AN argument that swirls around in some of the elite circles is that Pakistan’s is not a society ready for democracy. So, some form of authoritarian rule or dictatorship is required to propel the country on to the growth path. This assertion is contradictory to begin with. For, development is freedom to choose and is freedom from servitude.

If development is freedom, then only that form of government can move towards it that gives freedom and derives from it. During the last few years when even prices of basic goods grew manifold with tomatoes eventually making headlines at Rs140 per kg and atta’s price increased by over 80 per cent in eight years, it was the freedom to eat, ala Nobel Prize laureate Amartya Sen that stood eroded. A case for representative government is made upfront.

Now “society not ready for democracy” requires analysis. It is said that our people are not given to working and under a freer environment, they will not work at all that will adversely affect output and growth. This assertion is based on a fallacy of reasoning and assumes away all the other factors that lead to growth. It is also based on the earliest theory X in management that has been augmented several times over since it was first espoused.

Over the last one century, it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that human beings strive to realise their potential provided a conducive organisational climate is provided to them. And, this conclusion is not culture- or region-specific. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the best in the people has not been ferreted out yet at various micro levels as modern management technology is not applied. Where good management principles are used, local products and services have come up and have offered competition to foreign brands.

This is as true for pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and some durable goods as it is for banking, insurance, and delivery services. The phenomenon, however, is not too widespread due to a host of factors. Nonetheless, the presence of some competitive Pakistani brands falsifies the claim of our “lack of readiness for democracy as people do not want to work.” For, people do work where they are encouraged and engaged successfully by competent managements. Not wanting to work is not a culture-driven embedded and ingrained trait. Rather, it is a function of external factors that has kept the human spirit depressed by and large in the country under democratic and authoritarian governments alike. A case for dictatorship is, therefore, not made on this count.

What is a good government? A good government is the one that gives freedom to eat, to live, and to live well ala Sen. Since people are not just pets of a ruler, they must also have freedom to live with pride and dignity. Building on Sen’s idea of living a healthy life and therefore well, living well should also mean living a healthy life physically, mentally, and emotionally. People should then also have freedom to oppose, to disagree, and to criticise. Without these freedoms, all round human welfare cannot be assured as also illustrated below.

An accountable government governs with greater responsibility for human welfare at all times as opposed to the one that is accountable to none. So, one trait of good governance is accountability on which score a democratic government ranks higher. Without accountability, freedom to live and to live well may be compromised upon thus impairing the quality of life of the people.

And, good government is the one that reaches out to the marginalised and the poor and include them in the development process. People should not only have sustenance but also self-esteem and freedom to choose. And, this should be available to not just a small segment of urbanites and upwardly mobile but to all. A democratic government is more likely to reach out to the lowest levels as it is to them that a democratic government owes its existence, re-election, and resumption of office. Maximum good of the maximum number is therefore more possible under a popularly elected government than would otherwise be the case.

Authoritarian governments, on the other hand, owe their continuity in office not to the general public but to the special publics. They remain accountable mainly to the special publics and there is a danger of creeping into politics of patronage and corruption. Authoritarian rule, therefore, lends itself to elite capture. For the sake of legitimacy, authoritarian rulers undertake micro initiatives that may not add up to collective gain for all. They spell vision centered around poverty and deprivation but only in speech. For, it is difficult to translate noble vision into action due to the dominant special publics that claim a priority in resource allocation. Authoritarian ruler may also grow stronger to reinforce his position but that may happen at the expense of institutions. Pluralism is not known in such outfits. Good government is, therefore, less likely as that means a network of representative institutions that work in the interest of the general public and not merely in the interest of special publics.

If good government is to allow freedom from deprivation, this freedom is not likely to be given by an authoritarian rule due to the above constraints and his narrow but strong power base of special interests to which he must cater first for continuity. The probability of an authoritarian rule delivering public welfare is, therefore, low.

Probability of a representative democracy striving towards the desired goals is higher due to a mutuality of interests as a democratic government’s political interest harmonises with the public weal. In underdeveloped countries as also happened in the USA, a democratic government may not be able to take quantum leaps towards development in a short span of time. But, it can continue to forge ahead slowly but surely in the desired direction. After all, it was the tortoise that won the race. What would one choose a tortoise or a rabbit if sprinting ahead might lead to several steps backward instead of forward?