In a purely democratic country the definition of democracy coined by Abraham

Lincoln, as Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the
people, fits, but those who pretend to be democratic states should be fitted to the
definition of democracy as government off the people, buy the people and far the
people. Although, attaining of pure democracy is still a nightmare for the stable
and robust democracies of the World.
The democratic process with in a country must not be dealt as a process that is
revised every five or four years, rather its a mind set and way of political life that
should be cultured in the mind sets of the citizens, governments, civil society and
politicians.
Voting is the first step of the democratic process. In a society where democracy is
prevailing as a culture, there the process of electing their representatives does not
end with the casting of vote to his/her favorite candidate, rather, the voters have to
be in constant touch with their respective representatives till the end of their
tenures for keeping them on the right track.
Developed sense of responsibility is a must in cultured democracies. The elected
representatives of the government of a democratic state should also bear the high
sense of responsibility and be aware of their responsibilities and should act
accordingly. They have their deep insight over their constituencies and localities.
The voters have the responsibility of providing essential help and keeping their
representatives aware from the problems of their localities and constituencies.
Furthermore, the process of accountability of the representatives is also deemed in
a democratic society. Every candidate has to return to the public after completing
their tenure and to address the issues raised by the voters. This sense must be alive
at every moment of the day with in the mind of the representatives. The institution
of Political Parties is also an integral part of democracies. More they are
accountable, more they will be stronger and more they will be democratic in
nature. Intra party elections are the pre-requisite for robust political parties, where
real representatives of the common people come to the screen. All the political
leaders must be selected from among the spheres of the voters and having deep
knowledge of their localities particularly and the whole country in general.
Imported and non-local candidates are against the spirit of the deemed culture of
democracy.
Tolerance; a characteristic of cultured politicians as well as democratically cultured
societies, is the basic foundation of viable and strong democracies. In todays
world it has got more importance due to diversity of religions and ethnicities in
societies. Democratically all the citizens have same political and civil rights and
duties and enjoy the same opportunities. A stable democratic government is always
built upon the principles of tolerance, interfaith harmony, and equality of all
citizens. Here, it is worth mentioning that citizens imply both the sexes, i.e. male
and female. Both of them enjoy same status in the eyes of law, political and civil
rights and duties. Both have the same right of contesting elections, compete for
public offices and vote to their favorite candidate without any social or family
pressure.

Freedom of Speech, Press and Media are the indicators of cultured democracy. All
the citizens are free to demonstrate their protests in a peaceful manner analyze and
criticize the government and politicians for their policies on solid grounds, given
that the criticism must not violate the ethics law and order situations, do not
produce chaos and anarchy, and hurt the feelings of others. Media should highlight
the real issues of society and must show and appreciate the good decisions and
policies of the government. Every issue is raised at a proper platform and
addressed by the concerned officials and representatives. Media should act
maturely and create awareness in the society and educate the people on the
contemporary policies and decisions of the government.
Right to information and access to equal opportunities when guaranteed to all
citizens without discrimination on the basis of race, language, religion, caste, creed
or color, show that the society is cultured in democratic principles. Every one bears
self respect, dignity and citizenry rights which must be kept in mind when
addressing their concerned issues and problems.
Strong institutions, i.e. Parliament, Judiciary, Executive, law enforcement agencies
and others, indicate the level of stability of democratic governments. Separation of
Power along with slight check and balance, and sense of accountability of the said
institutions to the real power holders, i.e. citizens, shows the democratic culture of
societies and governments.
Volunteering of the citizens for helping the government in solving the issues and
problems along with participating in elections before and on the Election Day is
the testimony of deep rooted culture of democracy. Another feature of the cultured
democratic society is that the powers will be distributed and allocated to the lower
level. Presence of viable and operational Local bodies or Basic democracies
system is the beauty of democratic societies. Educationists and Students must also
be seen involved in the process of electioneering and creating awareness among
the lay man regarding the fruits of strong and viable democracies.
In short words, it can be stated that the fruits of democracy can be taken only when
it is made as a part of the culture of the society. Men or women, elders or children,
literate or illiterate, slaves or freeman, teacher or student, everyone should be
adapted to that culture of democratic process, so that we can see the World free of
any discrimination, marginalization, illiteracy, lawlessness meant for a World
ensuring peaceful coexistence.
Dmokratia, now known to the world as Democracy is a form of government
under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies,
ultimately, with the citizenry. Democracy is the most essential and fundamental
element for managing the affairs of society systematically. In a broader sense
democracy encompasses the leading features; fair and free election process,
supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, and freedom for the people. In other
words democratic state must practice the principles of equal citizenship
irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity and regional background. It must also
ensure equality of opportunity to all for advancement in social, political and
economic domains and guarantee security of life and property to its citizens.
It is fact that democracy is the major constituent for social, political and economic
development. It is considered as the backbone of the system, without which an
effective running of system is impossible. The crucial importance of democracy
can be observed by the experience of East Asian countries. Between 1965 and
1990, several countries of this region registered the highest growth rate and proved
it with high living standards. The most important factors behind this economic
miracle are good governance.
Democracy today appears to be the most popular choice when it comes to choosing
a form of government, it brings with it many complications that would be absent in
a dictatorship. Making bold decisions for long term prosperity, executing
controversial decisions and making bitter choices for the common good can be
very complicated processes in a democratic form of government.
Democracy presupposes an understanding of issues. The sine qua non for a
Western-style democratic system is education, which means that the people must
be educated to a level to understand the issues so that they can make a meaningful
choice. Unfortunately, literacy rate in Pakistan is a mere fraction, even the most
optimistic estimates believe it to be less than 50 percent. An illiterate person is like
an aimless wanderer, who lacks a clear vision, consequently fells an easy prey to
the caste related vote canvassing. Moreover, Pakistani society is divided along the
fissures and faults of caste and sects that has retarded it to act like a cohesive unit
and concentrate only on issues. Under such circumstances, caste, sect and creed
sentiments are exploited by the unscrupulous politicians.
Democracy is one of the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the
United Nations. It is based on the freely expressed will of people and closely
linked to the rule of law and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Democratic governance feeds into economic and social policies that are responsive
to peoples needs and aspirations, that aim at eradicating poverty and expanding
the choices that people have in their lives, and that respect the needs of future
generations. In essence, therefore, democratic governance is the process of creating
and sustaining an environment for inclusive and responsive political processes and
settlements.
It is also important to note that the United Nations does not advocate for a specific
model of government, but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and
principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and
human development.
The Quaid believed in democracy, the following are an excerpts from his speeches
on democracy:
Democracy is in the blood of Muslamans who look upon complete equality of
man. I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur
stands side by side with me. Muslamans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.
Dec 14, 1946, Quaid-e-Azam said at Kingsway Hall, London.
There are no people in the world who are more democratic even in their religion
than the Muslamans.
The democratic system derives its strength from people. As former American
President, Abraham Lincoln said.
Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Anna Garlin Spencer is of the opinion.
"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."

History has always provided evidence for the fact that ideas and values come
before actions. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other
cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as
Ancient Rome, Europe, and North America. The motherland of modern democracy,
i.e. England is a manifestation of this principle. In the changing times of 16 and
17th centuries, during the age of discovery and at the dawn of industrial revolution,
these were the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jeans Jacques Rousseau
which paved the way for democracy. These were their political ideas in the social
contract, treatises on government and other such political classics which got
acceptance among masses and intellectual elite and became a part of political
socialization and ultimately political culture. Coupled with these ideas were the
socio-economic changes going on in Europe particularly, England. With the advent
of Industrial revolution emerged a new mercantile class which had wealth but not
prestige and political power. The ideas of democracy, rule of law and adult
franchise went to their favor so armed with the weapon of these ideas, this new
class succeeded in building up a new political culture under which a new political
order was established.
Political harmony and democratic evolution is facilitated primarily by political
parties and leaders. These are important instruments of interest articulation and
aggregation and serve as vehicles of political mobilization. In Pakistan, political
parties have traditionally been weak and unable to perform their main function in
an effective and meaningful manner. The role of the political parties has suffered
due to, inter alia, periodic restrictions on political activities under military rule,
infrequent elections, weak organizational structure and poor discipline among the
members, absence of attractive socio-economic programs, and a paucity of
financial resources. Political parties also suffer from factionalism based on
personality, region and ideology. The Muslim League that led the independence
movement failed to transform itself from a national movement to a national party.
It suffered from organizational incoherence, ideological confusion and a crisis of
leadership. The parties that emerged in the post-independence period could not
present a better alternative. They suffered from the weaknesses that ailed the
Muslim League. Consequently, the political parties could not work for political
consensus building and political stability and continuity. Most Pakistani political
parties lack resources and trained human-power to undertake dispassionate and
scientific study of the socio-political and economic problems. The emphasis is on
rhetoric and sloganeering which may be useful for mobilization purposes but it
cannot be a substitute to serious, scientific and analytical study of the societal
problems. The level of debate in the two houses of the parliament and provincial
assemblies is low and these elected bodies often face the shortage of quorum which
shows the non-seriousness of the political parties and their members in the elected
houses in dealing with the national issues and problems. Quite often the ministers
and parliamentary secretaries are not available in the house to respond to the issues
raised by the members.
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.
Islam speaks of sovereignty of Allah, while western democracy advocates that
sovereignty belongs to people. This means that democracy has been accepted
within the limits of Islam so that in the name of democracy Islamic principles
cannot be violated. Islamic Scholars and Islamic Politicians have come to accept
the word democracy and what it means within these limits. The fear of some
people here that democracy makes the people a source of power and even
legislation although in Islam, besides Allah, no one has the right to make laws.
Allah is our Creator, our Lord and he knows well that what is good and what is bad
for us and Mohammad as its Prophet and Islam as its Religion. Such a people
would not be expected to pass a legislation that contradicts Islam and its
incontestable principles (Sharia) and conclusive rules.
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.
The people generally have also an important role to play in democracythat of
intelligent critics and no democratic government worth the name can afford to
ignore or bypass public criticism. If it were to commit, his folly, it would soon
become unpopular loss it hold on the people and hence its majority in the
legislature. Thus the public shares the role of the opposition whenever occasion
demands it.
Public opinion may be passive and false or active and real. It is claimed in theory
that all governments are ultimately based on the opinion or sanction of the
governed. But we find that in practice the people's rights are often trodden down
and tyranny and oppression are allowed to continue. The government does it not
because the people want it to do so but because they are too idle, too uneducated
and too disunited or timid to oppose the government. Such public opinion is
passive and false and not an active verdict. But when we find people alert,
intelligent and determined to let the government know their will, when they want
to exercise actively their voice in the management of their country, we have an
instance of true or active public opinion.
True public opinion is formed by and expressed through the press, the platform,
political parties and educational institutions. These have sacred duties to perform,
duties on which depends the ultimate good of the entire community. The press
today wields a tremendous influence, so it should support the causes and
movements and condemn the wrong ones and thus teach people to form correct
opinion. A free and fair press ventilates the grievances of the public. Thus a healthy
relationship develops between the people and the government throughout an
unbiased press. Political parties also help to create and regulate opinions. No less
important part is played by the educational Institutions which train the minds of the
young people who will be the citizens of tomorrow. It has been said that modern
Germany and China have been made by their universities.
It is necessary that the young and the growing minds should imbibe the spirit of
fellow-feeling, the spirit of tolerance, the habit of compromise, and show due
regard for the feelings and opinion of others without which a democratic society
cannot function, let alone succeed. When there is true awakening of the people, we
shall have the real and conscious public opinion. And justice will reign on earth
and truly will the voice of the people be the voice of God.
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.
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.
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.
Pakistan, like India, adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 as the Interim
Constitution, 1947 to meet the immediate requirements of an independent state. It
provided parliamentary form of government, although the Governor General
enjoyed special powers and the federal government exercised some overriding
powers over provinces. Pakistan's early rulers did not pay special attention to
democratization other political system because their major concern was how to
ensure the survival of the state in view of internal and external challenges. The fear
of the collapse of the state encouraged authoritarian style of governance.
Pakistan had faced serious administrative and management problems during the
partition process. These problems were the division of civil and military assets of
the British government between India and Pakistan, communal riots, the migration
of people to and from Pakistan, and the troubled relations with India, including the
first war on Kashmir, 1947-1948. In this critical situation when Pakistan was
facing initial administrative and humanitarian difficulties, Mohammad Ali Jinnah,
the father of the nation, died on September 11, 1948, thirteen months after the
establishment of Pakistan. The separation of Quaid within a short span of time
undermined the already weak political institutions and fragmented the political
setup. Most of the post-Jinnah political leaders had no nationwide fame and appeal
to reorganize the massive crowd again as a result regional politics within the state
flourished. This critical situation, made it difficult for the political parties and
leaders to pursue a coherent approach and gather under one leadership. They were
unable to develop consensus on single point.
Exploring the last 63 years of Pakistan, democracy is taken as a comic relief
between military regimes. Assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first elected
Prime Minister, was in fact the demise of democracy in Pakistan. Since then, the
balance of power tilted in the favor of the military. Though Liaquat Ali Khan laid
the foundation of the constitution by introducing objective resolution but several
years later constitution of Pakistan was introduced (March 23, 1956) which even
could not get popular support of all major parties, leaders and regions. By the time
the constitution was introduced a strong tradition of violation started, the political
parties were divided and the assembly was unable to assert its primacy. In this
situation power was shifted to the Governor General/President Iskander Mirza,
who had military background. Iskander Mirza took support of top bureaucracy and
the military. This contributed to the rise of the bureaucratic-military elites in
Pakistani politics which further suppressed future of democracy.
Democracy was not evolved out of the Pakistani culture; rather it was imposed by
our colonial masters so there was a lack of democratic culture and its associated
values. Pakistani society consisted of tribal or feudal landscape. 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. Tribalism or feudalism, as a political
system, has certain values associated with it which include authoritarianism instead
of mass level participation, kinship instead of merit, patronage instead of rule of
law due to which our military and political elite could not embrace the idea of
democracy wholeheartedly and that is why, there was no strong resistance
whenever the military toppled the elected government. The first Martial Law was
imposed by Ayub Khan in 1958 and lasted till 1969. He abrogated the constitution
of 1956. He also introduced presidential system with indirect elections. In April
1969, General Yahya imposed second Martial Law and lasted till 1971. He had
abrogated the constitution of 1962, banned all political activities and dissolved
National and Provincial assemblies. Again Martial Law intervened in 1977 and the
popular leader elected by the common people through dubious elections was
hanged. Zia's Martial regime was supposed to be the shortest one but it turned out
to be the longest in the history of Pakistan. Zia did not abrogate the constitution of
1973 but suspended. He also passed his famous 8th amendment to restrict the
power of head of government through article 58 2(b) and provided significant
powers to the president who could dissolve National Assembly whenever he think
that need has arisen. In 1999, again military intervened in political setup led by
General Musharraf. The Army was yet again in power promising of smooth
transfer of power to grass root level within three years.
Consequently, the list of gross failures kept mounting and even after realizing the
underlying causes, they werent 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--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.
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.
The political system which we have in Pakistan is rather something else in the garb
of democracy. Where one needs at least ten to twenty million rupees to contest a
National Assembly election and around half of that for a seat of provincial
assembly; where the legislature has become a club of the elite is rather actually
plutocracy, i.e. a government of a rich few. Middle class, having understood that
the doors of the political system are closed for them, get disenchanted and
ultimately get alienated from the system; and here lies a basic reason for the lack of
development of democratic values and culture in Pakistan.
It is fact that democratic governments in Pakistan have been witnessed of
corruption, mal-administration, and nepotism. The people reluctantly visit public
institutions because they know that without any favor or bribe it is very difficult to
get any work done from the public officers. Moreover, due to malpractices of the
public official and misappropriation of public fund the infrastructure of public
institutions has been cracked and a situation like chaos is prevailing all over the
country.
In 1990 the government of PPP was dissolved due to corruption charges set against
Benazir Bhutto by the President of that time. The next government of Nawaz sharif
was also dismissed in 1993 by Ghulam Ishaq khan on plea of corruption and
nepotism. Again elections were held in 1993 and Benazir became PM but this
government was also dissolved on corruption charges in 1996.
Democracy and participatory governance are popular political notions in todays
world. Fair and free elections are the key pre-requisite of democracy. However,
democracy lacks substance unless the electoral process is coupled with the
supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, and civil and political rights and
freedoms for the people. The state must practice the principle of equal citizenship
irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity and regional background. It must also
ensure equality of opportunity to all for advancement in social, economic and
political domains and guarantee security of life and property of its citizens.
The failure to institutionalize participatory governance has caused much alienation
at the popular level. A good number of people feel that they are irrelevant to power
management at the federal and provincial levels. The rulers are so engrossed in
their power game that they are not bothered about the interest and welfare of the
common people. Such a perception of low political efficacy is reflected in the
declining voting percentage in the general elections. A good number of voters
maintain that their vote does not matter much in the selection of the rulers.
Invariably they express negative views about the rulers as well as those opposing
them. Despite all this, the people have not given up on democracy. While talking
about their helplessness with reference to changing the rulers, they continue to
subscribe to the norms of democracy and participatory governance and emphasize
the accountability of the rulers. They are therefore vulnerable to mobilization for
realization of these norms and values. The political system of Pakistan is
characterized by intermittent breakdown of constitution and political order, weak
and non-viable political institutions and processes, rapid expansion of the role of
the military bureaucratic elite, military rule and military dominated civilian
governments, and narrow-based power management.
Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality
of opportunityIrving Kristol
History is witness to the fact that Pakistan has lost territory while under direct
military rule. The dictators hawkish attitude has fanned various separatist
movements across the country. Absence of Democracy is a significant reason for
nurturing terrorism in a country. A democratic government is supposed to represent
the people and provide political means to voice grievances, hence essentially
providing a sphere where terrorism has no place. Democracy is necessary to peace
and undermining the forces of terrorismBenazir Bhutto. For this reason, in
theory, there 'cannot' be an aggrieved group that is not adequately represented; but
absence of democracy and areas outside the realm of democratic setup in Pakistan
has proved conducive to terrorism.
The political leaders lack a clear vision and they never had the capacity to alleviate
the status of democracy and strengthen it, in fact the mutual squabbling of the
political leaders excited the other players to assume a role. Moreover, in Pakistan
the politics is more personality-driven rather than issues-driven, which has an
overall negative impact on the evolution of independent institutions and has fanned
the vested interests. Political parties are mere puppet in the hands of different
families and party elections are considered taboo and it seems that political parties
have dictatorship at their own core!
In true democracy, political leaders derive their power from the people thus they
are intrepid and assume more audacious visions, consequently the respective
country forms an independent foreign policy that best suits its interests but feeble
democracy is devoid of these characteristics. Pakistan has so-far failed to furnish
its independent foreign policy, with faint support in their own country; political
leaders are swayed by the world powers, thus they undermine the national interests
and sovereignty of the country
All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy- Alfred E. Smith
Though democracy has failed many times to establish its firm roots in Pakistan, but
every dark cloud has a silver lining, all these failures actually provide us an insight
into what went wrong and how democracy can be preserved from de-railing next
time. The first essential step seems to stop interruption in the democratic process
and the elected government must be allowed to complete its tenure in any case.
Secondly, a major chunk of the population wants greater Islamic character in the
democratic setup and legislation. Incorporating true Islamic injunctions will lead to
a more cohesive civil society and will foil any attempts by the extremists to paint
that democracy is antithesis to Islamic form of government. We must learn to live
together as brothers or perish together as fools Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reforming the judiciary and incorporating the Islamic laws can also soothe the
deprived and poor masses which have been manipulated by the extremists. Moving
on, corruption and selfish attitudes is eating away the institutional structure of our
country and such mal-practices never allowed democracy to flourish. There is a
need to engineer an accountability mechanism, so that these wrong-doings are kept
in check.
There is a dire need to strengthen the public institutions, in order to ensure the
supremacy of law so that rules govern the country rather than the personalities. The
glaring example of many European countries may be quoted, where institutions
enjoy the ultimate powers. Democracy in actuality can only be achieved through
such measures.
Common man was compelled by the existing setup to stay away from contesting an
election. Hitherto it was a prerogative of the affluent and feudal classes; such
practices are against the moral, democratic and Islamic principles. The necessary
ingredient for the success of democracy in Pakistan is the emancipation of the rural
areas from the clutches of the local landlords, i.e. to take steps for the abolition of
'Jagirdari' System. The criteria of merit; the right of freedom and equal progress for
common people should be promoted. Young and morally upright persons should
come forward and actively take part in democratic setup and elected member must
be nurtured with the notion that they have to serve the nation and they have to bail
out this nation. A leader is a dealer in hopeNapoleon Bonaparte
Our constitution does not provide an effective system of check and balance. That is
why every elected civilian government becomes omnipotent and powerful which
give rise to corruption and mal-administration. There is no effective system of
governance which can keep proper check on the decisions and the steps taken by
PM and his cabinet. Judiciary must be made strong enough to keep a strong check
over these important matters.
In Pakistan, the rulers, political parties and leaders and the civil society groups
support democracy at the normative or conceptual level. The politically active
circles demand representative governance and participatory decision making in the
political and economic fields. They highlight fair and free electoral process, the
rule of law, socio-economic justice and accountability of those exercising state
power as the pre-requisites for a political system.
The credulous masses were an easy prey to the mercenary politicians, had they
been educated, they must have asked the elected members for their rights denied,
opportunities curtailed and for defrauding the tax-payers money. Imparting
education on a national scale will galvanize the masses to form a check on political
leadership. The political energy in Pakistan is extravagantly wasted on inter-
provincial squabbling. There is a dire need to get the nation out of the rut of
provincialism, so that they feel proud on being Pakistani and strive for the cause of
Pakistan thus strengthening the institutions and democracy in the country.
In a democratic state, media has rightly been called the fourth pillar of the state. It
can play a more vibrant, positive and constructive role rather than becoming
another compromised institution. Information is the currency of democracy
Thomas Jefferson
Finally, the strategic position and now the war against terror has brought Pakistan
in the limelight of the international community, so international community should
help Pakistan in establishing a workable democratic system or should at least stay
away from anointing the dictators, but it is only possible through the visionary and
sagacious approach of the med
The world has ultimately come to a conclusion after having experimented different
forms of government like Monarchy, Oligarchy, military or civil Dictatorships etc.
These governments failed despite sincere wishes of the individual leaders who
came to the fore through any of these Processes. In line with the lessons of history
and despite all its past experiences of failure, there is no other messianic way out to
lead Pakistan toward a progressive state except to establish the roots of democracy
firmly. Democracy is not only a form of government; it is a philosophy which
encompasses all aspects of rights and freedom. In Pakistan, however, the already
difficult situation has been aggravated by constant failures which never let
democracy to survive. 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. 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.
The road to democracy may be winding and is like the river taking many curves
but eventually the river will reach the oceanChen Shui-Bian(10th and 11th-term
President of the Republic of China)
The historical facts and arguments validate the notion that democracy is a culture
rather than a process. The democratic values and socialization have to gain
acceptance in a society if democracy is to flourish as a political system. However,
this does not mean that democracy cannot be established in the long run, in a state
where there is absence of democratic culture. Culture itself is an organic thing and
changes with the course of history. If the intellectual elite of a country succeed in
propounding those ideas to the extent that these values are embraced by the people
of that land at a mass level, and the socio-economic conditions, to some extent, are
conducive for them then the democratic system can genuinely flourish in that
society and country.
There is a need to reform the judiciary, in the presence of an independent judicial
system, the discrepancies are kept in check thus it ensures enduring democracy
through fair and free elections, without fair and free elections the actual shape of
democracy cant be prevail. It is the responsibility of the state to hold elections in
such a way that everyone be able to contest elections regardless of his financial
status. The state must try to build up a culture of meritocracy instead of
monetocracy (money as the basis for progress) which is the prevailing norm of the
political culture of the underdeveloped world.
Media should also play a positive role in creating awareness among people
regarding their problems and their solutions. In this way people will be able to
demand their rights and will perform their duties and responsibilities in a more
organized way.
Democracy in Pakistan faced a host of difficulties which did not let the democratic
principles, institutions and processes develop firm roots in the polity. In Pakistan,
periodic breakdown of the political order and repeated military take- over or
attempts by the top brass to shape the political process to their political preferences
did not ensure political continuity and the competing interest did not get equal
opportunity to freely enter the political mainstream. . Democracy and the
autonomy of civilian institutions and processes has been the major casualty of the
expanded role of the military. Whenever Pakistan returned to civilian and
constitutional rule, the quality of democracy remained poor. It is a case of
democracy deficit. The long term endurance of the political institutions and the
prospects of democracy faces four major challenges in Pakistan: the non-expansion
of participatory opportunities for those viewed as adversaries by the military
dominated regime, the poor performance of the elected assemblies, failure to build
consensus on the operational norms of the political system, and a drift towards
confrontation, religious and cultural intolerance and extremism.
This does not mean that the people have given up on the primacy of the popular
will, participatory governance, accountability of the rulers and governance for
serving the people. The ideological commitment to these principles persists which
will continue to question the legitimacy of no participatory and authoritarian
governance and political management

Like any other electoral exercise, last Sundays local government election in parts
of Punjab and Sindh raised quite a few issues that should be on the agenda of
any promoter of democratic institutions.

The bloodbath in Khairpur diverted attention from the structural obstacles to

democratic politics in Sindh, and the reality that the provincial government faces
serious challenges to its authority from a wadera-bureaucracy (mainly police) axis in
parts of the territory. This alliance decides law and order cases and matters related to
elections. The mainstream parties success in elections depends on their ability to
absorb these wadera-police combines.

This situation has two serious implications. First, attempts to deal with dissident
waderas/tribal chiefs through extra-political means will be fraught with the risk of
bloody conflict. And, secondly, the democratic-minded political parties will continue
to face heavy odds while trying to promote peaceful and fair electoral procedures.

There will be intense tussles among the political parties to win over the independents.

In Punjab the position is somewhat different. Here the bureaucracy by and large does
not operate independently of the government and those who challenge the incumbents
have to do without bureaucratic support. Thus the main problem faced by political
parties was their own incapacity to understand the dynamics of local elections.

Jamaat-i-Islami tried the old leftist tactic of infiltrating popular parties and failed. The
view that it might have done better by concentrating on its pockets of influence cannot
easily be dismissed. The PML-Q had to be contented with small and scattered
victories because it was still struggling to establish its political relevance. The PPP,
virtually leaderless in Punjab, could not do any better than holding a union council or
two in the constituencies from where it had in the past won seats in the national and
provincial assemblies, though it did find quite a few activists who were not afraid of
disclosing their party affiliation. Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf surprised everybody by
failing to turn its public support on the ground into electoral strength. The reason
could be the partys lack of interest in organised activity at the grass-roots level and its
failure to persuade the affluent class to come out to vote in low-grade elections.

But the case that deserves serious study is that of the PML-N. With all the advantages
of a favourable wind, the party conceded around 47pc of the seats of chairman panels
up for election in the province to independents. It is said that a majority of these
candidates are PML-N supporters and had opted to contest independently after they
had been refused party tickets. The rift in party ranks in Faisalabad district, where a
huge pile of the partys dirty linen was washed in public, made headlines for days on
end.

The reasons for the large-scale defection from the ruling party, even if it is temporary,
need to be explored because they seem to have their roots in the countrys peculiar
political culture.

First of all, a ruling party that is a favourite to win the electoral race will have
difficulty in satisfying all the candidates for its patronage. It can guard against
defections only if the rank and file are convinced that the selection of candidates has
been made fairly and on merit.

It seems the political parties have not paid due attention to the fact that the small size
of electoral units in local elections stirs ambitions in a much larger number of bosoms
than is the case in provincial- and national-level elections. The common tendency in
party leaderships to choose all candidates from above and satisfy the lust for power of
their MNAs/MPAs often invites a strong backlash. But in their present state of
organisation it is doubtful if the Pakistani political parties will adopt the easy way out
by awarding tickets to candidates after ascertaining their popularity through an intra-
party process.

Now there will be intense tussles among the political parties to win over the
independents as they will drive bargains in proportion to the suitors need of their
support. The peoples memories of this kind of horse-trading have recently been
revived by reports of a party loyalists demand for a high office as a reward for
defeating the partys official nominee. Equally important is the question as to how the
party will apply its disciplinary code, if it has any, to its loud-mouthed renegades.

A factor that also contributed to increase in the number of independents was the
arrival of a new section of the prosperous class that has resources only to contest local
body seats. This class, dominated by urban traders and rich peasants, has real stakes in
local government because it is expected to decide matters related to land disposal, law
and order, and numerous civic facilities.

Strangely enough, these candidates jumped into the fray without realising that they
will have little possibility of enjoying real power as the provincial governments have
robbed the local government institutions of their essential functions. More amazing
still was the absence of any debate on the downsizing of local bodies during the
election process. The newly elected councils may have to take up the issues of local
bodies due empowerment beyond the stage some civil society organisations have
taken it in defence of the rights of women and minorities.

All these aspects of electoral politics highlight the critical distortion of the meaning
and purpose of rule by elected representatives. The commonly shared objective of
seeking a place in elected councils is acquisition of power for personal/group benefit.
The idea of considering election as a representative of the people as a reward in itself
and an opportunity to do good by ones fellow beings, if it was ever alive, has been
laid to rest. And no turnaround looks possible without dedicated efforts to foster a
culture of democratic politics.

REGARDLESS of the consequences of the ongoing turmoil in the Arab states in

the short run, it should give a fresh impetus to the efforts students of politics have
been making to analyse the travails of societies that gained independence after the
Second World War.

What has happened to Tunisias Ben Ali and Egypts Hosni Mubarak, what
Qadhafi is trying to avert by making his country desolate, or what some other
potentates are hoping to forestall with pain-reducing palliatives they call reforms is
not new. Similar was the fate of many Third World leaders who had earlier been
hailed as liberators of their people, fathers of their nations.

No more than half a century ago, the leaders of a resurrected China, Indonesia,
India, Egypt and Yugoslavia were shining as beacons of light for the large mass of
humankind that was emerging from the dark age of imperialist exploitation. The
people of Africa, belittled by its plunderers for decades as the Dark Continent,
were lining up under revolutionary leaders banners of freedom, justice and
continental unity. What happened to the bevy of charismatic leaders, their legacy
and their societies?

Soekarno of Indonesia was felled from power and grace by the forces he had
preferred to colleagues of the freedom struggle and whom he had strengthened by
denying the masses the fruits of deliverance from colonial masters. Nasser of
Egypt died a broken man, driven to the wall by the forces of tribalism backed by
clerics and international moneybags. Nkrumah of Ghana was brought down by the
unavoidable corruption of absolute rule. Write the same for Banda of Zambia. Tito
of Yugoslavia died just before the nations he had clobbered together unsheathed
their knives against one another.

Of the Third World leaders who departed with their reputation intact, Nyerere was
helped by his austerity and the decision to retire, Zhou Enlai was protected by the
momentum of the revolution, and Nehru benefited from the Indian peoples long
history of social evolution.

Where are the people who were led by these great leaders? Have they been able to
realise the goals of freedom, equality and progress that had been inscribed on their
standards during the long and bitter fight against alien rulers, and for which
countless people had fallen along the way? The most charitable answer will be that
they are still trying. An analysis of the post-independence political history of these
countries may help one find clues to their common predicament.

Except for China, which needs to be studied separately along with other socialist
countries, especially the Soviet Union and Cuba, the front-runners in the Third
World opted for democratic state structures, many of them under the guidance of
experts steeped in the conventions of parliamentary democracy of the Westminster
style. This system presented serious problems that the builders of new states, in the
flush of victory, chose to ignore.

The most critical issues faced by these countries were, first, the transplantation of a
system of political equality of citizens in societies that were violently hostile to the
concept of social equality, and, secondly the absence of a sufficiently large section
of the population with a stake in the democratic system. Besides, they lacked the
human resources needed to manage affairs democratically. Most of these countries
instead of meeting these shortages chose to plod on and gradually deviated from
democratic norms, especially after the knowledge gained under articleship with the
former rulers was exhausted, as happened in Pakistan in the mid-1950s. They
started relying more and more on the military and civil bureaucracy, especially the
secret services, for suppressing dissent and frightening the populations into
quiescence.

Most of these new states had weak economies. Whatever development had taken
place was designed to subserve the colonial powers economies. They jumped at
any offer of aid regardless of the level of its appropriateness to their needs or their
capacity to use it for national good. On top of all this the Cold War played havoc
with many countries. On the one hand they got addicted to aid, lost the habit of
thinking ways out of their problems, and on the other hand the imbalance in civil-
military relations and the latters ascendancy at the cost of the former laid the
foundations of an endless game of seesaw between democrats and authoritarian
elements.

These developments took place in a period of humankinds unprecedented

awakening across the globe to the concepts of freedom, justice and prosperity as
rights no people could be deprived of. The message to new democracies was that
no regime could sustain itself by force alone; that it was necessary to nourish pro-
democratic forces by freeing their people of undemocratic relations tribalism,
feudalism and social stratification on the basis of belief, ethnicity or caste and
by creating channels for developing and training human material in the art of good
governance, such as a vibrant academia, a free media, robust trade unions and
autonomous professional groups.

All the Arab states facing trouble these days, and quite a few other countries, are
paying for their failure to meet these demands of a democratic polity. Since these
countries were afraid of strong political parties their leaders became aliens to their
own people who could not learn any means of replacing incompetent, corrupt and
selfish leaders except through upheavals backed by any party whose bona fides
could not be checked. Thus, democratic experiments were wrecked by the rulers
failure to free the peoples culture of pre-democracy, even pre-political,
assumptions.
India is generally considered to have escaped the decline discussed here but India
has earned credit because other countries have fared worse. Further, India had
started deriving strength from an indigenous capital that aided the freedom struggle
as part of its conflict with the colonial powers capital. India also benefited by
staying out of Cold War politics for a considerable period.

For Pakistan all this is not a matter of academic interest only. The colonial pattern
of governance adopted by it has completely decayed and cannot be repaired.
Neither those in power nor those waiting in the wings can put the state back on
democratic rails without creating an environment conducive to the founding and
flowering of democratic governance. Many observers have attributed Pakistans
trials to a failure to resolve the contradiction between democratic precepts and the
culture/mindset of the population.

Pakistan needs to develop a democratic culture, they often argue. But political
culture is only a reflection of economic and social relations and unless these
relations are changed it will be impossible to foster a culture a democracy cannot
do without.
Behind the high walls of a hotel in Antigua, the tranquil colonial capital of
Guatemala, as the more than 100 women participants moved into the third day of
redefining democracy some 40 miles away in the modern capital Guatemala
City, democracy did a little redefining of its own. It was precipitated by an event
unusual even for Guatemala: the distribution at the funeral of a murder victim of a
video in which the deceased, a respected lawyer, accused the president, his wife
and his secretary of organising not only his own murder he was shot on the
streets of Guatemala City while riding his bicycle on Sunday - but the murders
earlier in the year of two of his clients.

There cannot be many political rule books that offer much guidance for such an
eventuality. In the absence of a road map, Guatemalas febrile political system
began to implode. Rival demonstrators took to the streets, some calling for the
president to resign, others demanding with apparently equal passion that he stay.
The president himself was determined to stick to his post where, if nothing else,
he enjoys immunity from prosecution. His best explanation so far of the
extraordinary video which rapidly became Guatemalas favourite on YouTube --
has been a rather vague assertion that the affair was cooked up by persons
unknown to destabilise his government. That, it has certainly done, but it seems
extreme to suggest that it could have been the dead lawyers prime motivation.

Guatemalas Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu, who hosted the conference, was
among those who argued that the president should stay in post, for fear of
something worse. The most important thing, apart from a guarantee of a full
investigation, was to preserve the constitutional order. There are many who would
agree: though military coups are out of fashion in Latin America, they are not quite
beyond imagining.

It seemed a long way from the continuing deliberations of the conference, but
Guatemalas crisis illustrated the concern of many of the participants. In a robust
political system, the president could have been set aside until the affair was
investigated. But Guatemalas political system is not robust: the vice president, the
next in line of succession, is a politically inexperienced cardiologist, widely
respected but not considered the man for such a moment as this. The third option,
the leader of the congress, is related to one of the men accused in the video.

As the conferences closing statement stressed, democracy is not limited to -- or

guaranteed by the exercise of the vote. In Guatemala, since the peace accords, the
vote has been exercised regularly, though some of the details might not bear too
close a scrutiny. But the texture of a strong democracy, that wide distribution of
power and resources between institutions, ethnic groups and regions, is almost
wholly lacking. The constitution promises protections that dont exist, rights that
cannot be exercised, and justice that it rarely delivers.
Just how profound a change can come about when the constitutional state does
incorporate the thinking of diverse groups of citizens. Guatemalas Maya majority
is, on the whole, desperately poor and uneducated, many unfamiliar with the single
language in which the state conducts its business. For many of Guatemalas urban
elite, the Mayas widespread poverty and illiteracy justifies their own continuing
monopoly of power. Others, of course, argue that these conditions are a product of
exactly that monopoly.
Pace Guatemalas elite, it does not have to be like this. Ecuadors population, for
instance, also has an indigenous majority but has recently moved beyond a political
framework that reflected its colonial past in the primacy it gave to the values and
interests of the Ladino elite. Today, instead of offering a justification for a racist
exclusion of indigenous values from power, Ecuador has rewritten its constitution
not only to guarantee the rights of all its citizens but, in a ground-breaking move,
to give legal rights to nature. It is, its proponents ague, a unique example of the
embedding of traditional indigenous beliefs and values into a western legal
instrument to meet a very contemporary concern environmental degradation and
climate change. It is so radical that lawyers are still working out how it will be
implemented.
The indigenous values now embedded in the constitution are the primacy of nature
as a legal subject, rather than an object, and the idea that consumption is a poor
measure of well being. The shift in approach between this and the previous
constitution, rooted in colonial values, extraction and exploitation, is profound:
instead of electing a government that can exploit both people and resources for the
benefit of a few, any Ecuadorean citizen is now entitled to represent nature in a
court of law in defence of bio-integrity and a redefinition of wealth away from
capital accumulation and towards bio-capital protection.
What changed? Fifteen years ago, Ecuadors indigenous peoples were regarded as
so irrelevant to the business of government that they were not even counted in the
census and still only five of Ecuadors 130 congressional deputies are indigenous.
But, they exercise both power and influence through a variety of organisations and
federations and today have the power to help shape government decisions.
Ecuadors political and economic institutions have taken an important step away
from their colonial legacy.
So is it the legacy of colonialism that limits and damages the exercise of inclusive
democracy? The question was vigorously debated in many guises in Antigua: the
colonisation of bodies and minds, the colonisation of territories, the primacy - in
the view of one of the participants - of an anti-colonial struggle over gender rights.
For democracy to flourish, it has to be a culture as well as a process.