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 rkazi...@gmail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]