PAKISTAN - DEMOCRACY! PROPOSALS
WESTERN DEMOCRACY! RIGHT PILL AT WRONG TIME?
If we look upon countries trying to advance which are generally called as developing countries, specially South Asian developing countries, we will find that since their inception nothing at large has been improved. Big percentage of their population lives below poverty line. Food, drinking water, health, education, housing, nothing is adequately available to common people.
Since decades we are hearing that democracy is the only solution to these problems, uninterrupted democratic process will drain out dishonest politicians and socio-economic condition of common man will improve. All our thinkers, intellectuals and scholars have fed this in our minds since our childhood.
Some of developing countries have had continuous democracy in their history while some also had military interventions in between. One thing among these countries is common that all are obsessed upon forcing western democracy but their condition is still unchanged.
On the contrary, developed countries are reaping fruits from the same democratic system. Why our pudding is not as tasty as theirs? Why is the same medicine not helping us but affecting them?
Developing countries should evaluate themselves if this Western Democracy is really the solution provider during developing stage of a nation or this is a pill that we should take on a later stage?
To evaluate, take examples of few South Asian countries namely Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. All these countries are passionate to be called as democratic states.
India had enjoyed more than sixty years of democracy; almost same is with Sri Lanka. Military interventions could be witnessed in the political history of Pakistan and Bangladesh. But all these countries share same pathetic social and economic conditions; corruption is at its peak, justice is scarce, clean drinking water is not available, children die from common diseases, literacy rate is lowest (except Sri Lanka) and basic necessities of life are not available to poor.
Upon analyzing we will find that during the developing period of western countries, this current form of democracy was not in place. Their leaders excluded common man from ruling class and even from voting class.
At that time, besides personal interests, rulers and social scientists might be of the view that if they allow common man to participate in decision making of the state or allow them to elect their leaders, common man will elect leaders on the basis of color, cast, religion, tribe, ethnicity and wealth instead of leaders abilities.
Western rulers believed that common man does not have the aptitude to evaluate or elect competent rulers. At first common man was given education, made socially free and mentally strong to evaluate and elect their ruler. Evolution and development process of human resource and other social institutions was initiated and political system transformed gradually with the passage of time.
Few very brief historical facts could be furnished here.
1. Americans gave the right of vote to women after almost 150 years of countrys inception.
2. African Americans (Blacks) were given full rights to vote in 1965, almost after 190 years. Before that many statutes were made to block most African Americans and many poor whites from the right to vote. And that was the period when America flourished.
3. In England only wealthy property owners were given the right to vote. House of Commons and House of Lords still exist in England.
4. After 140 years, British women over 21 years of age were given that right to vote in 1928.
5. In Switzerland women gained the right to vote in February 1959.
6. In Australia Aboriginals were not allowed to vote until 1967, it took 66 years after independence.
Our neighboring, friendly and fast developing country China was a pure-communist state till 1982 and has 33 years of pure-communist history. Primarily their leaders improved the socio-economic conditions of people and political system started liberalizing with time. China gradually gave socio-political rights to citizens with various constitutional amendments but still they have not declared China a democratic republic.
There are other countries with monarch as rulers but socio-economic condition of people is far better than developing countries with long history of democracy.
Presently developing countries are almost in the same socio-political conditions as western countries were during their developing period. Obstacle in our progress is that we are trying to apply Wests PRESENT political system while our position is similar to their PAST. Are we trying to climb directly to second floor avoiding the first?
Either constant-democratic countries like India and Sri Lanka or episodic-democratic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, our rulers come from the same feudal, tribal, ethnic, religious, military and wealthy families. Ability to lead the nation towards prosperity is not their selection criteria. Uneducated, unqualified and even criminals are elected because at present our common man does not have that capacity to evaluate nor have the social freedom to elect appropriate leaders.
Our intellectuals and socio-political analysts should re-examine and re-define our political system rationally with a clear head. This should be done keeping in view the ground realities and without obsession towards any political system.
There could be variety of views with various possible alternatives. A strict criterion for rulers with very strict restrictions over right of wealth and compulsory moderate living standard could be suggested enabling to drain out dishonest and artificial leaders. Or suspension of common mans some political rights for a certain period of time till the society matures. A mixture of democracy, communism and socialism could also come out of intellectual deliberations.
WESTERN DEMOCRACY! PROPOSALS
In the light of earlier analysis, it could be said that developing countries are not getting right leadership from the current democratic system. Either people of these countries are electing wrong leaders or wrong leaders get elected by using their influence and power. Ultimately problem is with leadership.
Western democratic system is tried by all developing countries that were discussed earlier but it remains ineffective. Now a new system or some modification in this current system is indispensable to produce honest, selfless, sincere and able leadership.
What that new system should be? In political history diverse forms of government existed in countries that progressed and improved social conditions of their citizens.
With reference to Pakistan, let us evaluate the system that could suit best in our current situation. Monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy and Chinese communism in its totality could not be introduced in Pakistan for various reasons. An absolute replacement from current political system to a new one would be extremely difficult and also not feasible.
Most of the developed countries had some sort of socio-political restrictions for leaders and for common man during their flourishing period. Imposing similar sort of restrictions and barriers in todays world would be very difficult and unmanageable. Therefore the only alternative remain is to make some adjustments in current western democratic system according to our environment.
Common man in Pakistan is already under immense stress and has very little voice in society. Restricting them from already symbolic participation in political process would further increase their grievances.
Some sort of adjustments had to be made at leadership side. Restrictions and bindings through rules should be introduced for the ruling class. Restrictions on rulers would not be trouble-freely implemented but comparatively they would be easier to implement, would get popular support and would be more effective than other options.
New criteria could be set to become MNA, MPA, senator, president, prime minister, minister, advisor, CEC member of any political party, civil servant or armed forces personnel of higher grade. In addition to the existing criterion some more simple but strict restrictions or bindings could be added. This criterion must be forced for a period of at least 40-50 years and if by this period of time common man and political situation gets better, restrictions could be lifted gradually.
Proposed restrictions are furnished below. For conciseness the word ruler is used for all the posts mentioned above and with a male pronoun. Figures and numbers of values mentioned-below could be assessed and adjusted, if needed.
1. Limited Right of wealth: Ruler will have limited right of wealth and have to surrender his excess wealth if he wants to serve the nation. He would be allowed to keep a limited value of assets that could not exceed Rs. 35 million in total. This will be applicable to all rulers irrespective of his feudal, tribal, religious, military or capitalist background.
2. Moderate life style: Ruler must practice a moderate living standard. He will have to live in a non-luxurious house, not more than three-four bedrooms or 250 sq. yards or worth below Rs. 10 million. He could not live in any lavish house either belonging to his son, daughter, wife or anyone else. This restriction will also be observed after few years of resigning from politics, duration depends upon the post held.
3. Limited business ownership: Ruler can not own a business or hold shares in any business worth more than Rs. 20 million.
4. Moderate commuting/transport facilities: Ruler cannot use a vehicle more than 1300cc either owned by him, by state or by any other source. For traveling in rural or mountainous areas 1600cc vehicle would be allowed. Ruler cannot take first class for both international and domestic flights sponsored by anyone.
5. Surrender of excess wealth: Fifty percent of wealth that is excess to the allowed limit would be surrendered to government. Ruler will be allowed to award balance assets to his relatives or to anyone not from the ruling class. If he desires, a certain percentage could also be granted to his political party.
Above restrictions will eliminate common mans suspicions over sincerity of ruler and make them believe that he is not ruling for his personal gains.
If above criterion is implemented our society will definitely get honest and sincere leaders. Social freedom will enable common man to vote freely and assess the candidate on merit and not on any other basis.
Every leader and politician claims to be the messiah of common man with the same rhetoric Pakistan pay hamara tan man dhan qurban hay. By implementing these bindings rulers dont have to sacrifice life but only surrender their wealth and assets for Pakistan.
Few advantages / benefits of restrictions:
1. Common man will feel that rulers are amongst them.
2. Feudal system will breathe its last.
3. Corrupt and selfish politicians will leave the field for sincere politicians.
4. Ruler will be able to understand the problems faced by common man.
5. Wealth surrendered by ruler will increase the development resources of government.
6. Massive reduction in corruption will be observed.
7. Middle class, honest and able people will be able to contest elections.
8. It will reduce the influence of tribal lords and help in opening up those close societies.
9. Lack of political association of industrial and capitalist cults will make accountability possible.
10. Social structure will get better by time resulting improvement in economic conditions of poor. This will reduce the economic disparity.
11. Political backing of criminals will fizzle out by time enabling law enforcing agencies to work freely and crime rate will reduce significantly. Dacoits and criminals would be free from the influence of feudals, chaudhrys, maliks, nawabs, sardars, waderas, khans etc and they can seek amnesty from state to live a normal life.
Concerns over restrictions:
1. Limited right of wealth might discourage people to join politics at a later stage. Therefore gradual relaxation of rules after 40-50 years is proposed.
2. Initially there would be slight probability of lack of sharp leadership and bureaucracy may become more powerful than rulers. Bureaucracy maneuvers negatively with corrupt rulers because of their ills but cannot dictate honest rulers. If they find honest leader around them, a big number of bureaucrats will be willing to work positively.
Possibility to evade restrictions by technically dodging the system:
1. A dummy could be made MNA by any feudal or capitalist and remain in power indirectly. But it would be very rare as all current politicians can not be replaced by dummies.
2. To save wealth, ruler might transfer it to their sons, daughters or wife and family head himself continues to rule. This dodge would not work for them as such politicians cannot live their life in moderate style. They are used to live lavish life.
Common man will give full support to the leader if he sees his leaders selflessness not only in words but also in practice.
For example Mr. Asif Zardari and Mr. Nawaz Sharif living in a 250 sq yards house in Lahore or Karachi, wearing a moderate dress, commuting in a 1300cc car, owner of a general store and a bakery, with no sugar mill, no paper mill, no steel mill, no land and no palace in their name.
Above proposals need deliberations and should be refined by social and political scientists. Our intellectuals, scholars, thinkers and members of civil society should put their serious efforts in presenting and incorporating these proposals into our national political structure.
