Professor Ahmed Zeb (Dera Ismail Khan, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “In my opinion, democracy in South Asia has not flourished and it won’t until we democratize our political parties. Our political parties more or less resemble private limited companies and family trusts. Take PPP, established by Zulfiqar, inherited by Benazir, who will probably be followed by Sanam Zulfiqar. The same is true for ANP. In India, the same is happening to the Congress. We need to follow the democratic processes as that of the USA and UK, where the political parties elect leaders for each term. It is not a family affair where the son should follow the father and so on. So unless an effort is made to democratise the political parties, and unless they perform their role properly, democracy will not come”.
Rashid Rahman (HRCP, Multan, South Punjab):
“The issue of political succession is not unique to South Asia. Even in the USA, Bush junior succeeded his father. The problem is that we are living in a tribal society. Institutions and political parties formed in our society reflect the tribal structure that is based on succession. When power becomes unaccountable to reason, this will happen”.
Angelica K. Zobade (HBF, Lahore, Punjab): “Talking of political parties as a precondition for democracy in South Asia, it is not only a measure of family succession of the feudal structure to be pushed back from the functioning of the political parties but also a matter of the party development programme. That is something I do not see anywhere, except the leftist parties, which traditionally had a party development programme unlike the rest. What is clear is the making of political leadership in terms of traditional leadership. According to the Weberian sociological analysis, you have a mix of three levels of political authority, i.e. traditional structure, tribal and clan structure along with a bureaucratic structure. These structures are in continuous tension. This means that the real power structure is at a distance from the society as ethnic and religious minorities as well as women are not yet modernized at the level where they can have influence. The task is to define and name these structures and not to move in circles around the problem. This will take a lot of courage”.
Javed Ahsan (Writer and Poet, DG Khan, South Punjab): “Politics is about power. In the past, the elite had the monopoly on the political aspect with little or no role for the masses. Feudals are the torchbearers of such a tradition. To change such a background, the first principle of democracy is to acknowledge the identity and rights of others. However, in the absence of a balance among different groups, be they social, political, ethnic and cultural or among provinces as well as within the military, even our homes, such an objective is hard to achieve. The second principle is channelization. We have not yet channelized our structures, and, because of that military intervention has become widespread. As politics is a power game, our politicians involve the most powerful institution (the army) in politics for their advantage. The balance is missing in the military wings too. At the time of independence, there were 40-45 thousand personnel in the navy and 50-60 thousand in the air force. The situation has remained almost unchanged in terms of staff and budget of these two wings of the military, while the third wing, i.e. the army, has increased up to 600,000, and consequently, a balance among the three wings is lost. To stop military intervention, there should be a balance within the armed forces. Apart from that, there is a tussle going on among and within the provinces. For instance, in Punjab, the Saraikis are demanding their own identity and rights. In Balochistan, there is a Baloch-Pathan tussle, where the Pathans are claiming that the greater Balochistan is all theirs. As proposed by the Ansari Report, the number of provinces should be increased to 12 to achieve a balance between and within provinces. Provinces are only administrative units and not holy cows. More importantly, there should be a balance between the institutions involved in the power game so that one group cannot dominate the state”.
Zia u Rahman (Awaz-CDS, Multan, Punjab): “Democracy is not an object that can be imported, transplanted or implemented. Democracy is more an attitude. The problem in Pakistan is that in the name of democracy the ruling classes have been introducing various brands of governance, whatever suited their interests. This class includes the military and civil bureaucracy, feudals and the clergy. The Constitution that was to safeguard democracy has been suspended and even amended undemocratically time and again. We, the people, are very much responsible for the present state of affairs because the lack of reaction to the usurping of power has only encouraged anti-democratic forces”.
Shakeel Waheedullah (CAPS, Peshawar, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “There could be many interpretations of democracy but it is the perception of the political workers that matters most, notwithstanding their less precise understanding of democratic ideals. Workers are not to be singled out for their lack of understanding. In our political culture, they are only used for chanting slogans and raising party flags. Educating political workers on democracy is, therefore, essential because the sustained change to be borne out of the democratic struggle rests on their action and direction. Furthermore, the politicians operate like entrepreneurs. Sometimes they are observed harming the very foundations of democracy within the parties. Therefore, at times we feel a vacuum and confusion in this arena. This confusion about the direction of the party leadership and the workers’ lack of understanding renders the prospects of a meaningful popular backlash against the usurpers of power a mere rhetoric”.
Muhammad Tahseen ((South Asia Partnership-Pakistan (SAP-PK), Lahore): “There has been ample talk on the wrongs and wrongdoings of the parties. What about people’s aspirations around the promise of democracy?”
Professor Ismail (RISE, Sawabi, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “Democracy is both attitude and practice. Democracy is based on equity and equality, and so it cannot come from a few institutions alone, such as political parties. Equity and equality must comply with the people’s will. Political organs are important but the individual has a pivotal role in society and democracy. It is the individual whose behaviour can make a difference”.
Miss Salma (Bargad, Gunjranwalla, Punjab): “Politics is the only source of democracy. We keep switching from martial law to civilian rule and vice-versa. Most of the political parties have turned into family enterprises. Perhaps the society wants them to be so. This is true that democratic norms are quite alien to our political parties, for example, transparency. As far as the role of the curriculum in strengthening democratic ideals is concerned, it is not as bad as is being complained by a friend here. For instance, a graduation textbook admits that Ayub Khan was bent on proving that democracy could not work in Pakistan. However, more significant is the fact that we failed to change the colonial structure in order to extend the popular say in the affairs of the state”.
Attique ur Rehman (Social Activists Forum (SAF), Turbat, Balochistan): “First of all, equality and the rule of law should be the guiding principles of democracy. We have none. In the absence of equality, institutions cave in and undemocratic forces appear to grab the opportunity. We do not practise democracy even in NGOs that stand for this practice. Power corrupts even those who are otherwise known to be highly democratic. Ironically, an ordinary man discovers a Wadera (feudal lord) within himself after he gets into a position of authority. Contrary to political intentions, our curriculum fails to represent even Islam. If Ghaznavi (actually the plunderer, popularly considered to be the prime iconoclast in the subcontinent and elevated to the status of a great hero in our textbooks) is our hero, then what title should we bestow upon those who demolished Babri Mosque?”
Saleem Raza Siyal, (Ghareeb Kissan Tahreek, Punjab): “When self-motivated politicians get exposed for their corruption and nepotism, our hawkish military is quick to grab power. When ousted politicians stage a comeback after dirty compromises, they have to launch democracy from scratch, because the very foundation lies in ruins after the generals’ withdrawal from politics. It is in this context that the civil Society has a role to play in conserving and safeguarding the democratic legacy weakened by the recurrent military take-overs. It is no less than a challenge”.
Peter Jacob, (DCH, Lahore, Punjab): “It is not an unusual thing that the nation has succumbed to confusion. The more they get confused, the more they fall prey to exploitation. Pakistan is in a state of limbo. Accordingly, a minimalist approach towards democracy should be endorsed. Let other ideals gain ground with the process. Let us admit that we could not even continue the very right of adult franchise, which the British had to accept. We could not sustain the basic tenets of adult franchise. Strange is the irony of time that a state constituted through a democratic struggle is now in the crisis of democracy. To our astonishment, we have found the rulers arguing ‘do we really need democracy in Pakistan?’ People here talk of individual responsibility towards democracy. But in my view, unless the overarching structure is not democratised an individual cannot afford to be democratic in his attitude. No democratic change can spring from an individual’s initiative”.
Akash Ansari (BRDS, Badeen Sindh): “In fact, it is the societal attitude as a whole and not the role of the individual that shapes democracy. We have art, literature and mysticism that can add colour to the mosaic of democracy even in the absence of political democracy. Here, people have been subjected to unending divisions. However, we can still find a common bond of human values emanating from the great art, culture and mysticism of this land, even though Pakistan is not a homogenous society. For instance, the South Asian society as a whole exhibits a peculiar contradiction. The middle class of the subcontinent has been idealized to be the driving force for revolution. On the other hand, it is the same class that forms the vanguard of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) - the alliance of conservative religious parties and the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) in Pakistan and India respectively”.
Suresh Kumar (Sami Sujak Samaj Sangat, Hyderabad, Sindh): “People have been tamed to follow and not to lead. They have no control over processes and outcomes. This is our common feature. Betraying the pledge, political parties will make alliances with rival political parties or create factions within, just to serve their own interest. This is one of the major causes of the people’s aversion from political participation. Political parties should realize that more than any other political institution, they are responsible for the development of democratic culture and institutions in the country. We, the people, are mainly followers of these parties and leaders. Unless political parties bring their house in order, expecting a greater good will be a fallacy”.
Muhamad Bux Baloch (Ketch Education and Development Society (KEDS), Turbat, Balochistan): “Time and again, we are given sermons on democracy by those who seldom practise it. Democracy is not something entirely novel to us. Setting aside the ping-pong of politics in parliament, our communities are practicing democracy at the grassroot level since long. Not only have they been tolerating dissent, there have been traditions of redistributing wealth and resources within the community. Not long ago, the trend of accumulation of property and wealth started taking root in these societies. That in turn created the rifts and conflicts, both within and among various communities. This almost ended the democratic behaviour of the people and the communities. Our democratic roots have been cut while we talk of democracy in our higher institutions. Today, what we see in this country is a dismal picture of democracy. A top-down approach will not work in this context. In order to democratise and develop, we need to cultivate democratic ideals starting from the individual level up to the community and national levels. Otherwise, the state of democracy in the country will remain the same”.
“Balochistan has been an unfortunate place in this regard. In Gawadar, a city in the making, land grabbers have occupied even green pastures taking the advantage of mega projects. The indigenous residents of this area are being displaced from their hometown with the advent of so-called development. Those settled in the area for centuries, find themselves swept away and pushed out of their lands. Participation, equality and equity are misnomers in the context of Balochistan”.
Ali Akbar (Jobs Creating Development Society, Peshawar, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “The fruits of independence have never reached our people. For us, independence has brought little change. Whatever independence had to offer is there in the present-day-India. It has remained democratic and its institutions have flourished. In our case, democratic ideals and institutions were never allowed to flourish. This undemocratic attitude even damaged the revolutionary groups and movements as they have lost their ideals. In the name of Islamic democracy, fundamentalism has eroded the foundations of democracy in the country. In India, democratic institutions are strong and I believe that in time they will overcome the problems caused by the fundamentalism of the BJP. I also believe that our extremist policies have been an important element in the ascendancy of Hindu fundamentalist BJP. Thus, we are not only responsible for fundamentalism in our own country but also in India”.
Gul Rahman (Muttahida Labour Federation, Peshawar, North West Frontier Province (NWFP)): “After partition, we either had feudals or bureaucrats or the industrialist class. Now, the case is different. There are feudals, industrialists, bureaucrats and politicians in the same family. They have formed networks against peoples’ rights. This is very disturbing. People are no more interested in politics, which they consider to be an elite game. People are more concerned about food, healthcare, employment etc. The poverty ratio stands at 40-45 per cent. How can one think of democracy in such conditions?”
“We have to find out who actually needs democracy. The political parties are rightly said to have become family enterprises. They demand democracy but when it comes to rights of the people, the same parties get involved in exploitative deals. It is rare to see these parties struggling for the rights of the poverty-stricken masses. All the political parties share this feature. There is a Pashto couplet translated as:
‘What is an army? Asks one woman.
My husband, your husband and many others like them, together make an army, replied the other one’”.
“There is a difference between what is said, believed and practiced. But one thing is certain that democracy is never required by the resourceful. It is the poor and the workers who would really cherish it. Suppressing the right to demand, successive governments have taken away the right of association from workers. Trade unions are construed to be detrimental to what is called law and order by the governments. Is it not killing democracy? Until we are not democratised in our behaviour, our attitudes, our institutions and organisations, expecting change is a fallacy. The ruling elite manages to serve its interests while we hopelessly look on”.
Javed Ahsan (Writer and Poet, DG Khan, South Punjab): “There are several ethnic groups in Pakistan that lack any significant political representation. Their linguistic and cultural identity is threatened by the state, which is dominated by a single ethnic group (Punjabis). In order to protect the interests and identities of the oppressed peoples, the number of provinces need to be increased. As proposed by the Ansari Report, the number of provinces should be increased to 12. This will safeguard the social, cultural and political identity of different ethnic groups. For instance, Seraikis have been demanding a separate province within the Punjab, which is simply an administrative re-demarcation. It will not only confer a separate identity on a distinct group but will develop administrative convenience as well. If India can re-demarcate the traditional subdivisions on linguistic and cultural grounds, why can’t we follow the same principle? In my view, democracy can be furthered through a new social contract among different communities and groups”.
Rashid Rahman (HRCP, Multan, South Punjab): “Where there are a number of contravening agendas, what should be the yardstick for measuring people’s demands? There are divisions on political, social, economic and religious lines in our society. We are a divided society in every sense, a torn country. There is no common thread to unify us. The so-called national language (Urdu) and Islam have failed to do so. Apart from that, the authenticity of public mandate has been a debateable proposition. Even more so, there are those who doubt the ability of people regarding the proper use of their voting rights. Can we say that the MMA came to power with the popular will of the people? Why did it not happen in the last fifty years? What to do now? Are we proposing to hold back measuring the will of the people till they are politically educated? But I do believe that a yardstick is indispensable in order to ascertain the will of the people”.
Aqeela Siddiqui (Lawyer from Lahore, Punjab): “The design of the civil society with reference to democratic development is highly reductionist in Pakistan. The NGOs are behaving more like those political parties, which they are criticising. Like father, like son. I am inevitably supposed to do what I am trained for. It is all the more important to democratise the civil society organisations (CSOs) because it is they who are taking the lead in the development of democracy in Pakistan. We need to determine how far our CSOs behave democratically. Sadly, CSOs or NGOs are not people’s organizations. There is hardly any mechanism of power sharing among them. The same feudal mentality is all-pervasive in these organisations. We neither practise democracy within our organisations nor with our (potential) beneficiaries. It is the same power maximisation game, while democracy is the name of power sharing. Civil society organisations have failed to develop a mechanism for power sharing within their organisations. It’s the same one-man show, the same centralisation of power. It is required of us to develop democratic principles within our organisations and in our decision-making bodies. We have to go a long way”.
|
