The role of the ‘public intellectual’ is in disrepair. In the Arab Spring the revolutions and uprisings were brought about by a new generation of social activists. The surprising thing about the Arab Spring was how the main intellectual class of the Arab World was so severely disconnected from the Arab revolutions – they had made their peace with the “status quo”. As a result Arab intellectual discourse became politically desensitised and was completely removed from the practical aspirations of their publics.

Two pieces by Michael Teague and Mona Naggar show how Arab intellectuals are isolated and played no active role in the revolutionary uprisings. This ‘Silence of Thinkers’ as Naggar puts it is also applicable to Pakistan. When Cyril Almeida wrote an article in DAWN criticising the democratic credentials and political practice of Asif Ali Zardari and the PPP he was censured by the likes of Ali Dayan, Kamran Shafi and other Pakistani columnists and intellectuals on Twitter. A well known Pakistani political blog (acting like the propaganda arm of the PPP) even went as far as saying that Almeida was ‘inviting the Army’.

The crippling paralysis of political violence in Karachi, sectarian bloodshed, Dengue outbreak and constant threat of religious violence are the perpetually tragic symptoms of a failed system of governance. Like it or not, democracy as practiced in Pakistan isn’t working. For example, the woeful record of attendance by politicians at Parliament speaks volumes alone – yet this dysfunctional culture of politics isn’t scrutinised. In everyday language ‘power’ and ‘authority’ are used interchangeably, but to figure out the basis for Pakistan’s dysfunctional democracy we need to recognise the difference between the two concepts.

‘Power’ is all about bringing about consequences, securing compliance, ensuring that people do what you want them to do. This can be through coercion or other undesirable means such as financial corruption.

‘Authority’ on the other hand signifies a relationship, for example the relationship between the citizens and the State. The ‘authority’ of Pakistan’s democratic State has always been fragile if not totally non-existent because the ‘culture of power’ prevalent in Pakistani politics subverts the democratic process. The absence of internal elections within political parties like the PPP, the tyrannical and autocratic style of leadership within political parties and the exceedingly coercive influence of political dynasties are all part of Pakistan’s ‘culture of power’. This is how ‘power’ works in Pakistan – it’s about patronage, the murky dealings behind closed doors and financial corruption in securing compliance.

The PPP’s clampdown on internet freedoms by threatening to ban Google (which is a measure of technological illiteracy that Hosni Mubarak would have been proud of) is another example of its own internal autocratic ‘culture of power’. So when Almeida criticised the PPP and Zardari, he wasn’t criticising the ideal of democratic authority – he was criticising the way power works within the PPP. The way Zardari secures ‘compliance’ threatens the very nature of Pakistani democracy by corrupting some of the main tenets of a modern democracy such as the ‘rule of law’, transparency and accountability. This isn’t populist rhetoric – this is a simple fact. There is a complete mismatch between power and authority in modern day Pakistan. If  power is practiced in a medieval fashion then how can it give rise to a modern parliamentary form of democratic authority?

And this psychological mismatch, so to speak is evident every time a politician claims that he or she can save democracy. Democracy isn’t ‘saved’ by one politician – it is rather sustained by a healthy system of open and free party politics, rule of law, an electoral process that actually works and many other factors. Democracy isn’t a plaything which is what civilian politicians like Zardari and the Army continually assume – it’s a way of public life, a philosophical commitment.

Elections are only a ritual – the real substance of a democracy is how parties conduct themselves, and how politics is practiced. Currently violence and corruption is the staple diet of Pakistani politics – pointing this out does not mean I believe the Army will do a better or worse job. Because quite frankly, excuses cannot be continually made for Pakistan’s shambolic democracy – the Army cannot be the reason why we must silence dissent against the tyrannical practices of civilian politics.

The fear is that Pakistan’s writers and intellectuals are misreading the Pakistani public as badly as the Arab intellectuals misread their publics. Arab intellectuals who made their peace with the autocrats never saw the Arab Spring coming and once they saw it in full flow they jumped on the bandwagon. Pakistan’s intellectuals and columnists who profess to liberals should not be looking for ‘winners’ in the short term but looking at the bigger picture.

In the bigger picture, the PPP as a national political party along with the other political parties of the country are ideologically exhausted feudal estates that only perpetuate dynastic politics in a post-colonial setting. And this culture of power is something that liberals simply do not address, the murky business of electoral politics is something that liberals ignore hoping that it will go away but this labyrinth of deceit is what undermines Pakistani confidence in the democratic process. And for good reason.