Letter to Wall Street Journal on “Shouldn’t We Care About Democracy In Pakistan”

In the opinion piece “Shouldn’t We Care About Democracy In Pakistan” by Tunku Varadarajan in the August 27, 2002 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Varadarajan raises criticism of the US government and it’s lack of appropriate response to Gen. Musharraf’s recent actions of altering the Pakistan constitution so significantly as to considerably enlarge his dictatorial powers, moving Pakistan closer to a totalitarian state. He claims that Gen. Musharraf has been spared American criticism thus far for two principal reasons:

1. Past attempts at democracy in Pakistan have not been successful because elected governments have been riddled with corruption and inefficiencies; and

2. Gen. Musharraf has proven to be a reliable ally of America’s war against terror.

We wish to look at these statements in the broader context of what a functioning democracy is; how governments of the region - Pakistan and it’s neighboring India - stack up against a truly functioning democracy; and implications to US – Pakistan relations today.

Principally, Varadarajan fails to employ a meaningful description of democracy and what it is really about. He uses a narrow view of democracy within the confines of today’s Pakistan and its government when advocating free elections. If free elections alone could define a democracy, then Hitler’s Germany was a democracy too. Does that mean that Russia and perhaps other third world countries such as India are also democratic today? It seems to me that it is not just Pakistan but several other countries, including its neighbor India, that have not realized a truly democratic state despite their well publicized mechanics of elections.

The single underlying principle of a democracy is the right of the people to freely determine their own destiny with a system that guarantees the following essential liberties:

1. Freedom of expression, belief and association without fear of government,

2. Free communications media (free of Government’s ownership or interference),

3. Free and competitive elections,

4. Respect for the inalienable rights of individuals and minorities,

5. Rule of law, equally applicable to all (regardless of status),

6. Autonomy of economic, political, social and cultural institutions without interference from the government,

7. Individual rights and freedom instead of community rights, and

8. Freedom of private institutions and businesses from Governmental ownership or influence.

Based on the above criteria, neither Pakistan nor India meet the definition or spirit of a democracy. Regarding Pakistan and its lack of a democratic regime, the problem cannot merely be attributed to a dictatorship versus democratic regime. Despite Gen. Musharraf’s 29 imposed amendments to the constitution and additional power to dissolve the elected Parliament at will, other countries, that are not ruled by a dictatorship and yet which claim to be democratic, have a comparatively worse record. Take India for example. There have been almost 100 constitutional amendments imposed/pushed through parliament by the all-powerful Prime Ministers of India. So, changing the constitution at will either by a dictator in a country like Pakistan, or by an elected but all powerful Prime Minister in a country like India, is commonplace and, in either case, a fundamentally un-democratic act. In the case of India, since all the power lies in one man, the Prime Minister, he/she can and indeed does dissolve the elected assemblies of any state when he/she believes that the freely elected State Government is not toeing the line of the Prime Minister. Sadly, this has occurred all too frequently in India.

It is true that the elected governments of Pakistan have been incompetent and corrupt, and have given the General an excuse to cling tenaciously to power. However, it is equally true of countries like India where its highest elected officials do not relinquish power, despite repeated accusations of corruption and mounting criticism from the public. Not a single elected official has resigned or even been tried when confronted with full-blown corruption cases. This can be said to hold for the full period of 55 years since Independence from the British in 1947. A succession of Indian Governments have repeatedly hushed or entirely squelched scandals of corruption; recent examples point to the: (1) Bofors case against Gandhi’s government (1985), (2) “Tehlka.com” exposure of corruption (2000) and (3) recent disclosure of corruption in government allotment of Petrol (gasoline) pumps (the irony of the latest scandal is that even the elected officials actively participate in corruption in a country where the majority of people do not even have clean drinking water).

Mr. Varadarajan suggests that President Bush should ask the Pakistani dictator to hold elections in a fashion similar to his request of Yassar Arafat and the PLO. A dramatic difference exists: unlike Arafat, Pakistan’s Musharraf has been a reliable ally of the US. He has provided logistical and strategic assistance to the US in its war against terror. We must support our reliable friends. By contrast, India - a so-called democratic country - has not been a reliable ally of the US in consistently voting against the US in the United Nations for the last 55 years and aligning itself with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Shouldn’t President Bush take a stand for a reliable ally like Pakistan in order to win a war against terror so long as Pakistan supports our actions and causes around the world?

Today, the basic problem is that every country, big or small, developed or under-developed, western or eastern, is claiming to be a democratic country simply on the basis of holding token elections (free or rigged). This claim is being made even if that particular country fails to develop other essential democratic institutions. Democracy is not achieved through elections alone and should primarily consist of democratic institutions, procedures, and values. Democracy is a system, which is desperately lacking in Pakistan and India alike.

James Madison and our Founding Fathers correctly understood some 200 years ago that without the enforceable safeguards and strong institutions needed to protect minority views against unconventional passions of any voting majority, elections become merely another tool in the hands of the powerful and unscrupulous. This has been exhibited a number of times in Europe and in other parts of the world. These so-called democracies have misused the concept, term and processes of democracy by calling themselves as such without developing essential safeguards. That is what we should care about.

This is not to say that military coups in Pakistan should be tolerated on the pretext that overthrown governments were corrupt and ineffective. Public pressure for elections, as a first step, is the best road to achieving a democracy. However, the process of holding elections alone in countries like India, Pakistan and other third world countries should not be viewed as a guarantee of a functioning democracy, unless other institutions and reforms are also developed and implemented. India and Pakistan represent the most compelling cases of partial or developing democracies, but on a first step basis alone. Moving these countries towards a true democracy is becoming increasingly important, particularly when noting that both possess nuclear power capabilities, with the potential to obliterate themselves, SE Asia, and very possibly the rest of the world.

M. S. Chawla

Tel.# (703)734-0689

Producer

“PASSION FOR TRUTH” TV program

“PUNJABI COMMUNITY HOUR” TV program

Web Pages:

www.passionfortruthtv.com

www.geocities.com/~mschawla