8
ANYONE witnessing the events in Islamabad in recent weeks could be excused for believing either that democracy means the rallying together of large crowds and staging extended sit-ins or that by merely sporting an elected parliament a country may consider itself absolved of any further obligations towards building a democracy. Worse still, this person may altogether abandon his efforts to understand what democracy means and declare that Pakistan is neither ready for nor able to handle a democratic system of governance.
It is this perception that is most damaging. It suggests that the person in question — the quintessential Pakistani — if he thinks about democracy at all, views it as an issue belonging to the political arena and not related to the priorities of his existence. The fact, however, is that democracy, or indeed its absence, has a direct and significant impact even on the most private sphere of an individual’s life and it is for this reason alone, that it is important not only to understand it but also to be actively engaged in its continuity.
An aspect of democracy that perhaps most directly impacts individual life is the manner in which it undertakes law reform. Countries adopt laws either by developing them internally or by borrowing them from other, more advanced countries. Developing countries tend to fall into the category of borrowers because they often lag behind in identifying areas that require law reform and lack the capacity to undertake the exercise. Borrowing itself, however, may also take one of several forms: it may either engage the public or keep it relatively in the dark.
It is democracy that makes the difference. A truly democratic country has several mechanisms in place for eliciting public opinion. Prior to polls, candidates garner support by engaging the electorate on issues of importance; once elected, they represent the views of their constituents in parliament. Parliament itself, when a proposal for law reform is tabled before it, does not merely rely on the ability of individual members to relay the opinion of the public, but actively solicits it.
A true democracy has several mechanisms for eliciting public opinion.
Additionally, parliamentarians in a well-functioning democracy know they need the goodwill of their constituents for re-election. This factor helps ensure that the proposed law strikes a balance between governmental policy and the electorate’s needs. The entire exercise creates a win-win situation: the public has a law it understands and has helped formulate, the elected representatives have public support and the government has a greater chance of achieving meaningful enforcement.
However, this ideal is not attainable in a society such as ours that simply slaps a veneer of democracy on a people that otherwise remain entrenched in a culture of feudalism which continues to direct their actions. This stranglehold of feudal attitudes forces even the most democratic seeming institutions to often conduct their affairs in accordance with personal allegiances and to treat the public as fodder for a largely self-serving agenda rather than as the holder of independent opinion and a force unto itself.
It is the absence of feudalism that despite the commonalities that the two countries share, sets India apart from Pakistan. In the 67 years since independence, India has been able to establish, maintain and strengthen its democratic institutions and traditions. Hence, its process of law reform actively engages the public: first as members of indigenous committees that propose the reform, then as members of parliament who review it and finally as stakeholders who provide their input at each stage.
For the greater part of these same 67 years, Pakistan, even when it has sported an elected parliament, has preferred to outsource law reform to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank. These agencies, even though they have engaged Pakistani experts, have not been able to meaningfully engage a broader section of the public. Perhaps, they had no real choice because years of absolute control of an overarching executive that did not hold itself in any way accountable to the public had in any event muffled public opinion and thereby destroyed any chances of constructive dialogue.
Whatever the reasons, it is the average Pakistani who has been the ultimate loser. Not only does he continue to live under laws he does not subscribe to, he also pays the price when these laws are flouted because they have failed to penetrate the society’s consciousness.
The present political impasse, despite all criticisms directed towards it, has the potential to break this cycle of repression and victimisation. Because by awakening people to their power it may bridge the gap between the form of democracy and its substance which continues to elude us.
The writer is a barrister.
Published in Dawn, September 7th, 2014
