Democracy: Global Challenges in 21st Century

Outline

• Democracy and Pakistan – Present, Past and Future

• Importance of democracy

• Threats to democracy

1. Weak political institutions

2. Influence of Military
3. Economic difficulties
4. Social Norms
5. Illiteracy – lack of political of awareness
6. Unemployment and poverty
7. Image of political leadership
8. Power politics
9. Foreign interference
10. Unbridled media
11. Feudalism and racism
12. Grievances of small provinces
13. Relation with India
14. Terrorism and extremism

• Suggestions to meet the challenges

1. Strengthing of political parties and political culture

2. Sovereignty of parliament and other statuary
3. Independence of judiciary
4. Eradication of illiteracy
5. Political awareness
6. Democratic norms
7. Economic uplift
8. Emergence of new leadership
9. Participation of youth in political process
10. Mature and tolerant politics
11. Independence of media
12. Accountability

• Our strengths
1. Presence of pro-democracy leadership
2. Active Civil Society
3. Independent Media
4. Determined and dedicated nation
5. Pakistani Youth

• Conclusion

Introduction:

Human civilisation after experiences of several millennia and

accumulated knowledge has come to understand that the best
rulers and form of governance are the one which are determined
by majority of the people or community members. Such kind of
rule and government is described by ancient, medieval, modern
and contemporary thinkers and scholars as ‘democracy’.
Therefore, in around 167 states — studied and analysed by the
Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index — more than half
have strong democratic characteristics if they are not full
democracies while dozens are on the path of democratisation
under hybrid regimes

Inequality of resources

Although decentralized market economies encouraged the spread of democracy, in

countries where they were not sufficiently regulated such economies eventually
produced large inequalities in economic and social resources, from wealth and income
to education and social status. Because those with greater resources naturally tended to
use them to influence the political system to their advantage, the existence of such
inequalities constituted a persistent obstacle to the achievement of a satisfactory level of
political equality. This challenge was magnified during regularly occurring economic
downturns, when poverty and unemployment tended to increase. Slowed economic
growth over the past forty years in advanced democracies have generated new
antidemocratic populist backlash at the level of mass opinion and political party
development
Immigration

After World War II, immigration to the countries of western Europe, Australia, and
the United States, both legal and illegal, increased dramatically. Seeking to escape
poverty, violence, or oppression in their homelands and usually lacking education,
immigrants primarily from the developing world typically took menial jobs in service
industries or agriculture. Differences in language, culture, and appearance between
immigrant groups and the citizens of the host country, as well as the usually widespread
perception that immigrants take jobs from citizens and use expensive social services,
made immigration a hotly debated issue in many countries. In some instances, anti-
immigrant sentiment contributed to the emergence or growth of radical political parties
and movements, such as the National Front in France, The Republicans in Germany,
the militia movement and various white supremacist groups in the United States, and
the skinhead movement in the United States and Britain. Some of these organizations
promoted racist or neofascist doctrines that were hostile not only to immigrants but also
to fundamental political and human rights and even to democracy itself. In the early
21st century, anti-immigrant sentiment fueled a revival of chauvinistic parties and
movements in western Europe and contributed to the electoral victory of U.S.
presidential candidate Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Terrorism

Acts of terrorism committed within democratic countries or against their interests in

other parts of the world occurred with increasing frequency beginning in the 1970s. In
the United States remarkably few terrorist attacks had taken place before the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. The deadliest single act of
terrorism anywhere, the September 11 attacks of 2001, destroyed the World Trade
Center and killed some 3,000 people, mainly in New York City and Washington, D.C.

In response to such events and especially in the wake of the September 11 attacks,
democratic governments adopted various measures designed to enhance the ability of
police and other law-enforcement agencies to protect their countries against terrorism.
Some of these initiatives entailed new restrictions on citizens’ civil and political liberties
and were accordingly criticized as unconstitutional or otherwise inconsistent with
democratic principles. In the early 21st century it remained to be seen whether
democratic governments could strike a satisfactory balance between the sometimes
conflicting imperatives of ensuring security and preserving democracy.

International systems

At the end of the 18th century, in response to the dilemma of size described earlier, the
focus of both the theory and the practice of democracy shifted from the small
association of the city-state to the far larger nation-state. Although their increased size
enabled democracies to solve more of the problems they confronted, there remained
some problems that not even the largest democracy could solve by itself. To address
these problems several international organizations were established after World War II,
most notably the United Nations (1945), and their numbers and responsibilities grew
rapidly through the rest of the 20th century.

These organizations posed two related challenges to democracy. First, by shifting

ultimate control of a country’s policies in a certain area to the international level, they
reduced to a corresponding extent the influence that citizens could exert on such
policies through democratic means. Second, all international organizations, even those
that were formally accountable to national governments, lacked the political institutions
of representative democracy. How could these institutions be made democratic—or at
least more democratic?

In their effort at the beginning of the 21st century to forge a constitution for the
new European Union (EU)—eventually abandoned in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (2007)
—and in their ongoing struggle with opponents of the EU (“Euroskeptics”) in various
countries, European leaders faced both of these challenges, as well as most of the
fundamental questions posed above. What kind of association is appropriate to a
democratic government of Europe? What persons or entities should constitute the
European demos? What political organizations or institutions are needed? Should
decisions be made by majority? If so, by what kind of majority—a majority of persons, of
countries, of both countries and persons, or of something else? Do all the conditions
necessary for satisfactory democratic government exist in this huge
and diverse association? If not, would a less democratic system be more desirable?

Transition, consolidation, breakdown

For many of the countries that made a transition to democracy in the late 20th and early
21st centuries, the problems and challenges facing democracy were particularly acute.
Obstacles in the path of a successful consolidation of democratic institutions included
economic problems such as widespread poverty, unemployment, massive inequalities in
income and wealth, rapid inflation, and low or negative rates of economic growth.
Countries at low levels of economic development also usually lacked a large
middle class and a well-educated population. In many of these countries, the division of
the population into antagonistic ethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic groups made it
difficult to manage political differences peacefully. In others, extensive government
intervention in the economy, along with other factors, resulted in the widespread
corruption of government officials. Many countries also lacked an effective legal system,
making civil rights highly insecure and allowing for abuse by political elites and criminal
elements. In these countries the idea of the rule of law was not well established in the
prevailing political culture, in some cases because of constant warfare or long years
of authoritarian rule. In other respects the political culture of these countries did not
inculcate in citizens the kinds of beliefs and values that could support democratic
institutions and practices during crises or even during the ordinary conflicts of political
life.

By 2000 Freedom House, an American think-tank, classified 120 countries, or 63% of the world
total, as democracies.

Wither Democracy?

Introduction: The Acropolis is a site where ancient democracy was born, but it was also a site of
military conquest, the demonstration of despotic power and where ancient democracy ended. In this
sense, the Acropolis reminds us that democracy is in absolutely no way to be regarded as the ‘natural’ or
‘inevitable’ peak of an advanced political society. It is something that has to be continually fought for,
practiced and defended. Perusing any library’s section on democracy appears to show us democracy in
crisis: from Why We Hate Politics (2007) to The End of Representative Politics (2015) (and many more in
between), all point towards worrying pictures of democratic decline.

The most obvious trend to highlight is turnout in general elections, which have been in decline across
democracies. Peter Mair’s analysis in Ruling the Void (2013, pp.17-44) comprehensively assesses the
decline in Europe since the 1990s: European citizens are voting less often; they have become more
volatile in casting their vote; fewer are identifying with a political party; and, they are less willing to take
on party membership and its associated duties and obligations.

1)Overcoming polarization
While some partisan polarization is healthy for democracy, one of the key drivers of democratic decay in
new and established democracies is intense polarization, where political opponents begin to regard each
other as existential enemies, allowing incumbents to justify abuses of democratic norms to restrain the
opposition, and encouraging the opposition to use “any means necessary” to (re)gain power. If citizens
remain loyal to a political party even if it violates key democratic norms, political polarization represents
a genuine threat to functioning of democratic accountability.

) Immigration and the challenge of sustaining multiethnic democracies

The challenge of sustaining multiethnic democracies is one of the most significant challenges facing
democracies of all types today. The politics of redistribution has also been notoriously complicated by
ethnic diversity, but the growing ethnic diversity of both new and old democracies, driven in part by
immigration, have generated different forms of right-wing populist backlash and has exacerbated
political polarization. This poses dilemmas for parties of the right and left. For parties of the right, there
are temptations to exploit issues of cultural diversity to gain power, which also may lead to restrictions
and unequal representation of ethnic minorities, diminishing the quality of democracy. For parties of the
left, this same politics has stimulated much discussion in recent years of whether the welfare state is
compatible with ethnic diversity. In fact, many on the left have argued that the left needs to reopen
debates about immigration in order to diminish the appeals of the populist rights.

The causes of populism and its consequences for democracy

In the past several years, there has been upsurge of populist parties and movements from Latin
America and North America to western and eastern Europe. Many populist outsiders come to power
speaking on behalf of “the people” but often doing so in ways that seem to challenge basic norms of
liberal democracy.

Political Polarization in Pakistan

But what is on display are bitter polemics, aggressive rhetoric and unceasing efforts
by political leaders to demonise their opponents. Spokespersons of major parties
have tried to outmatch the other in the use of invective and offensive words against
political rivals. A consequence of this unfortunate tendency is the lack of attention
given to issues that are of concern to the public at large, and that affect the country’s
future.

Issue-less politics
All this has generated or contributed to a form of issue-less politics, where
instead of the country’s challenges and policies being debated, politics and
political narratives are reduced to deriding opponents. The political discourse
mostly involves an exchange of incendiary rhetoric. Shallow and provocative
narratives dominate the political conversation and are heard ad nauseam in
television talk shows in a wearingly repetitive manner. All too frequently
parliament becomes a vehicle for such attacks rather than an arena for debate on
important national issues – a forum to express an opinion on policy and shape
opinion. This ends up devaluing the Pakistan parliament’s role. The public impact
of this is predictable. People – beyond loyal party supporters – see present-day
politics as just a power struggle more and more divorced from the public’s
interests and concerns. The perception that the political elite is only engaged in
power games erodes respect for public representatives as well as faith in their
ability to address people’s problems. Squabbling among political leaders is of
course not unique to Pakistan. But if squabbles are all that define the discourse,
with all else appearing secondary, that becomes the cause for public cynicism.
Public representatives have a responsibility to raise the level of discourse and to
articulate people’s concerns and how they propose to deal with them. With
multiple challenges confronting the country – inflation, income erosion and jobs
being at the top of the public’s priorities – it is these, among others, that should
be the subject of political debate.

Eroding democracy
Trust is a crucial element in building or maintaining public support. But uncivil
exchanges between political leaders in the virtual absence of any rational debate
on policy issues undermine trust in political leaders in general. It is not just the
political discourse that is degraded by excessively negative politicking and
messaging. It has wider implications for the legitimacy of the political system in
public eyes. If those working the system are seen to lack focus on national issues
and are constantly attacking each other it also erodes faith in the country’s
democracy. It is not just the political discourse that is debased. Democracy too is
debased.

The current state of political polarization in Pakistan has been deeply affecting the fabric
that holds society together. The future success or failure of this country will depend
largely upon whether its people can find some common ground within their differences,
but it seems increasingly difficult when we’re surrounded every day by evidence that
shows the lack of compromise and civility. Political polarization is characterized by a
widening gap between people with different political views and a growing feeling of
animosity and mistrust between them. This can lead to social and political division and
even violence. Political polarization is a major problem in many countries around the
world, and it is one of the biggest challenges facing democracy today.
Generation after generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social
background, Pakistan’s political elites have promoted political values that run
counter to nation and state-building. (Rasool Bakhsh Raees)

Pakistan has been a polarized polity and consequently, a divided society for the past half
century, and even longer if we look back deeply into its history. It started with the serious
differences among the political elites of the country over the character of the state, quality
of federalism, relationship between religion and governance and ideological choices. One
may argue that it could be a normal process in a diverse nation’s struggle to take a
definite direction and achieve stability in the formative phase. But one wonders why it
would take nine years in writing the first constitution and then its annulment within three
years without any general elections or transfer of power happening under it.
Without getting into the details, it was the inability of the ruling elites, their diverse
regional backgrounds, personal vested interests in power grabs, and for that purpose,
engineering of political manipulation to wreck governments and forms new ones.
Factions of the same elite under different party platforms kept displacing one another
from power endlessly until the military took over in 1959. The political elites and their
never-ending factionalism, which continues to this day, after a long history of 74 years. If
they had played by the rules, demonstrated political solidarity on principles and forged a
political consensus, the democratic norms and convention would have gelled over time.
The normal and expected role of the political elites in any form of political system is
working toward stability, order, national unity, solidarity and continuity along with
ensuring progress, social and economic development.
The Pakistani elites have done quite the opposite: polarizing and dividing people along
ethnic, religious, ideological and narrow political lines.
Ultimately, it is the rapacious character of the Pakistan ruling classes, their low
commitment to rule of law and accountability and access to power as means of material
benefits that have stunted the growth of democracy.
The present polarization between the PTI and the rest of the 11 so-called political parties
and factions is not new. It is a continuation of the same historical pattern, only the main
characters have changed. Each successive confrontation has been more severe than
before. The ongoing clash looks like political warfare with no-holds-barred, barely
covered with a fig leaf of constitutionality.

Democratic Consolidation:

“The more well to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.” Nothing is
more important for a state than preserving loyalty of its subjects and if this is the case then how
can people entrust their loyalties for democracy, if a democratic government fails to fulfill their
desires. Nothing is more important for a state than preserving the loyalty of its subjects and
therefore it’s somehow bound to fulfill the desires of its people in order to ensure the persistence
of their loyalty with the state. Delivering on the desires of the people brings political legitimacy
and acceptability as a system of governance. In the next step with a democratic regime feeling
itself in safe zone where chances of breaking down are reduced significantly, state would ensure
that people enjoy liberal values as well. In a totally reverse scenario where state is unable to
fulfill material desires of its people, in such an eventuality state (regime in power) is left with no
choice but to take measures which would ensure that it stays in power and it would take away
liberal values from its people. These values include freedom of expression, access to alternate
platforms of information, freedom to assembly.

Modernization Theory and Democratization

Modernization results in increased capacity of the state to deliver on the desires of the people.
Lack of capacity would see that people are left with their desires being not fulfilled and this
would leave people with no option but to dislike and question the utility of democracy. Un-
desirability for democracy on the part of the people obstructs the consolidation of democracy in a
state, resultantly reducing its prospective age and health. State Capacity is gauged through per
capita income while people’s desires are mirrored through levels of urbanization and
industrialization, access to alternate platforms of information, education, size of middle class.

Per capita Income: Why income levels are essential in ensuring democracy? The answer to this
question can be found in the explanation put forward by different scholars and Lipset was among
the first one to do so. Lipset emphasized that as the wealth increases; it reduces the overall
inequality and results in an increased size of middle-class. According to Diamond, those states
which enjoyed high levels of incomes were more liberal than those states which fell in the
category of low-income group. Although Diamond summed this study by concluding a positive
relation between economic development and democracy. However, this study understands that it
terms of democratic consolidation it is utmost important that a healthy interaction between state
and its people would bring more characteristics of liberal democracy.

Population Rate: The constant increase in the population growth rate puts a state in steady-state
equilibrium with no growth in living standards and a higher growth rate pulls a state in the
opposite direction. High growth rates hurt states irrespective of their credentials, but it leaves a
damning effect on the capacity of developing states and under-developed states. Any progress on
the economic front does not bring laurels for the masses.

People’s Desire

The primacy of people through which they gauge performance of their rulers, is the ability of
government on key needs and expectations in the sectors such as health, education, job creation,
stimulation of growth and economic management. People desire for a far fairer distribution of
goods and services and any unfair distribution in the eyes of the public is due to corruption. It
leaves a big impact in shaping people’s satisfaction with their rulers and their performance.

The primacy of people through which they gauge performance of their rulers, is the ability of
government on key needs and expectations in the sectors such as health, education, job creation,
stimulation of growth and economic management. People desire for a far fairer distribution of
goods and services and any unfair distribution in the eyes of the public is due to corruption. It
leaves a big impact in shaping people’s satisfaction with their rulers and their performance.
Industrialization: It was influential work of Barrington Moore which provided for a positive
relationship between industrialization and democracy (Moore, 1993). It was industrialization
which shook tradition power centers by providing people with more disposable income. Labor’s
hard worked is acknowledged and rewarded more in an industrialized society. With achievement
of high level of productivity, income of workers increases, and this results in raised levels of
living of ordinary people. A state cannot accept itself to achieve high levels of growth by mere
production and export of raw material alone. Industrialization changes the pattern of foreign
trade. While it brings more foreign exchange back home by increasing export of manufactured
goods and on the other end it saves foreign exchange by curtailing import bill through provision
supply of locally manufactured goods. Export oriented and import substitution effects of
industrialization assist in improving balance of payments. On the societal level industrialization
encourages specialized labor and increases the marginal value of labor.

Alternate Platforms of Information Regimes and Governments felt uneasy on the information
reaching the masses. In order to ease such threats governments would curtail or filter the
information. Such actions only constraints the consciousness of the subjects of the state.
Ultimately ability to question and demand from the state is reduced. Liberal theorists propagated
that in order to become more accountability of governments. It keeps a check on the government,
on any conclusion of upper class and the government. Alternate platforms of information act as
watchdogs against any concentration of power in one quarter. Modernization entailing from
presence of alternate sources of information and level of urbanization increases the level of
consciousness of people. People become more active and involved when they gain access to
media. Diamond goes beyond this understanding by declaring alternative sources of information
as a prerequisite for existence of liberal democracy(Diamond, 1999). People are active and
participatory citizens when they have access to media. The critical role played by the media in a
democracy has been widely acknowledged and documented in the literature. Diamond, for
example, noted that one of the prerequisites of a liberal democracy is the existence of alternative
sources of information, such as independent media, to which citizens are permitted politically
unrestricted access. This is underscored by others, who concur when stating that democracy
thrives on a free flow of information.

Size of Middle Class The size of middle class is of utmost importance as this class considers a
radical distribution of resources at the top of their agenda. However, this re- distribution of
resources depends on their size and size of the lower class along with capacity of the state. If the
size of the middle class is small and that of the lower class is high but the capacity of the state is
not high, then middle class would not radical distribution of resources. The reason for such
behavior is that if any radical redistribution takes place then the state would be left with
resources to tend to the interests of the middle class. Civic space is a crucial part of any
democratic society. It is the political, legal, and social environment that allows people to come
together to share experiences and ideas, put forward their views publicly, and to influence
politics and society. It hinges on three fundamental freedoms: people’s ability to form
associations, protest peacefully, and express views and opinions. To protect civic space,
governments need to enshrine those rights in law and to make sure that citizens and
organizations can exercise them—without fear of persecution, violence, or harassment. Elections
allow people to express their political preferences and hold leaders accountable. But they are an
inherently limited mechanism. Civic space lets citizens influence policymaking beyond elections,
for example by forming advocacy groups or organizing protests. When civic space is restricted, it
becomes harder for citizens to keep tabs on those in power, call out abuses, and draw attention to
governance failures (Carothers & Brechenmacher, 2019). Restrictions also make it harder for
civil society organizations to provide important services, particularly to marginalized groups.
The size and growth of the middle class is of interest to gauge market potential for many
products and – since the middle class typically makes many demands on public services – as a
barometer of political awareness. A sizable middle class is often seen as a source of stability and
cohesion, as assurance of adequate market potential, and as a sign that the most divisive features
of high inequality of outcomes and of opportunity are avoided. Thus John Strachey, a
British Labour Party MP, suggested that a solid and highly educated middle
class is the best countercheck to the malfunctioning of democracy. Other
political scientists also agree that there can be no democracy without an
educated electorate.

Francis Fukuyama argued in his book Political Order and Political Decay that a vibrant
middle class and urbanism have a considerable impact on implanting democracy in
any state. The Wall Street Journal asserted that Pakistan has 42 percent of its
population as middle-class. When the middle class emerges in any country,
economic participation, and political consciousness increase. The economically self-
sufficient class demands political space. With the rising incentives of political spaces
and the middle class as pressure, the groups build rhetoric of democracy with
propensity.

Pakistan’s economic growth only slowed down in the period between 1993-
2020, with only two years of six per cent growth compared to India’s 18. It was
only in 2007 that India’s per capita income surpassed Pakistan’s.

Data from the most recent Human Development Report shows that with an
HDI score of 0.557, Pakistan ranks 154 out of 189 countries — Bangladesh and
India come in at 133 and 131, respectively. This report further shows that
Pakistan’s HDI score is 13pc below the average HDI in South Asia and thus
Pakistan ranks at the bottom of the entire region.

Institutions:

s. First, strong institutions are essential and equally important in normal times as well as their
importance increase manifold in the time of any crisis (emergencies and pandemics). It goes
without saying that in times of pandemics and emergencies, the survival of states depends upon
the efficacy of strong institutions. Second, Institutions must be guarded against politicization
which has the potential of eroding their performance and credibility.

Colonial legacy and Patron-client Polity and Economy The British ruled India through a
'divide-and-rule' policy. They understood that the local population dominated them in numbers
and knowledge of the terrain. Hence, they coopted certain classes into state apparatus while
marginalizing and alienating others based on the degree to which each class accepted the colonial
rule. For instance, the political consciousness of Bengalis was more developed than Punjab and
Bengali’s resisted colonial rule with much more valour than Punjab. Consequently, the British
perpetuated the myth that Bengalis were feeble and effeminate people while co-opting certain
rural castes of Punjab into state apparatus. These groups persisted even after independence
giving rise to patron-client economy and polity. This resulted in public goods becoming
conventional and hence rivalrous and excludable with kinship networks becoming instrumental
in accessing them. This underlying trend impeded the development and growth of democracy in
Pakistan and continues to do so.

The second obstacle in the way of democracy is the culture of

feudalism. Democracy cannot develop in the suffocating atmosphere
of feudalism. The history of feudalism in the subcontinent is not very
old. It owes its origin to the war of independence in 1857 when
different people were awarded large swathes of land by the British
government because of their treacherous cooperation with the latter.
Those feudal families joined Muslim League when they saw that
Pakistan was going to be a reality and inherited power after the death
of the founding father. Feudalism has now become a severe migraine
for the nation. Democracy and feudalism are incompatible.

Another great hindrance to the development of the democracy is the

prevalence of dynastic system in the politics. Since the inception of
Pakistan, the political culture has been the personal domain of certain-
well renowned families. They have never allowed any ordinary person
to be part of their political parties. Due to entrenched dynastic politics
in the country, political parties have become personal fiefdoms of the
politicians who are obsessed with controlling everything from the top.
There is no denying that such anti-democratic trend is a symptom of
monarchy rather than democracy. It has not only marred the true spirit
of democracy, but it is also a huge impediment to the development of
democratic institutions and values in the country.

Deep-rooted feudalism is equally responsible for failure of democracy

to take strong roots in the country. Since its very inception, Pakistan
has been suffering from the disease of feudalism. These feudal, on one
hand, contribute towards increase in the rate of poverty by keeping
the people of their areas in utterly hopeless conditions; while on the
other, they crush the true spirit of democracy in the pursuit of their
unscrupulous desires. Feudalism is so ingrained in the society that it
has abysmally curtailed the likelihood of common man to enter the
political arena. Resultantly, parliament is replete with the feudal. They
cannot be called true representatives of common people because
considering them representatives of common masses is synonymous
with viewing wolves as representatives of sheep. They have no concern
for the interests of common masses but power. Briefly speaking,
feudalism is a great threat to the growth of democracy. So far as these
feudal are present in the county, democracy cannot grow in its true
spirit.
Causes of failure of democracy in Pakistan lies in our socio - political system. Feudalism,
illiterate and apathetic people, self – imposed leaders and inherited politics are a few salient
features of this system. It's a feudal state where we are living and most of our political leaders are
just feudal lords and they and have assumed and established their identity as political leaders.
Feudalism has been leading towards the traditions of inherited politics as well in this country. In
this feudal culture, millions of people are landless and illiterate peasants and their social status is
not more than a slave. In addition to this, such landless peasants community is living in acute
poverty. Auctorial of this community is not even accordance with the minimum standards of
human rights. How can such impoverished, deprived and economically marginalized peasants
community can express their will freely in a democratic process? The essence of democracy lies
in the general will of the public. So during election, such community is supposed to express the
will of the feudal lords. May be due to their lack of knowledge or the fear of the landlord,
landless peasants do so. In such circumstances, can we expect from landless rural peasants that
they are able to evaluate the credibility of their so – called leaders and the manifesto of political
parties before voting? I don't think so they are able to do this. Almost 70% population of
Pakistan leading life in such feudal and rural traditions. Consequently, general election becomes
a selection of a few based upon the will of a few who are powerful and leading a privileged life.
In this way, democracy has been reduced to oligarchy and aristocracy in our country.

Mr. Bilal Gilani, Executive Director Gallup Pakistan said that 3 in 5 Pakistanis hold the opinion
that democracy is better than all other political systems. A majority of Pakistanis also believe that
freedom of speech, free elections, and equal rights are present in the country. Even though a
majority, 63% are confident that the civilian government can govern the country, a large percentage
does not have confidence in their economic management and law enforcement and in reducing
corruption.
A quick view on attendance of Prime Ministers shows that the current PM Mr. Shehbaz Sharif has
attended only 14% sessions of the Assembly so far. Mr. Imran Khan’s attendance stood at 11%
during his tenure; Mr. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi attended 19% sittings of the Assembly while in office
while Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif attended only 14% sittings of the Assembly during his time in
office.

Political Parties

With uncertainty on the timing of the next general election, the political humdrum has not yet taken
on the pre-election excitement in 2022. However, as before, there are few markers that could
generate faith of the populace in preparedness of the parties for meeting Pakistan’s governance
challenges.

There are little indicators, for instance, on whether leading political parties have invested in internal
organization and of creating party think tanks that are to lead the way on a party’s policy planning
when in government. There are no signs that leading parties will not repeat the same exercise of
creation of last-minute manifestos prepared by a handful of party elite which would again not be
powered by the party’s grassroots membership.

None of the parties even attempt to form something even close to a shadow cabinet to not only
prepare the party for an effective role in governance if and when they come into power but also to
provide informed and well-considered policy alternatives in various sectors of governance. A shadow
cabinet also meaningfully serves the cause of democracy as it allows the powers and resulting media
attention concentrated in the person of the top party leader to get distributed among a group of senior
party leaders.

The system of democracy, with all its procedural requirements of elections leading to electoral
legitimacy, also requires functional legitimacy provided through good democratic governance. Not
only the biggest loser in lack of preparedness of parties is the country and its people, the inability of
parties to be alive to governance challenges is affecting the value of democracy for Pakistan.

Threat of Populism

The phenomenon of populism is simple yet complex. It is simplistic to equate populist approach of a
leader to his or her popularity. Despite danger to democracy, dictionary definition of populism
appears benign as it’s a type of politics that claims to represent opinions and wishes of ordinary
people. Populism defines a political approach that projects itself to appeal to ordinary people who
feel their concerns are disregarded by established political parties or groups. On the face of it, there’s
nothing wrong in that approach. Every political party/leader enter public sphere to offer alternative
solution to existing public issues and grievances with the right to disagree with other parties’
approach/ideologies. Trouble begins when populist leaders draw battle lines against political
opponents as a fight between good and evil. A populist leader does not offer better governance model
but uses existing public perception of injustice to personal political end. A populist uses existing
public grievances by polarizing the society into followers who are right and virtuous people and
opponents who are corrupt and evil. Add to this contest between virtue and evil personal charisma
and good communication skills and there is the perfect populist pied paper able to sway followers
upon followers with empty promises.

The politics of Mr. Imran Khan is defined by what is defined as populism. He uses religion at will
and weaponizes its use for petty, personal benefits. While he presents himself as a steadfast leader, he
doesn’t hesitate to call political opponents thieves, corrupt and even traitors. His entire political
strategy is based on feeding the public with fluff slogans and skin-deep notions. He does not focus on
his own governance performance but his rival leaders are certified as incompetent. So, when Mr.
Khan roars in jalsas that haqeeqi azadi or real freedom is his ultimate political promise to people, he
does not explain what that is and how Pakistan lacks it or how to achieve it. He does not even pause
to add what did he do about it in his time in office. When he says that his self-respecting nation is
chained to borrowing from IFIs and can’t soar high, he is making people dream a dream that he
doesn’t have to break down on how to realize. It’s a bit convenient to fit in the reality of his own
government approaching IMF within this lofty narrative. When he accuses his political opponents to
have sucked blood out of country due to corruption, his followers believe it despite the fact that
reality of hybrid governance model imposed on country for most part is etched deeply in history. It is
of course not in populist leader’s own interest to explain how he has benefitted politically from that.
When he paints a picture of respect of green passport globally, horizon is beautifully lit but he does
not draw painstaking steps required overtime to acquire that. From hallowed promises to stirring of
religious sentiments, he is armed with all that he requires to use as irresponsibly as he likes. There is
now a new Imran lexicon and it is in use indiscriminately to gain personal political advantage.
The biggest threat of populism is that populists “drag democracies down to fit their authoritarian
personalities and ambitions,” in the words of US Political Sociologist Larry Diamond. They attack all
forms of check on democracy such as media, civil society, independence of courts, parliament and
finally try to take “effective control of electoral administration” to ensure their re-election.

Political Instability and Economics

Economic growth and political stability are deeply interconnected. On the one hand, the
uncertainty associated with an unstable political environment may reduce investment and the
speed of economic development. On the other hand, poor economic performance may lead to
government collapse and political unrest. “Political instability” is defined as the propensity of a
change in the executive, either by “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” means.

One strong theoretical argument underlying this relationship is based upon the effects of
uncertainty on productive economic decisions, such investment, production or labor supply? A
high propensity of a change of government is associated with uncertainty about the new policies
of a potential new government; risk-averse economic agents may hesitate to take economic
initiatives or may “exit” the economy, by investing abroad. Conversely, foreign investors prefer
a stable political environment, with less policy uncertainty and less uncertainty about property
rights. A weak government constantly under threat of losing office may be particularly sensitive
to the need of pleasing lobbyists and pressure groups, thus leading to a more direct effect of rent-
seeking activities on policy decisions. The basic idea underlying this view is that policy makers
in democratic government are subject to the pressures of interests groups, and thus short-
sightedly follow opportunistic policies to enhance their chances of reelection instead policies that
enhance long term growth.

Political instability is regarded by economists as a serious malaise harmful to

economic performance. Political instability is likely to shorten policymakers'
horizons leading to sub-optimal macroeconomic policies. It may also lead to a
more frequent switch of policies, creating volatility and thus, negatively
affecting macroeconomic performance.
negative effects of political instability on a wide range of macroeconomic
variables including, among others, GDP growth, private investment, taxation,
public expenditures and investment, debt and inflation.

Pakistan’s economy has remained the prey of political unrest throughout

history. Despite its vast economic resources, the country still faces severe
economic stagnation due to the menace of political instability. An unstable
political system is the hazard that halts smooth running of governance
and enforcement of law and authority in a country.

Research shows that countries facing low economic growth are often
victims of an irregular flow of government shifts due to political unrest. In
the case of Pakistan, the argument fits well.

Starting from 1999 when the military regime ousted the civil government
in Pakistan, the country’s economy was growing at a rate of 4.2 percent
and by the end of the military regime in 2008, economic growth stood at
1.7 percent.

This decrease in economic development was caused by political tensions,

as the political stability index shows that political stability was -2.4 percent
in 2008 compared to -1.1 percent in 2000. Similarly, during the tenure of
the PPP regime from 2008 to 2013 the country reportedly faced an
increase in corruption and low economic growth, owing to a surge in
political instability which increased to -2.6 percent in 2013 compared to -
2.4 percent in 2008.

Governments in power implement short-term policies for rapid results to

sustain their rule, which cause long-term threats to the economy. Upon
the collapse of political governments, the incumbent political groups also
often terminate the policies of their predecessors. Such rapid change in
political power created uncertainty in the country.

Resultantly, large investment groups avoid investing their money at the

stake of indeterminate government policies which are seen to be short
term with no future vision. Investment and political stability have a direct
relationship with each other. The more politically stable a country is, the
more investment will come into the market. Due to political insecurity,
people often do not invest their money, which results in increased
unemployment and the lack of productivity in the country.

“When people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the

government fears the people, there is liberty”

In a democracy, the poor will have more power than the rich, because
there are more of them, and the will of the majority is
supreme.” (Aristotle)

I understand democracy as something that gives the weak the same

chance as the strong. -Mohandas Gandhi

The primal principle of democracy is the worth and dignity of the

individual. -Edward Bellamy
Democracy is not just a question of having a vote. It consists of
strengthening each citizen’s possibility and capacity to participate in
the deliberations involved in life in society. -Fernando Cardoso

The road to democracy may be winding and is like a river taking many
curves, but eventually the river will reach the ocean. – Chen Shui-bian
“Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man may
present his views without penalty, there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire
population.”
—Albert Einstein
Fact Book:

According to a report published by World Justice Project’s ‘Rule of

Law‘ Index 2022, Pakistan ranks 5th out of 6 countries in South Asian
countries, as the region’s top performer is Nepal (ranked 69th out of 140
globally), followed by Sri Lanka and India. The three countries with the
lowest scores in the region are Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
(138th globally).

According to the World Press Freedom Index 2o22 report, Pakistan

has dropped 12 points in the index, from a rank of 145 in 2021 to 157
in 2022.

According to Global Political Stability Index Pakistan ranked at 181 out

of 194 countries in the world, only Afghanistan lies below it in [Link].

In 2020, Pakistan's CPI was 31 and it was ranked 124 out of 180 countries.
According to Transparency International, the country's corruption score has
now deteriorated to 28 while it is ranked 140 out of the total countries on the
index.

In contrast, India's corruption score stood at 40 while Bangladesh's CPI was

26. The two countries ranked 85 and 147, respectively.

According to an annual survey, the police are perceived to be the

most corrupt sector at the national level followed by tendering and
contracting, judiciary and education as the second, third and
fourth, respectively.
Transparency International (TI) Pakistan on Friday released the results of the
National Corruption Perception Survey 2022 (NCPS) — the seventh in a series
for the past 21 years — as the world marks International Anti-Corruption Day.

According to the Lancet study, Pakistan ranks 154th among 195 countries in terms of
accessibility and quality of healthcare, far behind its South Asian counterparts India, Bangladesh,
and Sri-Lanka/ (2016)

Pakistan ranks 130 in Global Health Security Index in 2020.

Pakistan retains Hybrid Regime status in EIU’s Democracy Index 2021. Pakistan ranked 104,
India 46, Nepal 101, Bangladesh 75, Sri Lanka 67

With the overall score of 4.31, Pakistan has received a score of 5.67 under the category of
electoral process and pluralism, a score of 5.36 in Functioning of government, a score of 3.33 in
Political Participation, 2.50 in Political culture and 4.71 on Civil Liberties.

The EIU Democracy Index divides 167 countries covered by the index in 4 regime types which
include Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes and Authoritarian Regimes.
Pakistan is placed among 34 Hybrid regimes around the world.

The index notes that in 2021, “less than half (45.7%) of the world’s population now live
in a democracy of some sort, a significant decline from 2020 (49.4%). Even fewer (6.4%)
reside in a “full democracy”; this level is down from 8.4% in 2020, after two countries
(Chile and Spain) were downgraded to “flawed democracies”. Substantially more than a
third of the world’s population (37.1%) live under authoritarian rule, with a large share
being in China.”

Pakistan is the second worst country in the world in terms of gender

parity, ranking 145 out of 146 countries in the Global Gender Gap
Index report released by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on
Wednesday. It said that Pakistan has closed 56.4% of the gender gap in
2022 — the highest overall level of parity the country has posted since the
report launched in 2006.
Pakistan has made “significant improvement” across three subindexes, with
the highest positive variation on economic participation and opportunity, it
stated.
The country ranked 145 on economic participation and opportunity, 143 on
health and survival, 135 on educational attainment and 95 on political
participation. Pakistan is the country where women have the smallest share of
senior, managerial and legislative roles at a mere 4.5pc, according to the
report.
Bangladesh and Nepal lead regional performance, with over 69% of their
gender gaps closed, while Afghanistan registered the region’s and world’s
lowest level of overall gender parity, with a score of 43.5%.
The report further said that South Asia has the widest gender gap on economic
participation and opportunity, having closed only 35.7% of this gender gap.
While the subindex score is an improvement of 1.8 percentage points from last
year, there are considerable country divergences that anchor the result as the
lowest among all regions.
Afghanistan has only attained 17.6% parity on this subindex, well below the
highest score of Nepal, at 64.1%. Highly populated countries are for the most
part driving variation within this subindex, according to the report