“It has been said that democracy is the
worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried” –
Winston Churchill.
The word democracy implies ‘rule by the
people’ which simulates the idea of equal opportunities for all; making it
extremely popular. However, this very definition of the word is what makes it
exploitable.
Pakistan has been a democracy for most part
since its conception nearly 70 years ago. But certain features of this form of
government gives way to the question whether democracy safeguards the rights of
the general public or actual power resides with small groups of individuals.
According to Elitist view democratic power
lies in the hands of a privileged minority. In Pakistan’s case the Sharifs and
Bhuttos have been the main players of the electoral scene. The respective
parties continue to be leaded by members of the same blood line. One can think
about how much of the general public is actually being represented. Similarly, the
Corporatist idea is that economic interests are integrated with the government.
One can argue that the Sharifs being in charge of personal corporations have propagated
their own interests over time to achieve monetary gains through policy reform. Furthermore,
the New Right view of electoral pressure is also applicable to Pakistan. Winning
an election becomes so important to political parties that they use various
means of persuading the public. In some case the phenomena of ‘manufacturing
consent’ is also used. For instance, in 2008 elections the Pakistan Peoples’
Party (PPP) used the martyrdom of Benazir Bhutto (through heavy advertising) as
a means of gaining public support.
Democracy appears perfect in theory however;
the reality is much more complicated. It is true that no other form of
government is acceptable either. So what is it that we really want?
3 comments:
I agree with your point of view; Pakistan does not seem to be following the principles of democracy. This point is evident as people are now striking out and protesting. Also, the question you have posted at the end is truly perplexing - there seems to be no answer to it. Perhaps we can agree that democracy is the most acceptable out of all other alternatives.
You have mentioned how Pakistan has been a democracy for most part since it's conception, whereas the country has actually experienced military dictatorship for about half it's lifetime. Whenever power has changed hands, it has done so by a highly controversial voting process with widespread rigging. You have also questioned whether a democracy truly safeguards the rights of the general public, this answer lies in the very definition of the word. Since Pakistan has yet to experience democracy in it's purest form, I don't think we can judge the merits of this form of government based on Pakistan's example.
Mahnoor - agreed. Democracy in Pakistan has, perhaps, not completely been operational in it's truest form. In this sense, it might be more significant to redefine the term used for Pakistani political institutions today - one could venture to label it a 'partial democracy'. However, you might also want to gauge in on the wider implications of democracy in Pakistan - for example, has it served the people well, or has it simply exploited their preferences?
Post a Comment