Democracy and Pakistan

[Gypsified]

I was to write it up in the related thread but the length of the subject and the scope of discussion that it opens calls for a new thread. Besides, it would have completely diverted the actual topic of the other thread. So I thought it appropriate to initiate a separate topic for it. Before embarking upon the excerpts, I will try to answer, to whatever extent, the question that was posed. Everyone is requested to contribute, add further to the points, raise valid objections, and discuss the whole thing to a possible conclusion.

if this system is so messy for this country's environment why should it be preferred

Well, that’s a very reasonable objection and I’ll like to offer a detailed reply. The thing is, ‘environment’ of a country does not remain same. We are aware that societies grow, evolve, and die just like animate things, being composed of the latter. This applies to any society but for the time being I’ll stick to Pakistan. Pakistan was largely a feudal state upon inception (I’ll quote the data from the excerpts about the percentages etc.) and there was a desperately low literary rate and industrialization. Besides, we were extremely backward in terms of communication structure and media. Now these are the factors crucial to any democracy. Industrialization and literary give rise to the middle class which acts as a back bone of democracy. Communication and media bind together different parts of the country and increase awareness among the masses.

During the first ten years of Pakistan, we did not have any of these factors, or if we did, the situation was dismal. The political parties were dominated by feudal lords who only had their own ends in sight. So the tale of first ten years is pretty shameful. Time passed and progress lingered along, albeit at a low rate.

Now where do we stand today? We have a reasonable literacy rate (although it is still shamefully low in comparison with the most countries of the world), we have a vibrant media (the way it acts is a different debate and media in every country acts like that in its initial years of newly-found freedom), we have a very reasonable structure of communications and industrialization is on a steady rise. We have all the factors to accompany democracy. The ‘environment’ is very much different from what it was in 1950s. Now all we need is time. And I’m not pulling all this out of thin air. The example of all the developed countries is in front of us. They all passed through these transitory stages, they’ve all had their political corruption, crimes, and derailing of democracy, but they emerged through it. If we are willing to give democracy time at this critical juncture, we will be doing a great favor to the coming generations. We might not see a highly developed Pakistan in our lifetime but we have to decide if the sacrifice is worth it for the subsequent generations.

Now I’ll support this with a few excerpts that I promised, with comments here and there.

First, let get done with the statistics. The chapter is called ‘Prospects for Democracy’ (taken from ‘Party Politics in Pakistan 1947-58’ by K K Aziz), and before getting down to Pakistan, the writer gives the examples of several third world countries such as Sri Lanka, Thiland, Ghana, Indonesia, Burma and even developed countries like France, Italy and Germany. They faced very similar problems that Pakistan faced such as military coups, splits in political parties, disputes among politicians, political corruption and highhandedness, and such. For the third world countries, it was very natural, because their ‘environment’ was very similar to Pakistan. It was the effect of colonialism and it takes time to pass away.

First, on democratic traditions, because that is what consolidates democracy in a country, traditions.

“The political reasons for the failure are more obvious. There was no political tradition of democratic experience. As has been said earlier, a large portion of Pakistan was, till actual independence, untutored even in elementary lessons of self-government. With freedom came a hose of sorely trying situations in which crisis followed crisis with near lethal rapidity – influx of refugees, construction of a brand new governmental structure, lack of finances, strained relations with India including actual fighting in Kashmir, death of Quaid-e-Azam, etc. Any one of these alone was enough to have embarrassed any well-established and experienced government. In face of their coincidental assault the mere survival of the infant state was miracle. Men who succeed Jinnah (none could replace him) were all second-rate leaders, more of politicians than statesmen. They might have managed to steer the ship of state through placid water of peace and calm, but on stormy seas they floundered and were lost. They proved small men on whom blind circumstances had thrust great office. The fact that political groups to which they belonged were ill-organized and at times ill-conceived aggravated the situation still further. Parliamentary government was practiced, but the absence of regular elections and a well-knit opposition made it hardly more than an expensive pretence.”

Now think about it. Under such circumstances, we could have imported the most perfect system of the world and it would have failed, because the ‘environment’ was not ripe. So it seems rather appropriate to lay the blame of democracy. It was only the natural course of the events of a newly formed and backward state that had emerged out of a long foreign rule.

Further:

“The economic and social basis of democracy was equally non-existent in Pakistan. Wealth is power and the concentration of power in a few hands, rich landlords or industrial magnates, meant that a small group wielded excessive power while the mass of the people did not exercise even their elementary political rights. There was practically no middle class in Pakistan, and without this back-bone of good and popular government democracy was yet far away. Similarly, lack of education, even of literacy, made it difficult to work the democratic system. For example, newspaper circulation per thousand inhabitants was 599 in Britain, 455 in Australia, 415 in Scandinavia and 357 in the United States; in Pakistan it was a mere 2.”

That was in 1950s. We have come a long way, and the situation is constantly improving. We have a vibrant and growing middle class with a lot of educated young people eager to have their say in the democratic process. Same goes for media and civil society, and these are the very organs of a democracy; politicians are just one small part of it, and democracy can never run only on that part. Democracy is not just a political system, it is a culture and the culture has to take roots and that, again, takes time.

Now, here are a few statistics about industrialization.

“It is not too much to assume that democracy functions better where an appreciable number of population is engaged in industry and trade. Overwhelmingly agricultural countries appear to provide poor soil for this imported seed. The percentages of people engaged in agricultural pursuits for some countries were: Britain 4, United States 13, Australia 15, Switzerland 20, Sweden 21, Canada 24, France 36. In Pakistan, more than 80 percent people were agriculturalists by vocation. Industry and commerce affect political life in several ways. They help to raise the national income. They weaken the power of the landlord (though they produce the equally undesirable business tycoon.) they give birth to the middle class. They encourage urbanization and thus sharpen political awakening. They produce trade unions and thus train the working classes in cooperative living and bargaining. French trials of strength with democracy may very well be ascribed to the fact that she has the largest percentage of agricultural population in Europe.”

This was, again, about the 1950s. The situation has changed to quite an extent with respect to industrialization and the percentage of population depending on agriculture. The power of the landlord falls and that of business tycoon (capitalist) rises but by then there is a middle class to neutralize that effect. Which is why middle class is called the back-bone of democracy. And the middle class in Pakistan is constantly growing and is pretty vocal. The trend has to continue if we want to reap the fruits of the process.

Now these were the apparent causes of the failure of democracy in Pakistan. The chapter provides a deeper analysis of the culture of democracy and national psyche that takes time to change. Consider this excerpt:

“Probably throughout the East is found a phenomenon which may be called a perversion of the social theory of individualism. People don’t care about what happens to others. Each looks to his own good and shuffles off the responsibility of social good upon others. This narrow approach to collective living can be illustrated by many every-day occurrences. Two or more friends come across each other on the roadside and start talking in the middle of the footpath; passersby are inconvenienced and frown at them, but no notice is taken of this expression of displeasure. People waiting at a crowded bus stop will never form up in a queue, though the first comers are often mortified at seeing the late comers board a bus which leaves them behind. Similarly in post offices, banks, railway stations, cinemas, and other public places, there is no organization or discipline. The physically robust or pushing type comes to the front, the gentlemen meekly take their lowly place down the line. ‘Each for himself’ and ‘after me the deluge’ seems to be the mottoes.”

Consider this: in the presence of such an attitude, will any system work effectively? And even with proper education, it takes considerable time to deal with these social behaviors. One might think a dictatorship with its cane might do the trick, but here’s the following excerpt:

“Now this is not a matter of mere lack of discipline. Discipline can be imposed and perhaps also inculcated by harsh measures. But that is hardly a lasting remedy for a disease which has a withering effect on administrative and political matters. The friend talking in the center of the footpath is as oblivious of the feelings of others using that pavement as the clerk of a public office who is indifferent to the call of duty or high official who prefers entertaining friends in the office to signing important papers. To say is not to charge the government with deliberate inefficiency, for it is the people who make the government, but to point to a national trait. Translated to the political level this foible produces selfish politicians and self-seeking parties. The point is that people are deficient in consideration for others, alive chiefly to personal profit, intolerant of other people’s opinions, and reluctant to or incapable of seeing the other man’s point of view.”

And this is a very interesting excerpt which will strike a personal note with most of us:

“There is another national peculiarity which may vitiate the purely political efforts at initiating people into the democratic spirit. In Pakistan the mass of the people are predisposed to accept authoritarian direction from above. This stems from the prevailing social structure in general and from joint family system in particular. The head of a family occupies a unique position, and for other members of the group to disobey or ignore the wishes of the paterfamilias is no less than treachery against consanguinity. The child is brought up under strict supervision, and even with reaching maturity his sheltered life does not come to an end. There is so much dependence on elders, parents and seniors. Young men are not generally left to decide for themselves. In the school the child is of course not free. In the university he is rarely permitted to choose his subjects of study. In later life his seniors determine everything for him from choosing a bride to getting a job. The faculty of original thinking and planning one’s life is never allowed to develop. He always looks for guidance. Props in life become a second nature to him. Self-confidence in withered before it has flowered.”

Who among us has not gone through (at least some) of these stages?

Finally (whew!):

“It is as difficult to cheat history as to live beyond one’s character. Democracy is not a dress which can be imported and donned for the occasion. Democracy is a form of government as well as a way of life. The form will come with experience; the habit will grow out of a complete break with traditional modes of thought. All men are prisoners of their environment. Democracy will come when they have constructed a basis for it; it will not come earlier and it dare not come later.”

Discuss.

[Qaazi]

Democracy is a bad form of govenment.

[waqas izhar]

instead of environment I will use the word 'circumstance'. circumstances were not good but now they aren't that bad; things are improving but wouldn't you say that the attitudes are still the same? we still need to change our circumstance but for that we need the right kind of attitude. how then do you propose we bring that attitude in ourselves, our country fellows and our future?
regards
(BTW you are also saying that thing will be fine in the long run)

[Aliinaa]

I absolutely agree with you, gypsified. "Time" is, what is needed for a true democracy to develop. You can't expect a true democracy to develop overnight. Infact all the developed countries have also taken time to perfect their democratic system. Besides, Pakistan has never actually experienced the real spirit of democracy so it would be just unfair to say that democracy doesn't suit us at all.

@Waqas: How we can bring about a change or change the attitude of our countrymen? Well the answer is through "education". Education can serve as a primary tool in bringing about a change for the betterment of this country but then again our education system needs to be revamped. We need a good and uniform education system, which Pakistan lacks at the moment.

[Buddha]

Maybe democracy as a sustainable system requires a critical mass of middle class to keep it rolling.

[mhmmdkashif]

Thank you brother you have really put in an effort and I truly appreciate it, but my questions would perhaps keep coming so let's hope I make reasonable questions that don't cause bothering .

So let's dig into environment, as I deduced from previous discussion 'democracy' behave differently in different environments like the differences in France and America. But it also remains a fact that democracies are intricately tangled with each other for economic interests so the dominant economy remains influential over others and it mixes up cultures such that no environment is able to maintain it's unique attributes. Thus in practice french taxing the rich doesn't really translate into any change for the middle class because the capital then flies to America (perhaps you noted it in a prior discussion as well). Moreover Muslims are 'highly sensitive' about their culture and religion, so in order to maintain 'uniqueness' of 'Islamic democracy' and save it from 'satanic lusts', all Muslim countries would require making a central democratic state and build an economy that can compete with 'infidel' but that is far fetched so any single Muslim nation if embarked on path of democracy soon finds out it can no longer maintain it because people eventually don't give it required support and radical militants start to arise. How to counter that problem

Originally Posted by Gypsified

Well, that’s a very reasonable objection and I’ll like to offer a detailed reply. The thing is, ‘environment’ of a country does not remain same. We are aware that societies grow, evolve, and die just like animate things, being composed of the latter. This applies to any society but for the time being I’ll stick to Pakistan. Pakistan was largely a feudal state upon inception (I’ll quote the data from the excerpts about the percentages etc.) and there was a desperately low literary rate and industrialization. Besides, we were extremely backward in terms of communication structure and media. Now these are the factors crucial to any democracy. Industrialization and literary give rise to the middle class which acts as a back bone of democracy. Communication and media bind together different parts of the country and increase awareness among the masses.

'Feudal state' of Pakistan is perhaps a positive sign for democracy because modern democracy arose from feudal states. It means that the people of Pakistan know the worth of wealth and how it is produced. It makes us different than the Arabs in a way that we had a rich competitive agricultural economy unlike Arabs who largely relied on wartime economies. So it can be argued that if people are 'educated' and rapid industrialization takes place which would create jobs then perhaps we will have a flourishing democratic state here in Pakistan. But there lies significant challenges. First of all 'feudal state' existed only in eastern half of Pakistan where Punjab and Sindh lies, whereas the western half where KPK and Balochistan lies have historically posed military challenges to the 'feudal states' and even today we are witnessing that. Now that poses a daunting challenge because it would not only require 'educating' people of that area but also change their entire 'life styles' from nomadic tribal to a settled urban society. Achieving that would be highly challenging and, perhaps, bloody all along the path. So that poses an economic and social challenge to establishing democracy here in Pakistan. Moreover, as I tried to point out earlier, religion gives you an entirely different 'cause' of living than the one you would be pursuing in a democratic state. Islam being such a simple and strong faith as it is, Muslims have a very strong belief in its cause even in a world where religiosity is waning so sharply, and when you have strong belief in a cause you will resist changing it's values very aggressively . Thus as soon as a democratic state is established in Pakistan and links itself with the so called 'infidel' world, it is bound to remain under influence of foreign cultures and even bring it home. This prompts a resistance from Muslims and perhaps these times which we are going through is a best example of how it goes. Even if popular support for radicalism decline, we would perhaps face a depression and people will avoid working to produce more and more 'wealth' (which is perceived negatively), thus affecting the growth of economy. Again the 'environment' would be ripe for a brilliant 'demagogue', if not military, to uproot and discard democracy for good (or bad or whatever , heil hitler ). This would pose a religious challenge to establishing 'democracy in the environment of Pakistan' .

So let me make it very simple, path to democracy in Pakistan is very very long, tiresome, and perhaps violent and bloody. And in the end, if successful, we again 'risk' a shaky faith highly dreaded for Muslims in particular. Does it worth it???

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by mhmmdkashif

'Feudal state' of Pakistan is perhaps a positive sign for democracy because modern democracy arose from feudal states. It means that the people of Pakistan know the worth of wealth and how it is produced. It makes us different than the Arabs in a way that we had a rich competitive agricultural economy unlike Arabs who largely relied on wartime economies. So it can be argued that if people are 'educated' and rapid industrialization takes place which would create jobs then perhaps we will have a flourishing democratic state here in Pakistan. But there lies significant challenges. First of all 'feudal state' existed only in eastern half of Pakistan where Punjab and Sindh lies, whereas the western half where KPK and Balochistan lies have historically posed military challenges to the 'feudal states' and even today we are witnessing that. Now that poses a daunting challenge because it would not only require 'educating' people of that area but also change their entire 'life styles' from nomadic tribal to a settled urban society. Achieving that would be highly challenging and, perhaps, bloody all along the path. So that poses an economic and social challenge to establishing democracy here in Pakistan. Moreover, as I tried to point out earlier, religion gives you an entirely different 'cause' of living than the one you would be pursuing in a democratic state. Islam being such a simple and strong faith as it is, Muslims have a very strong belief in its cause even in a world where religiosity is waning so sharply, and when you have strong belief in a cause you will resist changing it's values very aggressively . Thus as soon as a democratic state is established in Pakistan and links itself with the so called 'infidel' world, it is bound to remain under influence of foreign cultures and even bring it home. This prompts a resistance from Muslims and perhaps these times which we are going through is a best example of how it goes. Even if popular support for radicalism decline, we would perhaps face a depression and people will avoid working to produce more and more 'wealth' (which is perceived negatively), thus affecting the growth of economy. Again the 'environment' would be ripe for a brilliant 'demagogue', if not military, to uproot and discard democracy for good (or bad or whatever , heil hitler ). This would pose a religious challenge to establishing 'democracy in the environment of Pakistan' .

So let me make it very simple, path to democracy in Pakistan is very very long, tiresome, and perhaps violent and bloody. And in the end, if successful, we again 'risk' a shaky faith highly dreaded for Muslims in particular. Does it worth it???

Do you have some kind of Hitler mania? From what I noticed you try to drag every discussion into this

[mhmmdkashif]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Do you have some kind of Hitler mania? From what I noticed you try to drag every discussion into this

Yeah, if you don't have answers you should avoid provocation or it may result in css war 3

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by mhmmdkashif

Yeah, if you don't have answers you should avoid provocation or it may result in css war 3

No I'm just curious. Most of the time your conclusion is: Some demagogue will arise (a Muslim Hitler perhaps ) and he will take control of the state (or Ummah). What's the story behind that??

[mhmmdkashif]

Originally Posted by Buddha

No I'm just curious. Most of the time your conclusion is: Some demagogue will arise (a Muslim Hitler perhaps ) and he will take control of the state (or Ummah). What's the story behind that??

That remains a high probability since perhaps overwhelming number of Muslims want a mahdi kind of figure to rise and rule, perhaps you like to keep your mind close to such a probability