Building Political Culture Anew

Columnist Dr SM RAHMAN makes a compelling case for revising our political values.

George Bernard Shaw once remarked: “The chief defect of democracy is that only the political party out of office knows how to run the government.” What was intended to be a zestful depiction, has proved to be very apt assessment of our political predicament. No political government has had an opportunity to claim that it remained into office for the full tenure, as provided in the Constitution. Only the military regimes can boast of holding on to power, for longer periods - the Zia regime completing its 11-year mark. Earlier, Field Marshal Ayub and his successor General Yahya Khan between them had nearly thirteen years’ inning. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto being enamoured by martial law style dispensation of power used “Civil martial law” terminology and ruled the country on the basis of elections held in December 1970, when the country was not divided, whereas the imperatives of the situation demanded a new mandate after the cessation of the former East Pakistan. When the elections of 1977 surfaced, the blame for massive rigging not only nullified the whole exercise but also served as a blow to the very structure of political culture.

In more recent years, the two tenures of Benazir Bhutto as well as of Nawaz Sharif saw the rapping up of democracy before they could complete their full tenure. But why should an elected government fall from the pedestal of power, within two to three years or even less, is a question, which cannot easily be dismissed by a simplistic assumption that Army’s tolerance threshold of civil governments is far below five years. It is true that praetorian syndrome is a pernicious legacy, but objective assessment would reveal that what derailed democracy on the fateful day of 12 October 1999, was a situational imperative, transcending army mind-set. It is borne by the apex court’s verdict of 12 May 2000. After all, the sacrosanct values of democracy will have no meaning if the grace and credibility of institutions are thrown down the drain.

Defiance of the explicit and implicit norms of democracy is the cardinal sin, which politicians have committed, not realizing that if the rules of the game are not adhered to, it is a no-win situation for every player. As soon as a political party is seated into power, the opposition starts engineering devices to oust it, and its entire energies are consumed in maintaining a confrontational posture, through agitational and vituperative politics, intrigues and machinations. The government-in-power, on the other hand, mobilizes all efforts, for somehow holding on to power. There is thus no ‘movement” towards achievement of national goals and objectives. In other words, the enormous national potential remains hostage to politicians “self-seeking” propensity and in that process they rob the sanctity of Parliament, which constitutes the quintessential value of a democratic polity. Power assimilation on the part of the head of the government, to sustain the myth of invincibility is what transforms democracy into an aberration and a contradiction in terms - “democratic monarchy”. Personality cult and democratic polity are antithetical to each other. Abraham Lincoln said: “I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Our politicians are a different ‘breed’. To them being a ‘master’ is the essence of power - in fact, a super master. The opposition finding it difficult to deal with the overly centralized power structure, deems it too expedient to join hands even with those with whom it had adversarial relations and possibly worst ideological antagonism to agree on a one point agenda - Remove the Government. But the benefit of removal does not accrue to them. A military regime comes into power, and the irony perpetuates. Our politicians are the worst learners of history.

Political culture, cannot in itself come in full bloom, unless the attitudinal pre-requisites, values and beliefs sustain its growth and nurturance. As Lary Diamond maintains: “prominent theories of democracy, both classical and modern have asserted that democracy requires a distinctive set of political values and orientations from its citizens: moderation, tolerance, civility, efficacy. knowledge, participation”. Pakistani political model, is devoid of all these in varying degrees. Moderation and tolerance are not the traits of political elites — the so called lip-service proponents of democracy. Opposition is not conceived as necessary adjunct to a democratic polity. It is to be despised, degraded, hounded and even labelled “security risk”. Casting them in the “enemy image”, creates a reactive  propensity on the part of the opposition, to paint the elected lot, as election riggers, and consequently “illegitimate”, “evil-incarnate”, “looters” and “plunderers”. It is undeniable that corruption has deeply permeated the woof and warp of our political fabric. But it is not from higher moral plane that such criticisms and allegations are made, but for the sheer jealousy of being deprived of the opportunity for not being at the seat of power to be able to maximize fulfilment of greed and rapacity. The political culture, therefore, is barren of the very values, which are the crucial link between economic development and democracy. There are studies, which have clearly brought into focus the correlation between such measures as trust, tolerance, efficacy and personal satisfaction and the per capita GNPs of the countries. It is interesting to note that where people reject revolutionary changes, in favour of planned and evolutionary process, not only economic development occurs but democracy also remains stable and vibrant. What is, therefore, imperative that value orientations must change through institutional anchors, and ensuring a system, where vote has its ‘sanctity’ and is not a purchasable commodity. Without electoral reforms, political culture remains a money-making enterprise for the corrupt politicians.

For internalizing democratic norms and values, political socialization is the basic imperative. Very recently I had an occasion to visit Germany, and through the courtesy of Hanns Seidel Foundation. I saw a number of institutions, where potential political leaders are imparted training, in a very congenial atmosphere. This is how democratic attitude is fostered and reinforced and knowledge base is widened to promote accommodation of diverse ideas, shunning polemical and confrontational politics. Major political parties in our country, may direct some of their resources for the establishment of such institutions. Our country needs nurturance of democratic mind, which indeed is lacking due to colonial pattern of socialization, where power revolves round “authority”. Educational system has to be so altered that every citizen fully cognizes his role in the total political system. Pakistan’s redeeming feature is that the masses, by and large, are tuned to moderation rather than extremism in terms of their political orientations. Whenever, they have been provided opportunity to vote, they have invariably manifested their maturity by voting for political parties, whose socio-economic and ideological programmes are not radical. It is in India that one notices, that Hindu ‘fundamentalists’ are gaining ground through a political process. The sublime values of secularism and liberalism are quite on the wane and yet ironically propaganda is systematically being launched to label Pakistan an abode of Islamic ‘Fundamentalists’. It is a gross distortion of reality. Ehud Sprinzak says: “The concept “radical right”, was developed in the United States in 1950s and 1960s... While being truly extreme, and often violent, most of the groups that were gathered under the radical right umbrella were very American. They espoused the Constitution (according to their own interpretation) revered the founding fathers and said they were the true representatives of the American way of life, which the liberals, the communists, the Catholics, the blacks, the Jews and the big bureaucrats had conspired to destroy.” (From the Book — Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, p. 350). One can see a parallel in the case of Israel.

Pakistan’s cultural moorings favour liberal version of Islam. Neither the conceivers, nor the deliverers of Pakistan had any attitudinal leaning towards theocracy. In fact, the father of the nation — Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah exhibited abhorrence for religious extremism and bigotry. Tolerance for minorities, accommodation and commitment to a pluralistic social order, are the hallmark of Islamic polity. Terrorism is alien to Islam. Jihad is totally misconstrued to be the synonym of terrorism, when, in fact, it is its antonym. Mohatir Mohammad of Malaysia, pointed out that the first hijacking of aircraft was by an American. It is not intended to convey that Americans stand for terrorism or that they are all radicals. But there are, in every society, people who seek their identity through deviance and flouting the social norms. Muslim societies are no exception. In Pakistan, “terrorism” has met no success as a political weapon as it is in many other parts of the world, like Latin American countries.

Pakistani society is endowed with rich potential to promote political culture conducive to democracy, if the subcultures, thriving on regionalism, sectarianism, and the money barons, who misuse the system for amassing wealth are rendered weak and relatively ineffective. The role of mass-culture, has to be strengthened. It has been argued by Lipset long ago in Political Man, “democracy becomes truly stable only when people come to value it widely not solely for its economic and social performance but intrinsically for its political attributes. Democracy needs renewal and renovation. It is always, as Lary Diamond contends: “in a continuous process of being”. There exists an inverse relationship between militarism and political culture. One is weak to the extent the other is strong. Only collective will based on consensus can pave a facilitative climate for a civilian political order to replace, what is a hotch potch civil military amalgam, not too conducive to desired changes, as borne out by successive experiences. Any predilection for confrontation with the Army would be disastrous. A change must be sought within the laid down parameters of Supreme Court’s verdict and not placing impossible demands. Dialogue builds trust, which in turn, will steer a smooth transition towards respectable participatory democratic order. Cooperation is the key to this process.

According to Overstreet: “The happiest thing that can be said about democracy is that it is one of the few systems that has even been willing to risk a long period of confusion and mixed purposes for the sake of giving man a chance to grow in mind and responsibility.” It is now about time to show the politicians have learned the hard way and have grown in mind, and can be responsible.