Anwar Syed

Democracy in transition by Anwar Syed

February 9th by Anwar Syed.

 

IT is said that Pakistan is going through a period of transition to democracy. Elections were held nearly a year ago. Representative assemblies are in place. They have been meeting, debating issues, passing resolutions and laws, and holding the executive accountable for its conduct of affairs.

Yet, certain quarters believe that democratic institutions and practice in Pakistan are in a fragile state, need tender care and protection from hostile forces that stand ready to take the country to some kind of authoritarian rule.

A recent newspaper editorial notes that while the lawyers do have the right to demonstrate their support for the reinstatement of judges whom Gen Musharraf had dismissed on Nov 3, 2007, they should cancel their planned long march on Islamabad, for it will disrupt public tranquillity and place a strain on the country’s frail democracy that it may not be able to bear

This reasoning exaggerates Pakistani democracy’s vulnerability. There may be elements in society that are sceptical of democracy but most of them are in no position to overthrow it. The army is the only agency that has ousted civilian regimes in the past and is capable of doing the same again. But this is not an opportune time for the army to make such a move. The generals know that they cannot overcome the difficulties the country faces. They will not want to seize power, invite universal censure, fail to deliver and fall still lower in public esteem. It follows that democracy in Pakistan is not likely to be overthrown by external foes.

Some observers contend that democracy in Pakistan is not the genuine article in as much as it is not delivering good governance. This contention derives from a misunderstanding of the meaning and function of democracy. It is the sum of processes by which the people govern themselves through their chosen representatives.

Democracy cannot ensure that rulers will be honest and efficient. Voters may be moved by their prejudices and passions, ethnic and regional affiliations, and they may elect their own kind even if they are wicked and iniquitous. The resulting system remains a democracy nevertheless. Athens did not cease to be a democracy when its citizens sentenced Socrates to death because he had been questioning the conventional wisdom.

However, a word of caution may be in order. Democracy is coeval with the system of governance of which it is a part. If the system and its good order fall apart and chaos takes their place, its democratic institutions and processes, having become dysfunctional, will languish and wither away. This will most likely happen if the system’s managers do nothing to meet the people’s needs and use their offices mainly to misappropriate the nation’s resources.

Let us now see where the present PPP regime stands in this context. It is getting to be known as a “do nothing” government because it is seen as not even making an effort to overcome the crises afflicting the country. Actually, it is creating new crises. Pakistani lawyers have been out on the streets protesting against Pervez Musharraf’s proclamation of emergency rule, promulgation of a constitutional amendment (the 17th) and his dismissal of some 60 judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on Nov 3, 2007.

Days before her assassination on Dec 27, 2007, Benazir Bhutto declared, loud and clear, that if her party formed the government after the election on Feb 18, 2008, it would reinstate Justice Chaudhry. Mr Asif Zardari reiterated the same pledge to Mr Nawaz Sharif and the nation. The PPP formed the government at the centre in the first week of March 2008 and Mr Zardari became president of Pakistan a few months later. Yet they have not reinstated Justice Chaudhry.

Some constitutional experts said at the time that his reinstatement would require nothing more than an executive order with or without a supporting parliamentary resolution. Other experts contended that it would require a constitutional amendment. In either case the needed instrument could have been prepared within a few days. The PPP government has made no move in this direction, and it is generally believed that, guided by Mr Zardari, it has no intention of putting the deposed chief justice back in the Supreme Court.

One interpretation has it that Justice Chaudhry, back at the Supreme Court, might admit a petition challenging the validity of the National Reconciliation Ordinance which, setting aside Mr Zardari’s alleged involvement in criminal cases, enabled him to run for the president’s office. In that event Mr Zardari’s election could be deemed as invalid and he could be forced to leave the high office he occupies.

It is possible that none of this will happen, and that a bench that does not include Justice Chaudhry will hear such a petition, if it is filed, and reject it, and Mr Zardari will continue to enjoy the comforts of living in the president’s house. But apparently he does not wish to take any chances. All of this means that in order to secure the career of one individual, the government is willing to keep the country in an unceasing state of turmoil.

Going on to another aspect of the present government’s operational style, we see that it insists on spending money it does not have: it has been borrowing hundreds of billions of rupees. It spends as if there is no tomorrow. When the next day (‘tomorrow’) does arrive, as it must, it borrows more to keep going with its recklessness. Instances of its recklessness abound but here we shall limit ourselves to one of them.

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s government gave several thousand PPP workers superfluous jobs in a number of public corporations and other establishments. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government discharged some 7,000 of them between 1996 and 1998. The present PPP government has decided to reinstate these former employees (who were lawfully terminated) retrospectively and give them back pay for more than 10 years. This measure will cost many billions of rupees.

This government’s lavish spending, its inability to restore law and order, its failure to deal with the acute shortages of the necessities of life, have made the state of Pakistan bankrupt and pushed it to the verge of chaos. If the state and its good order are thus disrupted, democracy will be left with no place in which to function.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk