Aristotle said that the “proper application of the term
democracy is to a constitution in which the free born or the poor control the
government-being at the same time a majority; and similarly the term oligarchy
is properly applied to a constitution in which the rich and the better born
control the government-being at the same time a minority.”
This understanding of democracy is aptly put in the words of
Aristotle and accurately highlights the paradox of the term democracy. While the
stereotypical understanding of the word democracy is ‘a constitution in which
there is free control the government,’ it is interesting to note that the
people who essentially come to power are not the majority, but make up the minority-
the rich elite, and in some cases feudal lords. It is this circle of
influential politicians who have legitimate power and are representatives of
the entire nation. Taking the example of Pakistan, we can see that since birth,
all democratic tenures are led by highly influential and rich leaders, whether
it was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto or whether it’s Nawaz Sharif presently. This
encapsulates the statement put forward by Aristotle. It is this which is then
misconstrued as democracy. According to the "selectorate theory," the politician
who wants to come to power will essentially look at the winning coalition and
how to ensure that the loyalty norm is followed by providing the supporters
with public and private goods. So, when a particular leader wants to come to
power we see that his interests are very inclusive ensuring that the entire
population is pacified. However, as his nexus of power increases, the interests
become very exclusive. So, it is interesting that when one comes to power under
the banner of democracy but overtime this transforms into exclusionary
interests and identity politics come to fore, where those in power- the so
called ‘democratic incumbents’- decide the policies which dictate the life of
the majority of the society.
3 comments:
Almost all the rulers that came in to power provided us with an illusion of democracy rather than creating a true democratic system which would full fill the interests of the masses.
Punjabi's have been in power mostly whether directly or indirectly and Punjab's interests were considered as a synonym the interests of Pakistan
Pakistan's history is filled with stories of leaders coming to power by means of false promises and claims of the establishment of a democratic government for example General Zia-ul-Haq. As soon as General Zia came to power he imposed martial law under the banner of the need for economic revival in a shattered Pakistan. Even though he promised to keep elections after ninety days he kept on postponing them and when finally martial law was lifted, under the new constitution, General Zia had the complete power as the leader of Pakistan.
Two points.
Yes the history of Pakistan is fraught with dynastic politics and military rule. This means that certain groups are supported, while others are ignored. This will continue to be the case if there is a lack of inclusion of different voices in the political realm.
Next, we talk a lot about democracy, but what is it? Be precise in your meanings, as this will help us better understand what we're talking about when we use terms like "democracy."
Post a Comment