.
People point out that there are far too many protests in
the parliament; that the business of the house, which is legislation, is
suspended and that this is evidence that democracy fails in Pakistan. The fact
is that the protests are there precisely to make democracy work. If all members
of the parliament accept the LFO they will accept the undemocratic principle
that any individual or institution other than parliament can amend the
constitution. If they accept a serving Chief of the Army Staff as president of
the country they would negate the constitution of the land and negate the
principle of civilian supremacy on which democracy is based. If they accept a
council, whether advisory or not, above the parliament they would negate the
principle of the supremacy of the parliament. In short, those opposing the LFO
are acting democratically and if they make to much noise about it it should be
taken as a measure of their desperation. To point out that the opposition
parties now protesting the LFO are not democratic themselves and were pretty
autocratic when in office is sadly true. But this does not mean that, if for
whatever reasons, they are now taking a right stand they should be trashed as
hooligans. The problem is that democracy is not really cherished in Pakistan.
The fact is that democracy is a new experiment in the
life of humanity. It is a very unnatural experiment because it is quite natural
for those who have power not to be answerable to anyone. It is also natural for
holders of power to continue to exercise it while in democracy they can be, and
are, removed before they die. Because it is unnatural it is a sign of high
civilization; political maturity and sophistication. But why should one
consider curtailing the power of its holders so important? After all, if one
has no rivals for power he can focus his full energies on improving the lot of
the people. Things can get done quickly and he will do only necessary things
because he need not bother about votes and rivals. After all, autocratic
countries like Singapore, China and Malaysia are quite efficient and affluent.
So, why is democracy so necessary? My answer to this is that even in the most
affluent and efficient of the authoritarian states the state has been
repressive. The result is that the human rights of freedom from fear and pain
are infringed. Moreover, since dissidents are suppressed, they do not produce
original ideas nor do they produce a large number of courageous people. There
is an atmosphere of pervasive fear which saps moral courage. This is the
greatest demerit of living in an authoritarian state. The heroes of humanity,
people like the celebrated opponents of Western powers (Russell, Sartre,
Chomsky and Edward Said), were the products of Western culture because the
democratic aspect of that culture allows heroism to flourish. In authoritarian states
too there are heroes but they generally die before they become icons of
humanity.
Even worse, all authoritarian states are neither affluent
nor efficient. There are many despotic countries in Latin America and Africa
which are poor and completely inefficient though ruled by cruel dictators. Then
there are states like Stalinist U.S.S.R, the Shah’s Iran, Saddam’s Iraq and
others which appear to be militarily powerful and even efficient but live on
oppression of unimaginable proportions. This is worse now than in the old days
because modern states, with all their gadgetry, are more efficient than any
pre-modern state in history. However, if you have any romantic illusions about
the kings of yore, just read history---the original sources and not the official
textbooks. You will find that they initiated wars (committing murder), occupied
land (robbed) and took prisoners (abducted women and children) whenever they
could. Moreover, they did not mind abducting the women of their own people too.
In short, in the absence of any legal way to remove them, the people had to
pray for their departure to the other world---what else could they do?
That is where democracy comes in. The people can throw
the ruler out. This is the good thing about it. Moreover, if the press is free,
excesses can be criticized. If the opposition is strong, it too can prevent the
government from being ham-handed. However, such has been the propaganda against
politicians that democracy itself is held in ridicule and contempt. This
attitude persists to this day so that people are unable to understand that
democratic institutions, democratic norms of behaviour, democratic culture,
rule of law---these things come first; governance comes second. That is what
the LFO conflict is really about. Those who believe that the LFO should be
discussed and voted upon by the parliament—even if it is a handpicked
parliament in part as it were---are upholding democratic practices. Those who
think the parliament should keep conducting normal business as if nothing has
happened are giving priority to governance over democracy. That is a wrong
priority if we ever do want to establish a democratic culture.
In other words, the conflict is not over General
Musharraf’s uniform. It is not about anyone in person. It is over two ideas of
rule. The democratic idea subordinates
everyone to the people’s representatives as assembled in parliament. All
other ideas look for charismatic leadership, believe in a person or group’s
ability to deliver and, in general, oppose the basis of democracy which is rule
by replaceable, rotating leaders at the mercy of the ballot.
The problem is that protects in the parliament are
portrayed as lawlessness and chaos. But the beauty of democracy is precisely
this that it permits protest and a bit of rowdiness is sometimes a part of it.
All the ugly stories about professional politicians have made people believe
that all politicians are corrupt. However, Shahab writes in his memoir that
Ayub was surprised to find that almost all the accusations against the
politicians were small irregularities and not really corrupt practices. This
does not mean some are not corrupt but those some include military officers,
judges, busnissmen, academics--- anyone who gets the chance to be corrupt. Moreover,
the people also think that corruption is the greatest evil among rulers. I
would contend that pecuniary corruption is not the greatest evil among the
powerful; the greatest evil is cruelty Democracy is meant to save us from this
evil. It is the only political system ever practiced in the world which allows
the rights of human beings to be preserved; which encourages truth and moral
courage; which allows new ideas to be created. It is a system which General
Musharraf, above everyone else, needs for his own present stability and safe
exit from power. After all, democracy lays down rules of exit from the position
of the highest power. In the absence of such rules the Mughal game of war takes
over and that is the most unsafe thing any ruler could desire. So, the sooner
we resolve the LFO issue in a manner which makes the parliament supreme once
again the better it is for all of us. It is the only step which will make the
ruled and the ruler safe from each other.