According to Max Weber, a state is an entity that possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In my opinion, state in one way is a name given to a politically organized society whose job is to regulate and organize political institutions to prevent them from degenerating into anarchy.
Pakistan was declared a democratic regime by Jinnah at the time of its creation and later it adopted a parliamentary state structure. Under a democratic form of government, which is based on the principle of "rule by law," people have the power to enact laws and decide how they will be enforced. In enacting laws, a democratic government strikes the balance between majority and minority interests, guarantees protection of fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal protection under law and also a check and balance is maintained by government officials who are elected by citizens of the state as it is their voting right.
However in Pakistan, fair implementation and practice of this system is limited to a certain extent. That is what raises the question of whether to call it a democratic state or not? Why is it that every single political party is affirming the existing democratic structure in Pakistan? The problem lies in the fact that the basic principles of democracy, which include government officials to be elected through public votes, are not being followed. The country is ruled by an opulent class which has been there since generations and a system similar to monarchy has persisted.
The opulent class involved in politics wants to wrap the feudalism and class discrimination in a cover of procedural democracy. We are neglecting the substantive democracy. Procedural democracy is of no use until or unless it provides the citizens with basic human rights and establishment of a classless society and in my opinion, procedural democracy in the absence of substantive one is no worse than military dictatorship. Therefore, until and unless this class system is not eliminated from Pakistan, it is unfair to call it a democratic state.
2 comments:
Woah! You make a lot of bold comments and statements that should be considered more carefully.
First off, by dismissing procedural democracy, I think you're being too hard on how democracy works. Democracy is messy and it takes time to develop. At the founding of the American Republic, you only had procedural democracy. This remained the case for at least 100-years, before you had more substantive democracy take root. The reason why I bring this case up is to illustrate that procedural democracy can give rise to substantive democracy. But the process takes time and one must remain patient while also working for change.
The other issue I found to be surprising is the emphasis on a classless society. This is, of course, a dream of Marxists. Yet every time it has been attempted anywhere in the world (think the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, etc.) it has failed spectacularly. Different classes will always exist in society and trying to eliminate class differences is like trying to get a camel to go through the eye of a needle. However, just because different classes exist - and will continue to exist - does not mean that the elite class should dominate the state and maneuver the government to do its bidding. Instead, the elite classes - and any individuals in the government - should work for the good of the people.
I agree to some extent with Zoha's claim. Pakistan's stance as a democratic country has always been debatable. From the very beginning, it has been failing to fulfill many of the promises that a democracy offers.
In addition to Zoha's justifications for calling democracy in Pakistan unfair, the constant interference of the military and army in the history of Pakistan's politics has played a major role in creating hurdles for the establishment of smooth democracy in a country which was vulnerable from its very inception.
Post a Comment