http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\09\06\story_6-9-2010_pg3_4
Monday, September 06, 2010
VIEW: 'Democratic' process in Pakistan - I -Raza Kazim
Elections by themselves are only the mechanics of a political process.
They are not the substance of democracy. Democracy is a massive movement of the
common people against an oppressive and obstructive social order and for its
replacement by another social order that enables the people to restructure
their society
In the peak of the 'democracy' season in Pakistan, Mr Altaf Hussain has
sounded a discordant note with his latest statement, implying that he would
support 'patriotic generals' if they use their military prowess to eradicate
corruption and feudalism from Pakistan. Some prominent politicians and civil
society luminaries have already reacted with horror to Mr Altaf Hussain's
political hand grenade. As a concerned student of our history and an outsider
to the present centre-stage of our politics, I would like to respond to this
occasion by examining some of the implications arising out of Mr Altaf
Hussain's statement.
I am unable to equate democracy with elections and the politics of
elections alone. The political history of the Third World during the last 60
years is full of instances in which this paradigm of democracy has produced the
messy stagnation that has taken hold of many of these countries for a long
time, and has served to deny three generations of a brighter future, which
could and should have been their fate. And let us not forget the modern
instances of the election politics and process in Germany in the 1930s and
about the same time in the Soviet Union. They produced disastrous social
formations and sad endings. The point is that elections by themselves are only
the mechanics of a political process. They are not the substance of democracy.
Democracy is a massive movement of the common people against an oppressive and
obstructive social order and for its replacement by another social order that
enables the people to restructure their society and therewith establish an
appropriate political and legal order, which opens the doors for civilised
progress. And the process of democracy can last only as long as that movement
of the people continues with dynamic vigour. These events occur and become real
and turning points in their history.
I am unable to see when such events and turning points occurred in our
history since August 14, 1947, nor do I recall when they occurred prior to
1947. Neither do I find any literature that documents and demonstrates that we
have in fact gone through this process, and developed a vigorous consensus of
the common people, which could produce such events. A consensus mushroomed in
1945 and 1946 to grasp Pakistan as a huge opportunity for a large number of the
upper and middle classes for their personal betterment. And so in fact it
happened. The British withdrew their sovereignty over Pakistan by an act of
parliament and left Pakistani society intact as they had made it. There was no
operative vision of a social change at all. Even the foreign minister, the
finance minister and the first two army chiefs came from the British stable and
were not even members of the Muslim League. I walked with Jinnah's funeral to
his resting place and clearly recall that the marriage of Islam and politics in
Pakistan took place quite some time after his burial. It was manifest that
conferring the title of Islam on Pakistan later was a substitute device for the
total absence of a social vision arising out of a popular consensus and its
leadership. This was obvious because neither Jinnah nor the Quran had
prescribed Islam or any other religion for the state of Pakistan. If it is
suggested that 'democracy' means a legal continuity, then this notion was
negated by the highest court in Pakistan, supported by the practical approval
and consensus of the people of Pakistan. The first martial law was still to
come four years later and that too after having been midwifed by the civilian
administration.
All martial laws hitherto share the same fundamental character, together
with all the intervening civilian governments, of preserving and standing guard
over a pre-democratic social formation preferred so far by the people of
Pakistan. I am unable, therefore, to make a qualitative political distinction
between the civilian and military administrations in this country for the last
62 years. It is true that there have been many interesting changes in political
personalities and devices but that is all.
The extent of the parallel economy in Pakistan is well recognised and
researched, and where its ratio is one of the highest in the world. A parallel
economy by definition means economic transactions that are in violation of the
law, whereas democracy by definition means that laws are made by the people and
for the people. It is logically inconsistent that we have a mindset committed
to a parallel economy and simultaneously have a consensus in support of
democracy. Hence it is obvious, in Pakistan, we have not yet preferred true
democracy as a social reality.
Today a regular Pakistani politician Mr Altaf Hussain has chosen to make
a very irregular and out of character statement in drawing a novel
classification among the armed forces, i.e. those generals who are patriotic
and opposed to corruption and feudalism and those who are not. From his
promising the support of his party, it seems that some Pakistani political
elements are exploring new territory. The question is, are there any worthwhile
realities within our reach and available to us in this new territory? We have
seen that elections and coups so far have been mere mechanics for our people to
continue marking time with the same basic social formation that was bequeathed
to us by the Indian Independence Act of 1947 by the British parliament.
It is becoming obvious by the day that our prevailing ideological and
national security doctrines have run out of steam. There are no more fig leaves
left. We have no international opportunities left to exploit as in the past and
no semblance of credibility left. As a motley crowd marching towards greater
anarchy by the day, we have no future as a country and as a society.
What is clear, however, is that there cannot possibly be a fifth martial
law that belongs to the family of the four we have already had. If there has to
be a dramatic redeeming event in the near future, it will have to be in
substance and reality radically different from our past history. It is equally
clear, if there is to be a turning of a page in our history, it will have to be
by the common will, intention and consensus of the people. And that would be
the beginning of our democracy. The mobilisation and emergence of such a
consensus of the common people, which produces a qualitatively different
mindset and a different culture is what alone can produce a real democracy.
(To be continued)
The writer is an advocate and director of Sanjannagar Institute of
Philosophy and Arts. He can be reached at [email protected]
