Laaltain

Democratic Deficit in Pakistan

14 مئی، 2015

Exis­tence of diver­gent point of views among peo­ple in a soci­ety regard­ing any aspect of life is inevitable. Appre­ci­at­ing and rec­og­niz­ing this mul­ti­plic­i­ty of views is an essen­tial ele­ment of a demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety. And accom­pa­ny­ing this appre­ci­a­tion, there is also tol­er­ance and respect for these views, both among the rul­ing class and mass­es which is the very essence of democ­ra­cy. This is the very ingre­di­ent that dif­fer­en­ti­ates a demo­c­ra­t­ic state from a despot­ic one. Look­ing at Pak­istan along this dimen­sion of democ­ra­cy depicts a very inter­est­ing pic­ture. While at the time we have demo­c­ra­t­ic elec­tions, a rep­re­sen­ta­tive demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment, it is this lack of patience for a plu­ral­i­ty of views that I wish to high­light in Pak­istani con­text that is becom­ing increas­ing­ly prob­lem­at­ic with every pass­ing day.

Appre­ci­at­ing and rec­og­niz­ing this mul­ti­plic­i­ty of views is an essen­tial ele­ment of a demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety.

The Pak­istani soci­ety pro­vides a clas­sic exam­ple of forced label­ing lead­ing to soci­etal polar­iza­tion. What this means is that ordi­nary peo­ple and indi­vid­u­als are not asked their views, rather the dom­i­nant and promi­nent polit­i­cal elites decide their views and ide­olo­gies for them. Let me explain how and why. The most obvi­ous and cur­rent exam­ple of this label­ing which is becom­ing ever pre­car­i­ous day by day is this dichoto­my between being a “lib­er­al” and a “con­ser­v­a­tive” in Pak­istani soci­ety. From the heat­ed debates between the con­ser­v­a­tives and lib­er­als on media, events such as the mur­der of Mr. Salman Taseer to the episode of a TV anchor pok­ing into the lives of peo­ple in a pub­lic park, argu­ments for Pak­istan being a sec­u­lar or an Islam­ic state, we see a con­fronta­tion between these two ide­olo­gies. These con­tra­dict­ing ide­olo­gies seem to have been there for a long time in Pak­istan. How­ev­er the prob­lems among the two became acute, when they were made the only avail­able choic­es for peo­ple with dif­fer­ent mind­sets, or on the con­trary, peo­ple are forced into choos­ing these or labeled with these ide­olo­gies with­out deter­min­ing their con­sent. These ide­olo­gies have a his­to­ry of becom­ing polar­ized to the extent that they are now. As in the Pak­istani con­text, it had a lot to do with the world becom­ing a glob­al vil­lage in the post 2000 time peri­od. This was a time of water­shed in the his­to­ry of this coun­try, as the peo­ple due to the explo­sion of mass media; inter­net and advanced telecom­mu­ni­ca­tion were increas­ing­ly being inte­grat­ed into the glob­al vil­lage. While the con­ser­v­a­tive were his­tor­i­cal­ly pow­er­ful in Pak­istan, due to inter­net rev­o­lu­tion the lib­er­al elites also found new grounds like twit­ter and Face­book to express their dis­con­tent which pre­vi­ous­ly they were deprived off. There was also mush­room growth of uni­ver­si­ties and col­leges around the coun­try but main­ly con­cen­trat­ed in cities, which lead to increased aware­ness among the edu­cat­ed mid­dle class­es. Both these coin­cid­ed with the phe­nom­e­na of 9/11, inci­den­tal­ly or acci­den­tal­ly. Now these three fac­tors, along with the pow­er and intent of the state to root out mil­i­tan­cy and extrem­ism on pres­sure from the West, col­lid­ed with the con­ser­v­a­tive insti­tu­tions and mind­sets that had gained sub­stan­tial strength since the Zia peri­od. With the advent of War against Ter­ror and the result­ing resis­tance by the con­ser­v­a­tives, the mass­es resist­ed strong­ly to the “enlight­ened mod­ern­iza­tion” and ral­lied behind the con­ser­v­a­tive forces. The rea­son being that the rur­al Pak­istan remained large­ly con­ser­v­a­tive with low or no access to mod­ern edu­ca­tion and under pro­found influ­ence of reli­gious cler­ics who dic­tat­ed extrem­ist ide­olo­gies; this was sup­ple­ment­ed by their eco­nom­ic mar­gin­al­iza­tion. On the con­trary, the urban class­es had main­ly, part­ly due to due to their expo­sure to glob­al­iza­tion and adap­ta­tion of mod­ern tech­nol­o­gy and part due to mod­ern edu­ca­tion, estab­lished an iden­ti­ty that was nei­ther con­ser­v­a­tive nor lib­er­al in the west­ern sense of the word. This edu­cat­ed mid­dle class pro­gressed eco­nom­i­cal­ly and want­ed to get ahead fur­ther, but they were not polit­i­cal­ly empow­ered and this pro­duced apa­thy in them from the cur­rent sys­tem of pol­i­tics. It this large mass of edu­cat­ed Pak­istani pop­u­la­tion that want to progress, devel­op and become glob­al­ized, become polit­i­cal­ly empow­ered but not at the expense of their con­ser­v­a­tive atti­tudes and reli­gion and could not be labeled as a clas­sic con­ser­v­a­tive or lib­er­al. These class­es are in a state of social evo­lu­tion, where they have become mod­ern­ized by adopt­ing west­ern tech­nol­o­gy and edu­ca­tion but their mind­sets have not under­gone fun­da­men­tal changes yet. It is also this very mass that has ral­lied behind Imran Khan for his call of a new Pak­istan with reli­gious mind­set. While in coun­tries like Egypt, increased glob­al­iza­tion led to social rev­o­lu­tion, in Pak­istan it polar­ized the soci­ety. Anoth­er impor­tant aspect of this dichoto­my is the seg­re­gat­ed edu­ca­tion sys­tem of Pak­istan, which is large­ly polar­ized between Eng­lish and Urdu medi­um school­ing, pro­duc­ing in turn polar­ized soci­etal class­es. This edu­ca­tion­al polar­i­ty has been there also, but was increased with the growth of mod­ern school­ing. And last­ly, there is also lack of tol­er­ance for non-muslin sec­tions by label­ing them as minor­i­ty. The increas­ing num­ber of abduc­tions of Hin­du girls is a liv­ing evi­dence of this fact which reflects the inse­cu­ri­ty among the con­ser­v­a­tives with pock­ets of mod­ern­iza­tion in urban parts of the coun­try.

These class­es are in a state of social evo­lu­tion, where they have become mod­ern­ized by adopt­ing west­ern tech­nol­o­gy and edu­ca­tion but their mind­sets have not under­gone fun­da­men­tal changes yet.

Con­clud­ing I would like to say that even the exis­tence of these ide­olo­gies need not be destruc­tive, as long as they exist peace­ful­ly, the prob­lems arise when their exis­tence pos­es a threat to peace­ful nation­al co-exis­tence. The state of Pak­istan, apart from talk­ing the rhetoric of being the cham­pi­ons of democ­ra­cy, shall devel­op a pop­u­lar dis­course that is based upon tol­er­ance and respect for other’s ide­olo­gies and views. This could be done by forg­ing a con­sen­sus through dia­logue among the polar­ized sec­tions of the soci­ety through involv­ing civ­il soci­ety in Pak­istan and oth­er rel­e­vant social actors rep­re­sent­ing dif­fer­ent reli­gious sec­tions and ide­olo­gies. Most impor­tant­ly, it has to include the gen­er­al pub­lic, because it is only by involv­ing the ordi­nary man that a sense of own­er­ship for this new “tol­er­ance dis­course” can be gen­er­at­ed lead­ing to a soci­ety that is tol­er­ant to diver­gent point of views, there­by over­com­ing the demo­c­ra­t­ic deficit in our cur­rent socio-polit­i­cal sys­tem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *