- Nuances in Democracy
- Columnist MASOOD ANWAR discusses
democracy’s mores.
Democracy is a lesser issue in Pakistan, nuances always create flurry and excitement as interpretation and explanations creates complications in the exactness of democracy. Our strategic approach with respect to democracy witnessed during the years of independence has shown signs of tongue-lashing defiance. The standpoint of the followers of divided philosophies and their corrupted desires for ingenuous democracy is essentially deprived of the driving forces behind international affairs and relationships. Perceptions have prompted the making of these philosophies resulting in achievements in the area of democracy we cannot be proud of. Narrow considerations in differentiating power and authority has added confusion. Those who are responsible for this confusion are sticking to their self-styled reasoning. Some assert democracy in any form is ill-suited for our society. Some argue in favour of ground realities as the theme for illustrational democracy.
Both points of view appear to be towing a common line of thinking-recklessness in pursuing the basic human interest that indeed has not undergone much refinement. On the other hand weary and utterly frustrated silent majority is compelled to think that a serious mistake might have been committed in pinning hope in the followers of divided philosophies. There are no complications, say the majority. Democracy needs no exposure, complex interpretations could be misleading, therefore, nothing more than intellectual understanding and measured explanation highlighting fundamentals of democracy is needed. Essentially, an innocent comparison supports the argument. The characteristics of a tree provide the wisdom. The trunk of the tree represents the ideology in democracy, branches represent the ideas big and small and fruit represents the essence of democracy. The trunk, the branches and the fruit need care of different nature. The quality of nutriment and the timings are both important. Trunk is the largest and the strongest portion of the tree, hence constant care in its case is essential. Simply put, stronger the trunk, deeper are the roots. Nourishment to the branches and the fruit is provided through the trunk. Branches require periodic trimming. Over-growth spoils the look of the tree. Bigger branches also are likely to suppress the growth of the smaller branches. Fruit is provided maximum care from the time it sprouts to the time it is picked. Overripe or under-ripe fruit are rendered unfit for consumption. Narrowing it down to political understanding, the essence of democracy in the end is in establishing shrewd governance.
Resisting the aggressive line of approach, I am, however, inclined to say that democracy in Pakistan is in excess. The lighter side – more than one Prime Minister is active in the country. Starting with the people’s PM symbolizing humility and tolerance, the real PM exercising power, the extra-real PM exercising authority, the ousted PM representing hope and last but not the least the ‘on-the-run’ PM representing public opinion. All are expressive, all are persuasive and all are relevant in their individual capacities.
Nothing can be settled as far as democracy is concerned. Every form of democracy has its own expression. Each has tested the simplicity in politics many times over. The recent addition of the military along with its loud expression into the main stream of politics is spectacular. This addition has altered the rules of the game. ‘Give-in’ and ‘make-do’ rules now apply, replacing the time tested rules of give and take. The afore-mentioned contention is not just an outpouring of pent-up passions, to comment on opinion makers who venture so confidently and whose words and expressions are sacred advertisements is an act of devotion. Let us begin with the worthy civil servants who always claim to be more democratic than the rest. Is the claim whole-hearted, opinions could be divided, but the logic provided in support of this claim is upholding. They say they are closer to masses and their relationship with the people is more intimate, the point is well taken. Later their saying that they keep in touch with the right people and bring interested parties together and their being hesitant in accepting that commissions and omissions are occupational hazard that cannot be avoided, is a manifestation of the overthrowing of the reasoning given in support of the expression of their ideology. Civil servants are a distinguished class indeed lavish, stylish and indecently proud of their civility. At the cultural level they do not differentiate civility and arrogance, they believe the meaning is closely associated. Among other disclosures the symptoms of superiority are still persisting reconciliation has not been complete, the euphoria of being an enlightened class is keeping their spirits alive.
Business community is less stereotyped. They are good at reconciling to given situations. Often they raise serious doubts about the prevailing myths in the self-styled democracy. They emphasize that democracy is figurative and the stress placed should be more on formulation and not confirmation. They are not averse to change and change they believe, is a living phenomenon, whose validation should be inventive.
The distasteful tussle between pragmatism and idealism has delayed the development of the democratic culture in the country. Stylization on the one hand and fatalistic idealism on the other has subdued the spirit of democracy. For whom democracy is essentially a heaven, a refuse from tyranny, they are the ones who are least consulted about democracy. Ask them and they will reply ‘make-believe democracy’ is an obsession with the well-to-do, a means for legitimizing ill-doings. They also say, like most myths where there is always some truth mixed with fiction, our make-believe democracy too is presented as a prescription of cure. Emotions and sentiments are freely traded, realities are disguised, images of cheers, dramatization and other such machiavellian tricks under estimate people’s intelligence.
Unfortunately things are not that straightforward. Many of the differences in the outlook of democracy revolve around assumptions about the proper roles for men and women in our society. Such deep-rooted assumptions of men having more rights than women pose problems, thus the socio-politics-religious myths haunting our brand of democracy highlighting notions of gender differences, pose serious problem. The crucial fact is that man is a social animal, he is driven by political ambitions, he is compassionate about fanatical perceptions, therefore, he is likely to behave impulsive. Only the language of deliberate Godliness, then, comes to his rescue and protects him from falling into the slippery cracks of truth. Women are less temperamental and not easily enthralled by political motives while dealing with men. Their intellectual perspective is distinctly different to the aggressive approach men inspiringly adopt. Their perceptions are a reconstruction of hegemonic agenda.
People of Pakistan are paying a heavy price for uncertainty. This is a pity. Vagueness in the construction of democracy, claims and counter-claims constitutional wrangling in the interpretation of L.F.O these are making matters deeply uncomfortable. Like a happy marriage needs a bit of give and take to lay off risks of failures, democracy is interconnective. The recent addition to uncertainties is the L.F.O. L.F.O is a test of our political maturity and a test for the reconstructed democracy. What is disturbing is the misuse of wisdom. Howsoever, the issue is approached, only good relations are crucial to doing business in political matter. Common sense and good intentions must remain supreme. Neither should L.F.O be considered an insurance policy by those who think they might have paid heavy premiums, nor should it be used as a means to settle old scores by those who think they have been purposely harmed nor should it be made a compromise for economics nor be taken as value-addition for credit-rating.
If all of the elements fall into place, though things are not as straightforward, we would have really lessened our debt burden, the burden of not being able to develop a civil society without which the interest on debt continues to increase the debt pressure.
