There has been a flurry of articles by well meaning journalists in the international and national press condemning the current military takeover and urging a return to
democracy in Pakistan. The further they are from reality, the louder they squeal; even well informed columnists like Mr. Irfan Hussein (Dawn 13th. November) feel
obliged to mime popular clichés such as "the cure to the ills of democracy is more democracy… etc.". These good people feel truly uncomfortable ditching their
"liberal" ideals, and label anyone who suggests otherwise as "elitist". I would suggest that it is perhaps they who are being elitist, since their rose tinted view of
democracy as practiced in the comfort of Westminster Abbey or Capitol Hill is quite different from the stark realities of Golimar or Gujranwala.

Let us for a moment leave ideals and opinions aside and just consider the facts. The first free and fair elections of Pakistan in 1970 produced a democratically
elected Peoples Party, which, supported in this by most of the electorate in West Pakistan was unable to stomach the basic tenet of democracy; majority rule. As a
result, East Pakistan separated after a bloody civil war and democracy had produced its first casualty. The elected government of Mr. Bhutto went on to become a
despotic regime of unprecedented proportions, where the fundamental freedoms of individuals and the press were ruthlessly curbed. The large scale imprisonment,
torture and indeed murder of political opponents had never been witnessed in the dictatorial and "undemocratic" Pakistan of before. The people welcomed General
Zia-ul-Haq and his army with open arms as their savior when he ousted the Bhutto government in 1977. True, the General subsequently pursued his own dream of
an Islamic empire spreading from Turkey to Tashkent with fanatical zeal, ignoring the development of the country itself, but at least the man should be given credit for
being able to dream of higher goals than his political successors who could only think about marauding to buy mansions overseas, or stealing to build steel factories.
The economy was stable with a 6% growth rate. Opponents were not jailed or persecuted, and the press was free and outspoken. There was no mass agitation for
his removal or for the restoration of democracy. It was only after his ill fated air crash that we started our second experiment with democracy; Enter the two main
political parties, led by our wonderful duo, BB and the Sheriff of Model Town, vying with each other to take personal corruption, deprivation of liberties and
destruction of all institutions to unprecedented heights.

More democracy ? More of the same ? No thanks. Each successive election seems to bring in people worse than the lot before them, like scum which rises to the
top of the water. Is it not time to take stock, and learn from these experiments rather than carry on pursuing the dogma of democracy at all costs, only because it
seems the modern and liberal thing to do? Has our western education blinded us to the stark realities around us ? The people want peace, prosperity and good
governance, rather than more political activity.

Can the electorate make a good choice? There seems to be little evidence of this since 1971. One probably needs the fundamental right of being free from hunger
and disease before requiring the right to elect governments. (And let us not kid ourselves about the prevalent degree of deprivation - 70 percent of children under 5
are malnourished and 40 percent do not have access to clean drinking water, according to recent W.H.O data). When successive elected governments fail to make
any difference to their lives, can one blame the poor for their intense cynicism in viewing elections as bringing no more than the odd fifty rupee note, with a free meal
and a free ride to the polling station ? It is not illiteracy but a sense of being utterly powerless in being able to change anything which drives the electorate to vote in
this way. It was interesting to see during the last election that when there was a degree of desperation to elect someone who was at least honest even if not
particularly gifted, our famous cricketer failed spectacularly despite his impeccable personal integrity. He perhaps naively thought that credibility and manifestos win
elections rather than the free ‘shamianas’, ‘daigs’, buses and bank-notes; unfortunately the voters had seen it all before, and a free meal seems more real than scores
of pledges that are regularly made and never kept.

Ideals such as freedom and fairness are fine for those who have food in their bellies and college degrees in their pockets. For example the notion that people will vote
sensibly to say escape the tyranny of the local SHO is a simplistic and romantic view of the urban elite; even in the prosperous villages of Punjab people often vote
not because they seek equal treatment before the law but for members of their ‘biradari’ who would be able to use the SHO to terrorize their rival ‘biradari’ or
village! Such unfortunately is the state of social development and priorities in our harsh society, driven by fierce competition for scant resources. Until such time this
changes, democracy will remain at best a lofty ideal and at worst a dangerous and expensive experiment.

Democracy only works after achieving a degree of economic and social development. In most of the West it followed the industrial revolution. One obviously cannot
wait decades for this to occur, and we have to at least consider the alternatives. The people need food, health care, education and jobs, more than polling booths,
particularly when the latter do not deliver the former. The world’s largest population in China has rapidly progressed from a primitive agrarian society to a highly
industrialized economy without the burden of a Western style democracy. Malaysia, Singapore, Korea have all had vibrant economies nurtured by far sighted, if not
always benevolent, dictators. Even in the Middle East Syria, Egypt, Morocco and many other oil poor countries have stable governments, developing economies,
and orderly societies without carrying the white man’s burden of democratic ideals. The palpable grief that shook Jordan after the death of a benevolent King was
testimony to the fact that good governance need not always originate from the ballot box. To the contrary, democracy can produce disastrous results; one only needs
to remember that the greatest man made disaster in history was wreaked upon the world by the democratically elected government of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi
party.

It is perhaps time to question the wisdom of our former colonial masters who continue to preach at us from their comfortable ivory towers, about how we should run
our state. It is perhaps time to find a different way.