It’s not about mere Democracy – its about the Rule of Law
The people’s struggle in Pakistan today in not about mere democracy – at least, not what the country’s major political parties consider democracy to be: the rule of elected oligarchies, wielding unbridled executive power over citizens, in tandem with other entrenched power-holders like the army and civil bureaucracy. In fact, that form of democracy, still espoused by the likes of PPP and epitomized by the experience of 1990’s is widely considered a failed experiment. If ordinary people today are rising up, it is because the lawyers’ movement has given them hope of another, better system of governance quite different from the mere democracy of the 90’s: constitutional democracy premised upon the unmitigated rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms.
The problem in getting to this simple conclusion about the motive behind the people’s struggle is that the people’s struggle does not have any one leader or one spokesperson. This might not have been the case when it was still the lawyers’ movement. Now, however, after the media, NGOs, students, other professional groups, overseas Pakistanis and other ordinary people have all joined in, and it has become truly a social movement, it is impossible to find any one voice that can speak for all. Now, one can only infer the logic behind the public’s discontent by imputing a motive that fits their acts. Alternatively, one could try logical deduction based on what the rational choice for the people is. Rationally, no matter how much lip-service politicians and the international community pay to democracy, people in this country cannot be expected to fight in defense of a system marred by lawlessness and denial of basic freedoms, regardless of whether it is elected or not.
The Motive that fits the Facts:
Were it that the people’s struggle was merely about having a government that had come to power through elections, the would have come out in the streets on Oct 12, 1999 – the day a government commanding the biggest-ever electoral mandate in this country’s history was ousted by a non-elected regime. The fact remains that nobody did so. In fact, most people felt just the opposite. Opinion polls from the time indicate that a vast majority actually favored that regime change. The most popular argument advanced by the new regime was that corruption had been rampant in elected governments – corruption being one key way in which rule of law is violated. And for many years after Oct, 1999, General Musharraf’s regime, manned by fairly competent and honest technocrats, enjoyed immense support among the general public. One has to explain that period of public contentment before one can correctly understand the reasons behind the prevalent people’s struggle against the Musharraf regime.
People were happy with the regime in its early days because it was perceived to be more fair, impartial, rule-driven and tolerant of basic freedoms than the one before it. That this one wasn’t elected didn’t bother common people. There was less corruption and other violations of law, the media enjoyed unprecedented freedom, and debate was tolerated, even if it could not alter public policy.
In this analysis, there is a lesson for both the political parties and the civil-military establishment. They are both power-seeking groups that represent the aggregation of certain interest groups. By their very nature, neither has any intrinsic tendency toward respecting fundamental freedoms or always abiding by the rule of law. In the longer run, however, no power-holder can perpetuate its rule without widespread public support. The general public, in turn, is not quite as concerned about having an elected government as it about having a government that respects their basic freedoms and meticulously follows the rule of law, thus bringing stability to the system. In sum, to perpetuate its power, any player must seek popular support, something it cannot get without respecting freedoms and the rule of law.
This choice is open to both political parties and the civil-military establishment. The coming of an elected set-up sharing power with the civil-military establishment seems imminent in Pakistan. But history should make it clear to the politicians that there is no guarantee that they will stay in power. A few years from now, we may have yet another so-called popular leader ousted with no one coming out in the streets in his/her defense. To avoid that fate, politicians will have to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of constitutional governance, as opposed to repeating what they did in the 90’s. There will never be a better opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of that commitment than now, when the constitution and the judiciary ( the custodians of rule of law) can both be rejuvenated if the politicians put up a united effort to defend them. Plunging into the elections is the instinctive thing to do for any political party, but doing so without will further damage the already diminutive credibility amongst the larger public.
The Logic Behind It:
Earlier, I have tried to demonstrate that the people’s deeper and lasting commitment is to a form of governance based on the rule of law and respect for basic freedoms, not for just about any government that emerges out of elections. In this part, I shall try to rationally justify the stance that I believe the people are taking.
What are the commonalities between Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai, United Stated States, Saudi Arabia and Japan? For one, given a choice, a very large proportion of Pakistanis would prefer to live and do business or jobs in any of those countries than in their homeland. Another perhaps less obvious commonality is that the state in all of those places is premised upon the rule of law and certain basic freedoms which may be limited but are well-defined. Elected government run by political parties is definitely not a common factor nor is the possession of huge natural resources. The point is, people in those countries choose to tolerate their states and people from other places would willingly flock because of the presence of good governance, based not necessarily on democracy, but definitely on the rule of law. In that context, it does not seem so surprising that people in Pakistan are now engaged in a struggle for constitutional governance where the rallying cry is no less that the person of the Chief Justice.
I would conclude on this telling comparison: From1999 to 2001, the most popularly elected politician in the country is not only sacked but humiliated and sentenced to death; yet, the people don’t come out to defend him. In 2007, the Chief Justice sitting atop an increasingly independent judiciary is threatened with removal: the whole country is galvanized into action, hundreds of thousands of people come out in the streets to herald his caravan. In a mock poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan, in a presidential contest between General Musharraf and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhary, not only did 70% of the respondents actually choose to vote, but 70% of those voting elect Iftikhar Chaudhary – who represents nothing less or more than the Rule of Law. No politician – representing mere democracy – could gather nearly as much support or trigger as big a turnout. Even as the country plunges into martial law, the media remains curbed, assembling in public is still a crime, and thousands are arrested, the movement proceeds uninterrupted, finding allies in unexpected places. What then is the people’s real rallying cry: elections or the rule of law?
