A Failure of 'Democracy'?

Foreign policy 'experts' have been predicting the death of the Pakistani state for a few years now. While their ideological motivations may have been somewhat suspect, recent events seem to suggest that the facts are catching with the prophecy.

Exhibit A: The breathtakingly audacious attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team. In the heart of Lahore, amidst what were considered unusually strong security measures for such an event.

Exhibit B: The Pakistani government's response: blaming India.

Exhibit C: The Pakistani military suspending operations in Swat, a region bordering Afghanistan and virtually independent of government control. Initial reports seem to suggest increased Taliban control over the area.

Exhibit D: Pakistan is facing a severe financial crisis, inspite of availing of an IMF-administered multi-billion dollar aid package in November, 2008. If the US doesn't come through on its promised aid package, the economy is likely to collapse. Note the package comes with terms attached: none of the money promised is going directly to the government, it is going only to USAID-supervised projects. This seems to suggest worldwide suspicion of the effectiveness of the Pakistani state machinery.

Exhibit E: The complete breakdown of institutional integrity in Pakistan, as exemplified by the recent Supreme Court decision banning Nawaz Sharif and his brother from holding public office, and the subsequent dismissal of the provincial government in Punjab by President Zardari.

There are many more such incidents which shed doubt on the effectiveness of Pakistan's democratically elected political establishment, but these should suffice to make the point. Has the State in Pakistan finally failed?

I want to end on a provocative note. Sections of the international media greeted the end of Musharraf's rule with joy, relief and great hope. However, as New America Foundation President and veteran journalist Steve Coll points out in a recent New Yorker essay, South Asia's chances for peace will probably never be as good as they were under the General. With his departure, a ramshackle civilian administration has been besieged with challenges at every step, and has found itself hopelessly unprepared. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned in this: that democracy itself (defined here as a system where the government is elected by the people, and nothing else) is an insufficient good. Without civic institutions and independent constitutional mechanisms strong enough to ensure the nurturing of a democratic culture, the mere fact of representative government is useless in resolving the problems which face a country emerging out of authoritarian rule. Ruthless corrupt tyrants are just as likely to emerge through elections as they are through coups, putsches or revolutions. This is especially so in countries which have no experience with constitutional government. Democracy isn't just a function of the ballot, it is a mode of political life. It is a form of political organization where citizens can exercise a check on the operation of their governments through independent institutions, like courts, the press, watchdog organisations; not just by pulling a level or punching a card every 5 years.

Perhaps, then, democracy isn't good for Pakistan. Perhaps military rule with limited provincial elections, a small but dedicated activist element, a robustly free English language press, and a moderately independent judiciary is what it needs right now. Till such time as peace comes to visit the region, and the seeds of democratic sentiment take root, perhaps authoritarian rule is the least worst option.