Education for democracy

By Anwar Abbas
Thursday, 23 Jul, 2009


SINDH education minister Pir Mazharul Haq’s idea that courses on the benefits of democracy should be incorporated in the curriculum of schools is not unprecedented.

This idea has been occupying the minds of both educationists and politicians for many decades and the totalitarian regimes that we have had to face have caused the issue to be brought to the forefront.

In the first half of the 20th century, democracy seemed firmly entrenched in the saddle and progressive political opinion believed that it had come to stay as a vehicle of peaceful, intelligent and uninterrupted development. Educationists believed that the problem was merely one of formulating measures needed for training the younger generation to discharge their duties as democratic citizens.

But first things first. Do we really consider democracy a desideratum, a good thing in itself, for which we should strive? Or would it be better to do away with old sentimental and unserviceable ideas of democracy that we have learned to cherish, perhaps, unthinkingly, and to swim in the new and turbulent political stream? We need to face the issue boldly and not sentimentally because apart from global problems the ruthless march of political events in our own country has raised many obstinate questions in the minds of people and created new dangers for the body politic. Theoretically, democracy is a system of government and a way of life which offers greater scope than any other political system for the development of human individuality and the varied talents that nature has bestowed upon individuals and groups. Any system which seeks to impose a rigid uniformity of ideas and practices is both against nature and the spirit of man.

While totalitarian regimes are intolerant of differences in the interest of ‘efficiency’ (understood in a narrow sense), democracy stands for respecting the individual and the uniqueness of man. Due to this it encourages discussion, even if there is a clash of ideas, out of which emerges the truth, progressive thought and tolerance for cultural and intellectual differences. From the point of view of the educationist any social order which suppresses these values is retrograde and obscurantist.

This is, of course, only one side of the picture. Modern democracy has so far proved to be a mixed blessing. It has been cleverly exploited by vested interests — the demagogue without principles, the capitalist without a social conscience, the politician without a vision and a media without idealism. It has failed to educate the electorate to be able to exercise the power of their vote or to safeguard their rights and privileges. It has not addressed that unequal distribution of wealth which is economic, cultural and moral injustice. It has been content to allow a majority of citizens to not lead full lives. In times of emergency it has proved less efficient than the machinery of totalitarian regimes. Democracy has failed to fulfil our hopes because we have been content with certain forms of political democracy alone and have not succeeded in establishing it in other aspects of life. Without building up economic, social and cultural democracy, political democracy becomes a pliant tool in the hands of unscrupulous power-seekers. Only a fair distribution of wealth, a generous dissemination of cultural and social services and the breaking down of invidious class distinctions can make democracy genuine and effective. How to go about achieving it is the job of the statesman. It is fatally easy to put the blame on democracy or on the people but difficult to overcome the obstacles with tact, patience, hard and steady work.

What about the role of the educators? They must develop those basic qualities of character among their pupils which are necessary for the successful functioning of a democracy. These qualities include first and foremost a passion for social justice. Our young men and women must demand for others, irrespective of their religion, caste, creed and race, the good things that they desire for themselves. The heart of a truly educated man must respond to the sorrows and joys of all fellow humans and must not be circumscribed by prejudices and narrow loyalties.

A spirit of tolerance is a major objective of democratic education because cultural and intellectual differences may lead to friction and unless there is tolerance of the other’s viewpoint, great harm may be, in fact is being, caused in society. The narrow, intolerant and revivalist outlook of some sections is causing irreparable damage to society. Schools can give valuable help by encouraging the study of cultural and religious movements, an unbiased study of history and above all through the influence of the teacher’s tolerant personality.

Closely akin to this objective is one to raise the standard of education in schools and colleges. There should be a systematic cultivation of students so they can understand the complex problems of modern civilisation, exercise their rights and fulfil their duties. Many of our problems exist not because of ill will but because of ignorance and apathy which our education system does little to eradicate.

The education system must reflect greater appreciation for the country, its culture, its intellectual and artistic movements and its ethical values and ideals. But this should be enlightened and not blind. Patriotism which blinds us to our faults and other’s merits, which obscures our sense of justice and clarity of vision, is, in effect, misguided nationalism.

Some may argue whether it is right in principle that education should be biased towards a democratic or any other type of social order. Would it not be indoctrination? If schools can be used for indoctrinating children with the poison of racial arrogance and superiority, blind patriotism, suicidal nationalism and religious fervour, with sectarian narrowness and war hysteria why should we not take the risk that may possibly be involved in teaching children to be just and brave, truthful and intelligent, broad-minded and humane in their outlook?

these ideas of associating learning democracy with education as my opinion is not so useful in pakistan as specially at school and collage level.because people are not educated and they dont know the importance of democrcy and imortance of their vote.As well as the literacy level will increase people start to understand concept of democracy.

THE common understanding is that most opinion polls or surveys are either unrepresentative or biased. When they are not, their findings could be reflecting more of a passing sentiment than durable public thinking about governments, persons or propositions.

But still there are surveys which seem to endorse the views generally expressed in the mass media, in elite circles and bazaars or in the cabals of dissidents. That can be said about Transparency International’s most recent survey on corruption in Pakistan. While the findings of the survey that corruption had grown four-fold over three years (2006-09) can be disputed, one would be hard put to deny that, in the public perception, the country’s civilian governments have been more corrupt than the military and, further, that the political nazim’s administration has been more corrupt than that of the bureaucratic deputy commissioner.

The higher incidence of corruption in civilian governments doesn’t necessarily imply that their heads, ministers or legislators were also corrupt or connived at corruption. But surely they were all eager to reward their own men for the privations they suffered in the campaigns launched to dislodge military rulers.

When Benazir Bhutto swept into power in 1988 along came a horde of youth claiming jobs, plots and other favours for standing by her side during her long years in jail and in the political wilderness. Whatever their contribution to her victory in elections and before that the sacrifices they had made to try and save her father from the gallows, their expectations were unreasonable and could not be met by remaining within the bounds of law and propriety.

As chief secretary of her government in Sindh then, I recall a second-rung woman leader of her party turning up to demand a plot in expensive Clifton, not being content with one in a lesser area. An absconding district engineer demanded to be made chief engineer as the price for his loyalty. A junior finance official aspired to head the country’s biggest bank. All that was argued, but she could never bring herself round to tell a youth who had set himself on fire for her sake that she couldn’t give him the job he wanted. Every request, every approach made to her was for a favour, not equity.

Courtiers and cronies laid siege to every other political leader before and after Benazir Bhutto. The military commanders did not, nor would they easily succumb. The governors of Sindh in Ziaul Haq’s regime with whom this writer was called upon to work as home secretary and in other capacities had no debts to pay or sacrifices to recognise. Gen Mohammad Iqbal Khan would routinely ignore or defy any suggestion coming from the rapidly-politicising chief martial law administrator that was improper. Gen Abbasi was a stickler for the rules. In my five years with them I hardly ever felt compelled to act against the law or propriety.

The governors in Gen Yahya Khan’s regime — Admiral Ahsan, Air Marshal Nur Khan, Gen Atiqur Rehman and Gen Rahman Gul — were austere men of integrity who followed the rule of law, sought no favours nor dispensed any. While they must not escape their share of responsibility for the disaster that then overtook the country, if ever the administration was free of corruption and pomp in public life it was then. It hasn’t been since — no matter whether the government has been a civilian or military one.

The comparison of corruption in districts under nazims and the deputy commissioners proceeds on similar lines as those under political and military governments. The nazim is the nominee of a political party. The deputy commissioner is a career civil servant. The nazim is accountable to his party boss, the deputy commissioner to an official hierarchy. The DC does come under political pressure but the nazim is himself a politician.

Gen Musharraf’s expectations that the nazims would be non-political, loyal to him alone and ultimately form the backbone of his own party were not fulfilled. Every nazim used his power and the funds he received from the centre to advance the interest of his own party leader and not that of Musharraf. That is, however, not to deny any development that took place under the nazims to the benefit of the community at large. But, as they say, the other side of the coin of development is corruption. The nazims indeed used their power and money unchecked by any public agency or auditors.

The deputy commissioner, on the other hand, works under surveillance and has a choice to take another job if he cannot remain neutral — a choice not available to the nazim. It would, however, be undemocratic and inadvisable to wind up the local councils only because the nazims cannot be neutral or equitable. The ministers and legislators are against the district governments not because of their maladministration but because they are losing their foothold in their own constituencies. Politics, as is well known, is local and sustained by jobs and not by making laws.

Leaving aside the question of corruption being more or less under the nazims or deputy commissioners, the objectives of community participation and neutral administration can both be met if development in the districts is entrusted to the nazims and regulatory functions to the deputy commissioners as coordinating heads of the provincial government. At any rate, the present system in which all functions vest in the nazim is not working.

The nazim of Karachi was heard complaining on television the other day that he could not

prevent encroachments in Gutter Baghicha because the police wouldn’t come to his help. Surely, he knows that both under the local government and police laws he is responsible for law and order and the chief of the district police is also answerable to him.

Deputy commissioners had no better control over the police under the colonial laws than the nazim now has in Musharraf’s system. No deputy commissioner, however, could ever disown responsibility for encroachments. This writer was deputy commissioner of Karachi 40 years ago for four years. Those were not the best of times for the administration and Gutter Baghicha even then was a favourite target of professional encroachers. But they were able to nibble at the edges and no more. Losing 400 acres to them in four years signifies total lawlessness or connivance — neither should be tolerated.


source: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...-democracy-679

Dent in democracy
By Dr S.M. Taha
Wednesday, 29 Jul, 2009


THE federal and provincial governments have finally decided to replace the present local government system with the old magistracy one under a bureaucratic administration.

It comes as a surprise to many that the two mainstream political parties who were elected on their pledge to bring back democracy to the country should agree to implement a system that is not democratic.

The government is justifying its decision by using the excuse of poor law and order in the provinces. That is a lame reason. Can the government name a single district in Punjab or Sindh where elections are not possible due to a crisis of law and order? The intention here is not to criticise the government, but to point out the folly of a decision that may well have a pernicious impact on our fledgling democracy and political forces.

But first, let’s take a quick look at the significance that the local government holds for good governance. Local government is considered to evolve from the grass roots. It is the only system of governance that deals directly with an individual — from the time he/she is born until death.

Parliament is a lawmaking body that rarely comes into contact with the masses directly or on a regular basis. In Pakistan, the members of the national and provincial assemblies remain at a distance from the public. They have no connection with and do not in any way resemble the underfed, poor and miserable masses. The assemblies are populated by rich sardars, chaudhries, waderas and the industrial and feudal elite — and they are supposed to represent the masses. Although elected from constituencies, they are rarely found here after the elections as they prefer the national or provincial capitals. In contrast, the union councillors and taluka and district nazims have few options but to remain in the place from where they have been elected.

The elected local government provides ample opportunity to the educated middle- and lower-middle classes to participate in the process of governance and development. In fact, elected positions, such as that of the union and district councillors, are deemed by the feudal, industrial and bureaucratic elite classes in Pakistan to be below their dignity to contest.

Elected institutions at the local government level also reduce the development gap among the districts. If this system is allowed to continue and in fact become a permanent feature of governance, it will address two critical problems: undesirable labour movement from the rural to urban areas and the creation of urban slums. Local governments are better placed to initiate an indigenous economic growth at the district level by restricting labourers to their own areas so that they may have greater social impact through strong community development.

The elected local government is a grass-roots institution that can produce a critical mass of new young faces in the political process of Pakistan which, unfortunately, has been usurped by a handful of families since the time of independence. Elected local government is the only ray of hope through which we can strengthen our political institutions.

Local government elections involve a minimum, affordable amount of money. Success depends on the candidates’ availability and reputation in the locality. There is almost daily contact between the elected members and the voters. So the elected representatives of local governments are accountable to their voters and their performance can be monitored by those they serve.

Let’s see things from the perspective of those who take a dim view of local government and intend to abolish it. The PML-N has accused nazims of being involved in corruption. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani first said that administrators from the civil bureaucracy would replace the nazims for a year; but his position has not always been consistent. He said earlier that the local government was purely a provincial matter and that the federal government had nothing to do with it. But then he said that he wanted the same local government set-up in all the provinces and that he would talk to the president on the issue.

On the election issue the federal government said that the provinces wanted a delay in the local government election because of the law and orders crisis in their provinces.

Let us look at one of the main complaints which constitutes the corruption issue and the PML-N’s allegations against the nazims. The party may be right in casting doubts about the level of honesty among the nazims. But should this accusation lead to the abolishment of the entire system? Are all nazims corrupt? Have they failed to deliver at all?

These questions must be addressed before the decision to dismantle a governance system is made. If we consider the corruption argument to be a valid reason to abolish the local government system, could not the same apply to other institutions known for their corruption? For instance, we all know that the police and judiciary are corrupt institutions in Pakistan. A history of corruption is also evident when it comes to politicians and the civil-military bureaucracy. Should we abolish all and replace them with a bureaucratic administration? The best approach is evolutionary if we want to strengthen democracy in Pakistan. There is no doubt that the local government system needs improvement, but it does not deserve to be finished off.

Magistrates and commissioners are not public representatives. They are not accountable to the public. It is strongly suggested that the government should reconsider its decision and announce an election schedule for the next government at the district level.

tahaku@yahoo.com