Custom-made democracy

IN a democracy all are equal, but in some democracies some are more equal than others. I say this with profound apologies to George Orwell since this is a spin-off from his most famous statement in his book Animal Farm that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” In his book Orwell was not satirising democracy but the Russian Revolution that purported to bring about equality through socialism but in reality it was promoting another class system where the party hierarchy got ahead of the curve suppressing the masses. Had Orwell been alive I wonder if he would have lamented how democracy is being used to bring about a new paradigm of inequality by absolute power.

The Russian Revolution, father of Soviet type of socialism, gave actual power to the party and its members who enjoyed the fruits of labour of the masses who were guiled by the propaganda of socialist equality that never happened. Lamentably, along with the socialist societies, we also saw rise of democracies in our part of the world where in the name of people power actual authority came to be wielded by a chosen few. Equality of law and equality of rights came to be differentiated by class, access to authority, and the political party one belonged to.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the noted French political thinker in the 19th century, had warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of totalitarianism, because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding middle class and to the selfishness of individuals. Tocqueville worried that if despotism were to take root in a modern democracy, it would be a much more dangerous version than the oppression under the Roman emperors or tyrants of the past who could only exert a pernicious influence on a small group of people at a time. Tocqueville compared a potentially despotic democratic government to a protective parent who wants to keep its citizens (children) as “perpetual children,” and which doesn't break men's wills but rather guides it, and presides over people in the same way as a shepherd looking after a “flock of timid animals.”

Tocqueville's fears materialised some hundred years later in parts of the world either with overthrow of elected government by would-be despots and their tinkering with their version of democracies, or with political leaders who used their majority to stifle opposition and rule unopposed. In many countries democracy became a weapon of mass deception when leaders chose to share it with other powerful elements, principally the armed forces, and through political control of all state institutions. Prime examples of such democracy were Pakistan under General Ayub Khan, Indonesia under General Suharto, and Egypt under Hosni Mobarak.  In Pakistan, we had seen how the generals dictated democracy and customised the institutions to suit their needs. In Indonesia, the leader established a comfortable power sharing formula with the armed forces in which they would have a sizeable representation in the Parliament (100 members out 460 were nominated). The sham democracy that Hosni Mobarak installed in Egypt allowed only his own created party (National Democratic Party) to rule for nearly thirty years until his fall in 2011. In Pakistan General Ayub Khan determined that “parliamentary democracy and that the country required a period of tutelage and honest government before a new constitutional system could be established.” He therefore initiated a plan for “basic democracies,” consisting of rural and urban councils directly elected by the people that would be concerned with local governance and would assist in programmes of grassroots development. He would then go on to use these “basic democrats” to be his Spartan guards to tweak democracy and the state institutions.

Arguments were made by the acolytes of these powerful men that the economic progress these countries made in those periods was possible because the system they installed allowed continuity of the same government (read same ruler), unlike other democracies where government changed frequently with each election. In other words, economic progress and development that these countries achieved, however debatable, had been only possible because these political stalwarts could tweak their system to rule unopposed. The end game was, however, quite different.  Indonesia's Suharto fell when his so-called grand stories of economic success fell under the weight of rampant corruption, and suppression of personal freedoms.  Ayub Khan of Pakistan was ousted by his own colleagues to stem the tide of opposition to his venal government and his political cohorts. Hosni Mobarak fell because of arrogant suppression of basic liberties of free speech and movement and snuffing the opposition.  

A long tenure in office of a head of government with little disturbance or uncertainty in their rule is an important ingredient for economic progress in a developing country. However, a natural tendency for all power is to be concentrated in the chief executive and that power eventually becomes absolute. With no checks and balances the absolute power leads to absolute destruction. This happened in the case of Suharto, Ayub Khan, and Hosni Mobarak. We had seen this in our country also in 1990.

Basic principles of democracy are equality under the law, personal freedoms, rule of law, and participatory government.  The governments of the men cited before fell because they ignored these basic principles despite their attempts to make their rules look democratic and their avowed claims for economic progress. They tried to customise democracies in their own models to prolong their rule and the party they created. These did not prevail when their true nature to prolong their rule revealed itself through manipulation of the institutions that were supposed to uphold democracy.  

The best and the worst lesson of History is that no one listens to history. Manipulating democracy or democratic institutions to prolong the hold on government may serve for some time, not for all of the time. We do not have to look far beyond in time to see the consequences of such attempts. Economic progress and economic development are definitely the ultimate goals of all government, but these should not be at the cost of losing democracy or democratic rights of people. We need progress but we also need our freedom to express, right to choose government, and right of protection under the law.

The writer is a political analyst and commentator.