elections, with the executive checking with the people by way of referenda (as the Swiss do). However, the people who possess government power and who would like to keep it, are bound to proceed on the basis of popular opinion; the difficulty is that public opinion arises as a result of an agenda which is set by minority groups to which vote chasing politicians cow, a process which is generally aided and abetted by an ignorant press.
"[Proper political conclusions] cannot be had by glancing at newspapers, listening to snatches of radio comment, watching politicians perform on television, hearing occasional lectures, and reading a few books. It would not be enough to make a man competent to decide whether to amputate a leg, and it is not enough to qualify him to choose war or peace, to arm or not to arm, to intervene or to withdraw, to fight on or to negotiate. ...

When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute. ... the public opinion of masses cannot be counted upon to apprehend regularly and promptly the reality of things. There is an inherent tendency in opinion to feed upon rumors excited by our own wishes and fears." (Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, p. 25.)

We should never hope or aim to choose a bully, but the elective process will give no guarantee that the people will not end up with one. Democracy, no matter its imperfections, is a way by which the people can bloodlessly turn out leaders; but, the democratic process will only work with the consent of the leaders. The best that can be expected of a constitutional democracy, the best that can be expected by any political system, is a process by which the people turn up a leader or leaders which are prepared to deal with both the bullies amongst us and those at our borders. Hopefully, the leader or leaders, so turned up by the "democratic process," do not turn out to be a worst set of bullies than that which might exist in an ungoverned state. If, in the "democratic process," an elected leader turns into a bully; well, then, one should not rely on democracy, except as a rallying cry, to turn him out. To turn out a powerful bully, great quantities of spilt blood are needed.

4 - Democracy, Government, and Freedom:-

Democracy, in my view, is only compatible with a free economy; it can only exist, in substance, in an economy of ideas. Like a fish to water, democracy can only exist in a total atmosphere of freedom of action; it is completely incompatible with a system that provides for a governing authority with coercive power. If one accepts (anarchists, for example, do not) that a government, to some extent or other, is necessary for a civilized society, than it is to be recognized that the business of governing (as apart from the business of electing representatives) cannot be conducted in democratic matter. Lippmann deals with this problem:

"... there has developed in this century a functional derangement of the relationship between the mass of the people and the government. The people have acquired power which they are incapable of exercising, and the governments they elect have lost powers which they must recover if they are to govern. What then are the true boundaries of the people's power?... They can elect the government. They can remove it. They can approve or disapprove its performance. But they cannot administer the government. They cannot themselves perform. They cannot normally initiate and propose the necessary legislation. A mass cannot govern.

Where mass opinion dominates the government, there is a morbid derangement of the true functions of power. The derangement brings about the enfeeblement, verging on paralysis, of the capacity to govern. This breakdown in the constitutional order is the cause of the precipitate and catastrophic decline of Western society. It may, if it cannot be arrested and reversed, bring about the fall of the West." (Op. cit., pp. 14-5.)
The notions of freedom and of democracy, we might reasonably conclude, rest on the same foundations. This is not the case for the concepts of government and freedom: they will have nothing to do with one another: they work against one another. The principal business of government is the taking of freedom away from people; it is how government achieves its ends.

5 - The Press and Democracy:-

To begin with: those charged with informing the public, such as our journalists, should very carefully examine the "expert evidence" that is thrown their way. Our government experts must be cross-examined and asked if they have any interest in the outcome? The answer is that most of them do -- if, for no other reason, than they are in the pay of the government, as either; bureaucrats, lodged in the upper end of the government echelon; or those resting in publicly funded universities; or those who are in the social welfare business.

The result of the syndrome is predictable, for, as the public conflict grows, people come to doubt expert pronouncements. Normally people primarily judge the propositions before them in a most obvious way, by their source. For example, "Of course she claims oil spills are harmless - she works for Exxon." "Of course he says Exxon lies - he works for Nader." When established experts lose credibility, the demagogues take over and we are left in our mass democracy with groups trying to outshout one another.
"When their views have corporate appeal, they take them to the public through advertising campaigns. When their views have pork-barrel appeal, they take them to legislatures through lobbying. When their views have dramatic appeal, they take them to the public through media campaigns. Groups promote their pet experts, the battle goes public, and quiet scientists and engineers are drowned in the clamor."

Do the important issues get debated in the mass media? Some things seem to work well enough without any notice being taken by the public: and, often, these are the most simple and important workings of society such as family cooperation. In the media, as in human consciousness, one concern tends to drive out another. This is what makes conscious attention so scarce and precious. Our society needs to identify the facts of its situation more swiftly and reliably, with fewer distracting feuds in the media. This will free public debate for its proper task - judging procedures for finding facts, deciding what we want, and helping us choose a path toward a world worth living in.

6 - The People:-

I now deal with the concept, "the people": and, in particular Burke's notion that it consists of not just the aggregate of living persons, but; "those that are dead and those who are to be born."

"That is why young men die in battle for their country's sake and why old men plant trees they will never sit under. ... This invisible, inaudible, and so largely nonexistent community gives rational meaning to the necessary objectives of government. If we deny it, identifying the people with the prevailing pluralities who vote in order to serve, as Bentham has it, "their pleasures and their security," where and what is the nation, and whose duty and business is it to defend the public interest? Bentham leaves us with the state as an arena in which factions contend for their immediate advantage in the struggle for survival and domination. Without the invisible and transcendent community to bind them, why should they care for posterity? And why should posterity care about them, and about their treaties and their contracts, their commitments and their promises. Yet without these engagements to the future, they could not live and work; without these engagements the fabric of society is unraveled and shredded." (Lippmann, Op. cit., p. 36.)

Conclusions

-- Is democracy workable? -- Can it work at all? For a free and democratic nation to work, a politician must, in the first place and right off the bat, in an honest fashion, convince the electorate that democracy is what they need, if they are to get what they want -- optimal human conditions for the medium term. The reality of things, with no exceptions that I can think of, is that what people desire is the soft and the easy; what is needed is the hard and the difficult (if only to achieve the soft and the easy).

"Faced with these choices between the hard and the soft, the normal propensity of democratic governments is to please the largest number of voters. The pressure of the electorate is normally for the soft side of the equations. That is why governments are unable to cope with reality when elected assemblies and mass opinions become decisive in the state, when there are no statesmen to resist the inclination of the voters and there are only politicians to excite and exploit them.

There is then a general tendency to be drawn downward, as by the force of gravity, towards insolvency, towards the insecurity of factionalism, towards the erosion of liberty, and towards hyperbolic wars." (Walter Lippmann, pp. 45-6.)

Much is asked of democracy: for while by definition no one within a democracy is to have special privileges; it, as a system, is to accommodate all groups of people, no matter how unalike they may be, one to the other. It may be that democracy can only work where the great mass of people are alike, or at least striving to be alike. This may be the reason why, through the years, democracy has worked so well in countries such as Canada and the United States. Historically, the United States (and Canada as well) was the great melting pot where newcomers came: -- their wish was to be American and to raise their children as Americans. However, there are now signs that democracy in our countries, as a system, is breaking down. More and more, it seems, there are groups, particularly in Canada, which arise and are no longer content to strive to stay in the common middle and share common ideals, but rather they diverge; and, this divergence, unfortunately, has been supported by government action in a combined effort to hold and promote distinctiveness of these existing and emerging groups.

Thus, democracy, as past experience will demonstrate, works only where the population shares, fundamentally, the same goals and aspirations. Historically, God and country have been the two banners under which the great masses could proudly stand; but, in a modern society, God and country mean less and less, while, at the same time, the goals and aspirations of various groups increase and diverge. It maybe that democracy is, and, indeed, has always been, unworkable; but we must continue to hold the ideal high and see to it that its trappings are securely fixed in place as, well -- as a bulwark, such as it is, against tyrannical rule.

The reality is that we are forever fixed with an oligarchy (government of the few) masquerading as a democracy. The purpose of the ruling few is to execute its constitutional functions, which, because democracy is unworkable, should be tightly circumscribed. The ideal of democracy is to be promoted, as it has been, to the rulers and the ruled, as a sacred icon; never mind that it cannot be used to put a society into action, to pass laws, and never mind that it will rarely cast up honest and wise leaders; it is, in the final analysis, a system that will routinely and inexpensively rotate those in charge; a manner of bloodlessly changing the guard.

[drfarrukhmalik]

@Waqar: Nice article bro specially the conclusions. Keep up the good work!

[Janeeta]

@WAQR

gud BRother
really Go0d
i ll also say tht the conclusion is really go0d

[Versatile]

@waqar :- Dear this essay is good. is this your hand written or is it taken from any site ?

[easha]

aoa.though ur essay is a good attempt yet,u should give outline first and then write essay bcoz new aspirant dont know how to write an essay.secondly there r no headings in an essay,so try to avoid headings.

[nabisahito]

it best for the new users
but what is different in Democray and good governace

[qureshi niaz]

dear brother you have done good work in your essay.

[whjanwari]

Someone told me that CSS= hard work plus lady luck(i don't believe in luck thing), so i was like if one clears CSS once then should be able to clear it again as well. If not then i think my friend is right .

I would rather live under dictator ship with "Due process of law" than democracy with "bureaucratic law". That sums it up everything. I am assuming this being copy/pasted ,good work though.


Regards

WHJ

[Daredevil39]

OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION

DEMOCRACY SINCE CREATION

CAUSES OF FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY
• OVER DEVELOPED STATE STRUCTURE
• EXECUTIVE ARROGANCE
• STRONG BUREAUCRACY
• FEUDALISTIC DISPENSION
• INSTITUTIONAL POVERTY OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
• LOW LEVEL OF POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
• CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS/ RULE OF LAW
• NO ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS
• INTERRUPTION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS/ROLE OF ARMY/
• ABSENCE OF MATURE LEADERSHIP
• WEAK CIVIL SOCIETY
• EXTREMISM


IMMEDIATE THREATS TO DEMOCRACY

COMPATIBILTIY OF DEMOCRATIC AND ISLAMIC POLITICAL PRINCIPLES

FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY/ MEASURES FOR SURVIVAL OF DEMOCRACY
• UNINTERRUPTED DEMOCRATIC PROCESS/ CURTAILED TOLE OF ARMY
• ISLAMIZATION OF GOVT./ JUDICIAL REFORMIG
• PROCESS OF EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
• BREAKING TRENDS OF POWER ACCUMULATION
• INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• UPHOLDING AN INTACT CONSTITUTION
• INCREASING POLITICAL AWARENESS
• ROLE OF MDEIA
• LIMITED INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE

CONCLUSION




“The essence of democracy is its assurance that every human being should so respect himself and should be so respected in his own personality that he should have opportunity equal to that of every other human being to show what he was meant to become.”

Anna Garlin Spencer



In Pakistan, the need for establishing a true democracy is as old as the country itself. Democracy is one of the most fabulous principles of the modern political system. It is the culmination of freedom and progress in advanced countries. In Pakistan, however, the already difficult situation has been aggravated by constant failures which never let democracy survive. The legacies of colonialism and autocratic mindset of the leadership erected invisible barriers for the democratic process. The positive change is still slow, but a bleak past or murky present in no way means a foredoomed future as well. However, colossal efforts at every level are required for democracy to take root and relieve us of our ever increasing catastrophes.

Looking over the political history of our country has never been a palatable chore. An apparent disharmony between democratic creed and autocratic reality is the net deduction but the flaw is more inherent. Pakistan even when created had a fair share of the feudal ruling class in the Muslim League who represented a culture of suppression and personal gains.

These landlords and feudal cum politicians hijacked the political system, which instead of becoming free and a true public representative became instead a system of the mighty and powerful. Also Pakistan did not have a formal constitution until 1956, and that also could not appease a large political section.

Moreover, the constant military takeovers first by General Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan , Zia-ul- haq and Gen Musharraf, never allowed the country to adopt any positive political principles. All the different constitutions could never completely satisfy the vast political divide, except for the 1973 constitution, which has been twisted by many amendments. The biggest mishap due to absence of democracy was the dismemberment of Pakistan.

Consequently, the list of gross failures kept mounting and even after realizing the underlying causes, they weren’t addressed. Of the major causes of failure of democracy in Pakistan, the substantial ones are related to those in authority i.e, the leadership, army and bureaucracy.

Firstly, the failure to sustain democracy is the over developed state structure. The monopolization and centralization of power, decision making structure, hegemonic ideals vis-à-vis civil society and also a need to control them terribly weakened the de facto government institutions and in turn the social and economic structure as well.

Secondly, a clash between main organs of government such as judiciary and executive lead never gave democracy a fair chance. Personalization of rule has been in vogue. This trend by the executive to influence all and sundry made Pakistan an international study case of a failing democratic state.

In addition to this the military rulers strengthened the bureaucracy for their own rule. Securing a permanent role in the establishment, the bureaucrats preferred to compromise with the feudal system as well. The circulation of power in a handful of families made the structure hollow.
Similarly, as cited earlier the authority at local level accumulated in the hands of feudal cum politicians who had the public vote bank with them. The military rulers were thought to curb them in the beginning but instead of nipping them in the bud they also compromised with them to prolong their rule. In such circumstances, even universal suffrage could not be effective and non-political powers began to play a greater role.

Likewise, the weak institution of political system, from the parliament- which became a proxy of dictators- to the regional political parties which had hereditary and non democratic leaders is another cause. These political representatives had no idea of political socialization and no organized quarters of leadership, who could establish a democratic culture.

Sadly, the political psyche of the people is also very negative due to low level of political awareness and socialization. And this trend allowed the hegemonic forces to keep media, educational institutions, peers and public forums from incorporating a political consciousness into the people. The masses were even not able to resist the Martial Laws, and the civil society always succumbed to the military rule.

Another important cause has always been the constitutional crisis and absence of rule of law apparatus. There has always been a great demand for incorporating Islamic principles in the constitution or implementing them (as implied by the ’73 const.) as Pakistan is an Islamic state. Also the several amendments in the constitution concentrated power in the President, which was against the democratic soul. There is still the need for intact constitution.

Furthermore, interruption in the democratic process has never allowed democracy to form a base. Even with its flaws, the elected government has a right to complete its tenure without any hurdles. With four military coups this has never been the case.

Consequently, such systems with autocratic or military rule produce their own set of leaders and politicians. Since Quaid’s demise, no true leader could rise and fill the void. Bhutto could have been one such leader, but unfortunately he also could not abstain from making fatal political compromises.

When the leadership of a country has all the power, which originally should have been with the institutions, the civil society is prone to become weak. The Pakistani society could not even properly voice their rights until recently, let alone struggling for democracy due to subjugation.

Last but not least, the current stream of extremism and terrorism has brought forth a new ideology. These extremist elements equally manipulate the government and the common people. Their own version of Islam has become a means of playing with the sentiments of the already deprived masses.

Hence, the bearers of this new ideology of governance consider democracy non Islamic and thus completely useless for an Islamic State. The prevailing conditions of the country and the demand for implementation of Sharia (their own version), is a testimony to this ideological belief. For these elements, the concept of democracy is western thus against Islam.

Moreover, this new ideological approach is also the most immediate threat to democracy in Pakistan today. In the war against terrorism, the realization of the fact that it is also a ‘ a ‘war of two ideologies’ but not necessarily a clash of civilizations is essential for preventing the country from another dead end.

Islam as we know is a complete code of life. But in the political sphere the decision for choosing the form of government has been left for the people, provided that the described requirements for vicegerency are met and the fact that sovereignty lies with Allah alone. As our constitution clearly states Pakistan as an Islamic Republic, there should be no misunderstanding about the governmental form.

Secondly, the Islamic government is never theocratic. It is formed from mutual consent and conducts most of its affairs by consensus and consultation. Prophet (S.A.W) consulted with his companions on important matters. An authentic example of this can be seen in the caliphate era. In his inaugural speech, Hazrat Abu Bakkar (R.A) said:

“I am not best among you. I need your help and advice- to tell truth to a ruler is a faithful allegiance, to conceal it is treason- in my sight powerful and weak are alike and to both I wish to render justice.”

The underlying issue is to fulfill the conditions of vicegerency and not how the government should be formed. The original concept of Islamic rule is closer to democracy. It is an anti-thesis of monarchial, theocratic, papal forms of govt. it also differs from the western secular democracy. However, what form this democracy can take depends on the prevailing situations.

Hence, in essence and soul democracy is not un-Islamic. There is compatibility between Islamic concept of government and democracy but it requires a well executed procedure of its incorporation in the constitution or making Pakistan a true Islamic democracy.

In all this hopelessness, there must be a desire for moving forward. The future of democracy may be doubtful but it not at an end yet. It requires efforts by all, the leadership, Army, judiciary, civil society and even to some extent the international powers.

The first essential step seems to stop interruption in the democratic process so that we may see more then promos. To judge something, it has to be allowed a chance to survive and act. The elected government must be allowed to complete its tenure in any case. The military has to play a positive role here and not interfere in the smooth democratic process.

Secondly, as mentioned before, a part of the population wants greater Islamic character in the Govt. and laws. If we analyze this demand, it will be apparent that the enforcement of Sharia is more related to law making. Therefore, what is immediately required is a change in the judicial setup, which has been unable to gain the trust of people until recently. Encouraging steps have already started in this case, but much more needs to be one.

Reforming the judiciary and incorporating the Islamic laws can also soothe the deprived and poor masses which have been manipulated by the extremists due to sheer negligence of the elected governments and ruling elite. This naturally causes bitterness for the present form of political setup.

Moving on, corruption and selfish attitudes is eating away the institutional structure of our country and such practices never allow democracy to flourish. There is also a need for mature political leadership, which can think above its own gains. All this can only emerge after the formulation and implementation of strict accountability.

Sadly, the same corrupted pool of thought keeps appearing with new faces and the deceived masses blindly follow them. This is due to absence of any kind of accountability. Political compromises enhance this trend. Such practices are against the moral, democratic as well as Islamic principles and should end immediately.

Next, the all powerful bureaucracy and feudal politicians should be stripped of their unwarranted authority. It has been a slow evil which has weakened the country like nothing else. They are elected for serving people not controlling them. The criteria of merit; the right of freedom and equal progress for common people has become a joke due to such an autocratic setup.

On the contrary, the weak public institutions can be made strong and productive if the power and authority seeps down. The example of many European countries is in front of us, where institutions are powerful and not the politicians. Democracy in actuality can only be achieved through such measures.

Our constitution has been a source of constant controversy. Be it realization of Islamic laws or the concentration of power in the head of the state, the constitution has served as a tool for legitimization of alien changes and policies. Keeping the constitution intact has been long overdue. No one in power should be allowed to change it for prolongation of rule or appeasing any particular section.

The people of Pakistan in general lack political psyche and consciousness. This is largely due to poor literacy and a never ending feudalistic rule over 60% of the country. Therefore, it is necessary to educate the masses and make them aware of their political rights. This can begin with greater political socialization by political parties and media.

In a democratic state, media has rightly been called the fourth pillar of the state. It can play a most important role in present age for creating awareness. Our media has risen from the ashes like a phoenix. It however, needs to play a positive constructive role and not become another compromised institution as well.

Finally, the strategic position and now the war against terror calls forth unwanted attention from international community sometimes. In the past, the military rule has been covertly or openly supported by many countries to gain their own benefits in this region. The international powers must stop interfering in the democratic process and for that to happen, our own government, people and media needs to be equally strong.

In a nutshell, there is still a very long way to go to achieve true democracy. It will require sincerity of purpose and a dedicated effort, not corrupted ideals and narrow thinking. Today, more than ever, the survival of democracy in Pakistan seems difficult. However, with new political awareness, a responsible political leadership, army and media, the process can begin. The media and masses appear to be moving forward, the rest should do the same.

Democracy is not only a form of government it is a philosophy which encompasses all aspects of rights and freedom. If we are to survive as a nation, we must allow it to grow or it will be hard to escape another catastrophe either internal or external.

[bunko]

@ DareDevil39.

Nice effort, But your essay lack facts, events and occasions.