The Short-Circuiting of Democracy

Once Allama Iqbal was asked his opinion of democracy, and here is his response in Farsi:

az maghz-e-sad khar yek aql-e-insAni na-mi Ayad

roughly translated:



the intelligence of a single human does not come

forth from the brains of a hundered donkeys

Saad,

You have hit the nail on the head.

As far as Iqbal is concerned there is another of his famous ``ramblings`` that come to mind.

Jamhooriat woh nizam hukoomat hay jis main

Bundoun ko gina kartey hain tola nahin kartey.

I am not sure if I am correctly narrating this though. I lost my Iqbal`s collection a while back. Maybe someone else can correct me.

Dr. Saad, with all due respect, you obviously have misread both the public opinion polls, American history, and the concept of democracy itself. Let me explain.

Most of the polls in the past few days, and there have been many many polls, suggest that majority of the people neither have the desire nor the appetite for the ``Clinton tapes.`` About 70% of the people said they did not want the tapes released. About half the people said they changed the channel to something else. Two-third of the people believe that its time for Congress to wrap-up the scandal and let the President do his job. In other words, majority of the people DO NOT and will not watch Jerry Springer or Clinton tapes, no matter how many times a day its on. Please don`t make any conclusions based on personal experiences or anecdotes. That`s number one.

Number two. If you read history, ruling and opposition parties (Republicans and Democrats were not the first parties) have been at each other`s throats since the beginning. That`s the reason of progress in this country. American civil war was the deadliest and bloodiest conflict to occur on this land. It did not end democracy here. Andrew Johnson was impeached just because he wanted to appoint his cabinet at his will. It did not end democracy here.

The 60s were the most troubled years in US history when JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X were all assassinated one after another (not in that order though.) There were riots, uprisings, student protests, Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam war, sexual revolution, women`s movement and most of all, the civil rights movement that almost paralleled the civil war in its intensity if not magnitude. Every one of these events was bigger and more significant when it came to challenging the basic fabric of the American society than this current scandal. But none of it ended democracy here.

Unlike many other countries, democracy here is not based on personalities Dr. Saad, as you already know I`m sure. Institutions when strong can survive any political storm regardless of the nature and magnitude.

The Great Depression is a good example. Just when the rest of the world was embracing authoritarian leaders and parties, America elected FDR. History tells us that Congress was willing to rubber stamp anything he would`ve wanted. And it did. But the Supreme court said hold it right there Mister. Your so and so Acts violate the constitution. You can`t act like a dictator here, not while we are still here. Result: democracy survived. When it survived then, it can survive this little scandal without a doubt.

As far as the limits to information are concerned that you are advocating. When you begin to limit access to information, you believe you are a believer in an elitist system. Aristotle would be proud of you. People in Congress and in the Whites House are just like everybody else. They make mistakes, sometimes blunders and they get thrown out of office in the elections for that. Sometimes that is. Because people want able people in the elected office here. People who may be prone to human errors but who can protect the interests of the nation and the people. If Pakistan had only 10% of the parliament as capable, we could be an exemplary country.

With all its faults and flaws, which indeed are many, and need to be redressed, I think America and its democracy are not going anywhere. Not because of a petty scandal, that is. Not in this century and not in the next century.

Rehan.

``Herein, then, lies the tragic glitch in the otherwise flawless design of the democratic ideal: sooner or later, the People will want something that s not good for them and, by the rules of the democratic game, it will have to be given them.``

What an elitist, arrogant remark!

As intellectuals sitting in our ivory towers, of course WE know what`s good for the `People` and what`s not. Poor saps, they`re too busy indulging their salacious sexual curiosities to understand the ramifications of this scandal which you`ve so brilliantly exposed. Alas, if only they would allow enlightened souls such as as us to guide them, all would be as it should be.

(methinks you`ve been reading Plato`s Republic; you seem to echo many of his beliefs)

Warts and all, democracy is still the best form of government humankind has come up with. History is replete with the horrors of tyranny, feudalism, theocracy, communism, fascism, and other dysfunctional systems. What would you suggest as an alternative or improvement to democracy? Rule by the intelligentsia?

Excellently written, Saad.

I have to disagree with you though. I don`t think the content of what`s being so discussed about (sex in the Oval Office) will be the demise of democracy. In my opinion, the sentiments of the nation right now likely mimic the horror people felt during the Watergate era and Nixon`s resignation. No question the titillation factor is higher here, but the idea that it will lead to a media-induced meltdown of democracy doesn`t jive. Yes, American may be at a moral lowpoint, but the dissolution of the Constitution?

Tonight I watched 3 hours of television that are some of the most watched in the country and not one word about the Clinton-Lewinsky business was uttered: Monday Night Football. The only allusion to sexual content was a brief glimpse of some cheeleaders. Yes, the people are getting what they want with the Clinton affair, but not all, even a majority I think, are even paying much attention. They`d rather watch a bunch of overweight fat guys muscle it out in New Jersey.

Interesting addendum to this discussion (from a media news source):

The Clinton affair was not the focus of the loudest demonstration outside the U.N. today. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami`s scheduled appearance before the U.N. General Assembly drew thousands of marching demonstrators from the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The group arrived at the U.N. after staging a long march to call for democratic elections in Iran, and had little to say about Clinton`s current crisis.

``I don`t think anybody right now here is very much concerned about what`s going on with Mr. Clinton,`` said a demonstrator, Maryan, who declined to reveal her last name. ``What we want is democracy and a free country.``

Re: Saad Shaqat

I am not sure where or on what basis you drew your conclusions, but they are flawed. Your article seems to adocate a control of information to prevent a decline of the American democratic system. In case you missed the point, democracy seems thrive on the flow of free information. Ironically, your very idea would be responsible for killingl the American system and the not the people as you suggest. Lack of information breeds ignorance and ignorance weakens democracy.

Government control of infomation, even for the benefit of the people, is trynny. Afterall, most facists and dictators come to power on the excuse to save the people from their own fallibilities, don`t they ? Maybe, things like this may work in Pakistan, but they will not work here. The press in America, despite their lowest form of behavior, is the guardian of the principles of the First Amendment and will fight any infringement on its rights bitterly, regardless of the reason.

History, contary your suggestions, will not remember the events of 1998 as the decline and fall of the American idea, but will marvel at the strenght of the American experiment. American democracy, though representative by its system of government, is based on the goodness and intelligence of its citizens. As long as they have their faith in their government, the American democracy will thrive. Instead of denigerating the American form of government, you should have highlighted its main attraction: the smooth and peaceful transfer of power. Americans have a deep and abiding love and respect for the law and no amount of political stupidity will make them amend their views.

The Clinton saga is not undermining the American democracy, as you suggest, but rather, it is proving the very vitality of the democracy you have questioned. Though the Americans are presently undergoing a national nightmare, they are doing so within the letter of the law. No one is attempting to subhorn power in their own hands and the American army, unlike its Pakistani compatriots, is not seeking to over throw Clinton, because as its Commander in Chief, he has sullied its reputation by his actions. Whatever, the outcome, it will be done with the consent of all and will not be decided, as you seem to favor, by a fiat of the government.

It maybe, as you say about sex, but is also about the ability of a people, whom you seem to belittle, to affect a change of leaders; of power; of government peacefully and without resorting to extra-legal means.

As someone who is deeply and passionately involved in this present crisis from the other side of the fence, I can you tell you personally that to watch the process of democracy work is an enlightening experince. As a republican, who happens to work for a state republican Party, I deal with this issue every day. What is happening in this country is not a weakening of democracy, but rather a manifestation of the democratic will; the freedom and the ability of a people, to openly and without a fear of reprisals, to ask their leaders for an account of their actions. If the American people do not like, what the Republicans are doing, they will tell us in November through the ballot box and not through the shredding of the Consititution !

So, Shafqat Sahib in the words of William Shakespear, `` Let us not sit on the ground and tell the sad stories of kings and their deaths...`` (Henry V). Rather, let us see in this crisis the justification of Abraham Lincoln`s faith that ``the government of the people, by the people and for the people will not perish from this earth``.

Re: Wasiq

I have the same questions. How does one design a democratic system which truly implements the lofty ideals of democracy, instead of the system that currently exists in the US - a pseudodemocracy controlled by BIG BUSINESS interests and their lobbyists. Take the point of tobacco and health care reform. If you take polls, the vast majority of Americans do not want tobacco sold to kids, and want to have the rights to sue their HMOs but that ain`t happening, despite what the PEOPLE want.

Re: Kafir`s ``what an arrogant, elistist remark`` to the following statement by the author:

``Herein, then, lies the tragic glitch in the otherwise flawless design of the democratic ideal: sooner or later, the People will want something

that s not good for them and, by the rules of the democratic game, it will have to be given them.``

Dear Kafir,

How do you resolve the questions being asked in Bosnia, Israel, and Algeria?

In Bosnia, the PEOPLE again elected an ultranationalist bent upon harming the peace process despite the best efforts of the United States to subvert the will of the PEOPLE, even going to the extent of blocking radio transmissions by Serb controlled stations urging ethnic pride and Serb nationalism(suppression of free speech). How do we make sure that the rights of minorities are protected in situations in which the majority population wants something that`s not good for the minority?

Algerian elections of Islamic fundamentalists are another case in point. As you are well-aware, they were nullified by their army with US and Western backing, even though that`s what their PEOPLE wanted.

The situation in Israel is open for all to see. How easy has it been for Bibi and co.to rev up ultranationalist fervor and completely undo Rabin`s work.

One may think that elistism has nothing to do with the democratic process, but do you think that the Founding Fathers of the United States were not elistist (weren`t these the guys that did not think women and blacks also deserved life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?) Who are the people that wrote and now interpret the constitution? Are they not the elites of this country?

Basically, despite all we hear about democracy and its merits, someone has to set the rules in which democracy has to operate, in accordance with some type of ideals, whether they be scripture-defined, or based on humanistic values.

As an example, do you think what`s happenened in California in regards to illegal immigrants and denial of basic human rights such as health care and education, based on what the PEOPLE of California voted for, is based on humanistic ideals? Is that the right way to go, just because the PEOPLE wanted it.

After this, of course, is the next obvious question. WHO, in your opinion should set the rules by which societies should operate?

Anita

I think the issue of impeachment is nothing to do with have illicit sex but to do with committing perjury in a case related with sexual harassment in which the opposing counsel was trying to establish Clinton`s sexual encounters.

Saad, this was a thought provoking possible course of democracy in America. I enjoyed your article very much, as always. Since you have a lot of long replies to the article, I want to add only a few words of my own.

Maybe, in this process what we are witnessing is a possible flaw in the IMPLEMENTATION of democracy.

Two questions arise:

(1) Can the democratic process, in the real world, deliver the lofty goals it sets for itself?

(2) Are all of the underlying assumptions of the democratic process justified?

Not that one should reject the ideals of democracy but maybe one should reform the method through which it is implemented.

I think the problem of reduction of issues to the basest possible level arises naturally if one invests everything in the dissemination of information but not enough in the human being who has to interpret that information.

Saad I never think of you as a pessimist. Your conclusions regarding the future of democracy in America may be a bit extreme. There is, however, a kernel of truth in your assertion that this democracy is in trouble.

The trouble is that there are very few, if any, citizens left in America. No one ever hears about the `citizen` any more; they`ve all become `consumers`. Everyone speaks of, and pays attention to, the consumer.

Contrary to what the champions of American democracy have said in the other replies, the truth is that in the present system it is not one-person-one-vote, rather, it is a system of de facto one-dollar-one-vote. Of course, I am being a little cynical, but the point has considerable merit. In order to have a true democracy you need an educated and informed populace. In the present cacophony of 30-second-sound-bit overload and shrinking attention spans, sensationalism has won over serious news. TV, unfortunately, is the most powerful medium that sets the pace and tone of all main stream media. And TV today has lost the original purpose of what the role of `free press` was supposed to be in a democracy. Today TV has ONLY ONE purpose, and that is to SELL MERCHANDISE. If they cannot sell merchandise, the advertisers will not pay. Any educational or informational content is entirely incidental to the primary purpose of getting higher ratings.

Indeed, as things stand the process of elections itself is incompatible with the notion of democracy. Thomas Jefferson said that congress should be `` a portrait in miniature `` of the people of the United States. If that were true, Congress should have had 52% women, 12% blacks, etc. etc. Instead we see over 95% white men, and 43% lawyers.

If instead of having the two-yearly travesty that is known as elections, public officials were drawn from a pool of all qualified adults, at random, by a supercomputer, then you would see a much more representative Congress. (Of course, the election commission would have to weed out mental retards and criminals, etc.) Those who thus get selected would have to go perform `congress duty` for one term only, just like they go do jury duty. These people would get a100 thousand dollars a year plus benefits and would have a staff of professionals helping them do their job. There is no reason to assume that such a congress would do any worse a job than the present three ring circus.

SR

PS: You should have known better than to stay at home to watch the scandlous tapes on TV. I normally do stay at home during market hours most week days, yet I made it a point to take off and go sailing. There wasn`t a soul there (all watching TV, I guess) and I had the lake all to myself. :)

Re: SR

Just a comment on your observations about the media, television, being hostage to commercial interests.

You`re right, but if you get all your information from tv, you are indeed going be misinformed. There is alot of information available out there and it is up to you to get it. It is not the function of a democracy to spoon feed you to the information. Democracy is about choices and given the present financial heavy nature of the American political system, those with the money get the votes. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is about the ability to influence decisions and money is merely a tool of that decision making process.

You don`t need a war chest to be politically involved. The majority of the Americans involved in the political process are volunteers and through their time and commitments, they can excersie a lot of influence on the candiates.

As to the perfect nature of democracy; idealism does not exist in the real world. The American democracy is not perfect, but it has the ability to change with time and amend itself. It is far better than a lot of other systems out there and in the words of Winston Churchill, ``democracy is the worst form of government known to man, but the alternatives are not better either.``

If the American democractic system is so bad, troubled, uneven and unfair to women and minorities, then why is the rest of the world trying to get to its shores ?

The one indeliable lesson I learned from working for the US Congress was it is an arena of ideas and you have to fight like hell to get your ideas across and you have to, in order to succed, compromise your positions and learn how to swallow hard without your knee pads ! There are two kinds of operatives in the American political system: those that screw and those who get screwed. Everyone picks a side and fights. Just like an arena, you have to pick your fights and you fight for realistic goals and not philosophic idealism.

Sorry SR for this rant, but I have been in the trenches too long.

Re: Wasiq

You raise good questions:

``Can the democratic process, in the real world, deliver the lofty goals it sets for itself? ``

IMHO, democracy is not goal-oriented system of belief, but rather a methodology or a process of governance (as Parvez Mansur argued in his article ``Is Islam Undemocratic?``). Thus, different democratic societies may have different goals based on their particular worldviews or ideals. Some may be lofty, according to our individual perception, and others may not.

``Are all of the underlying assumptions of the democratic process justified? ``

Perhaps you could delineate these underlying assumptions. Some that come to my mind: 1) citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare; 2) elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents; 3) citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process; 4) others??? Are these valid assumptions?

Re: Anita

Thought-provoking comments, as usual :).

IMHO, the problems you address regarding Bosnia, Algeria, Israel, and California stem from racism, religious intolerance, and ideological clashes, not from a flaw in the democratic process itself. The democratic process can be used to whatever ends its citizens choose. If they want to kill eveyone who`s not like them, or persecute others on their different religious beliefs, then they can do so. The answer lies not in curtailing the democratic process, but in educating the citizenry in what you (as an enlightened person) believe the best course of action or way of living should be. When the enlightened, morally astute citizens of a democratic society withdraw from public discourse and action, then the vultures set in and try to usurp the process for their own selfish ends (i.e., Big Business taking over the legislature, the military-industrial complex perpetuating the proliferation of weapons and conflict, racists and xenophobes lashing out against immigrants, etc.) Of course, education is a very long and arduous process, but it`s the only sustainable one, since it preserves individual rights and the process itself. Media regulation, censorship, and the like would eventually lead to tyranny.

As for the intellectual elites, of course they have an obligation to direct the course of a democracy, but they should do so by enlightening the People, not through mandate. The People ultimately have to decide their own fate. And the elites should abide by the People`s decision, whether they agree with it or not. It`s a test of their humility and dedication to the democratic process.

I appreciate all the comments.

Farrukh & Afrasiyab:

Thank you for sharing Iqbal’s wisdom with us.

Rehan:

Thanks for your input. You’re right about the poll numbers, but not the TV ratings. Americans continue to complain about all the coverage yet still keep tuning in (for example, look up the article ‘Monicanomics 101’ by John Cassidy in the Sept. 21 New Yorker). I also disagree with your faith in the American democracy and would argue that you are taking things too much at face value (see, for example, SR’s comments in this thread - he’s said it better than I).

Kafir:

I was careful not to say that democracy wasn’t the best ‘system’. I confess I don’t have a better alternative. Still doesn’t mean it’s flawless, though.

BTW, it seems ironic that a lover of democracy like you would recoil from elitism. Everybody with an IQ over 70 either wants to be an elite or thinks of themselves as an elite of some sort or another. At last count, that’s close to six billion people. Why, elitism’s the most democratic thing in the world, J, J.

Saeed:

Thank you. I respect your opinion. However, whatever now happens, I feel certain that the nature of politics in America has been damaged in a major way. You need people with stature to ensure an optimal democracy, but the political divide over the Clinton scandal has become so bitter, all the major players are starting to look like streetfighters. If Clinton remains in office, the bitterness will only escalate. If he is removed from office, it will trivialize the institution of the presidency. If you ignore the per capita income and the material wealth in this country, this is starting to look like a Third World democracy.

Feroz:

Thank you for your response. I wish you all success in your political efforts, but cannot share your enthusiasm for it. I would argue that your vision of the American democracy but scratches the surface. As SR has brilliantly said in his insightful remarks, nobody’s a citizen anymore, they’re all consumers. Sure freedom of speech is protected in this country, but look what that has led to: the Starr report in all its vulgar glory on all channels, all the time. Point is, people love trash. If you offer it, they’ll take it. They’ll prefer more trash over less trash. It’s what humans do. Because it is now possible to feed the people trash all the time, in effect the US Constitution has ensured the trashing of political dialogue in America for the remainder of its natural life. It’s free speech, I agree, but it’s also worthless.

Amin Saleh:

Thanks for your comment, but please yaar. You don’t really think the Republicans want to impeach Clinton because he committed perjury in a deposition ? They just want his blood for what he stands for and espouses. They couldn’t care less about the perjury, that’s just an excuse to snare him. They’re going, ‘Since Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate drew blanks, let’s try this.’ It’s all a petty, partisan, political vendetta. There’s nothing legal or high-minded about it. It’s at the level of a street brawl.

Wasiq:

Thank you for weighing in. The appreciation is completely mutual, I assure you! I feel that the question of implementation, while germane to the argument, remains an imponderable. This excuse has been the refuge of all ‘systems’ has it not ? There may be no way to know.

I couldn’t agree more with what you say about investing in human beings but, I fear, the nature of the Gaussian distribution ensures that mediocrity will always be in the majority. To paraphrase SR yet again, democracy works in an informed populace, with people of stature and wisdom elected to high office. It worked well in America for a while, I think because not everyone could influence the political process. Now that there is an information short-circuit and everyone has been elevated to being a ‘consumer’ and everyone counts, mediocrity rules. It isn’t pretty.

Anita:

Excellent points. The question of preserving minority rights in democracies is all too-important and proves that majority view isn’t the correct one simply because the most people believe in it. Thought experiment: if put to a vote, the majority of Pakistanis may feel that Ahmadis should be regarded as non-muslims - doesn’t make it right, does it ?

SR:

Sohail, brilliantly said! I agree with everything and couldn’t have said it better myself. We live in the second Jewish homeland, Boston’s suburb of Brookline, and our daughter’s school was closed for Roshashanah (L’Shona Tovah!). It was my turn to stay home and watch her. I did tune in to the Clinton video but had to switch to Little House on the Prairie after 10 minutes.

saad shafqat

The Clinton sex scandal is contributing towards the erosion of the superstitious awe and the mystique surrounding the U.S. presidency. This is good for the prospect that democracy in the U.S.

will broaden, and more power will seep to local grassroots representative organisations, and away from oppressive and corrupt institutions like the

the Congress and the presidency.

tariq ahsan

Re: Saad

You`re right. I did not want to bring up the issue of implementation as an excuse though, just wanted to suggest that perhaps one could overhaul the implementation of democracy as it is to ensure a better resonance with its ideals. Anita has pointed out some good examples in her reply.

Also, you mentioned the infamous Gaussian ... as we all know, the Big-G is described by two parameters, the mean and the standard deviation. By uniformly educating the public, one may not only raise the mean, but also lower the standard deviation. Surely, we will always have outliers, but at least they would not be so far apart from the average.

This ``bunching`` must occur in the natural world because of competition and selection. With the appropriate selection criteria in a society, I see no reason why this should not happen also to the people....

Re: Kafir

I am sorry for not being clear in my reply.

What I meant by the first question was that democracy aims to establish a government that is in close accordance to the wishes of the people. I identified that to be the goal of democracy, i.e. to set up a people`s government. Now what I was asking was whether it can deliver on that goal in a real world?

The second question, is really contained in the first, but I was being too wordy... I think you have identified the principal goals, let me elaborate on them... I am just raising questions and not necessarily giving any answers.

1) ``citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare;``

I think the key words here are ``ability`` and ``welfare``. No person can be an ``expert`` in all fields, and therefore cannot make an informed decision/choice on the pros and cons of every particular policy. Also, what does one mean by the term ``citizens``? Are they perfect beings or are they real fallible human beings, who are driven by a medley of base as well as sublime motivations? For example, how can one expect a society of robbers to elect anyone but a robber? Is it correct to say that a democratic society is necessarily the most just etc. or even the most survivable society?

2) ``elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents;``

In a realistic world how does one prevent the influence of one lobby or another? Elected leaders are humans, just like the people who are electing them, and therefore are susceptible to influence. Moreover, no person running for election can do so without support, material and moral. How does one dissociate the effects of that support on the views of the leader?

3) ``citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process;``

This ties in with the first two (all of them are interconnected I think). On what basis do the people decide whether the representatives are no longer serving their purpose? A bizzare exception could be: Is it better to have the current chaos in Pakistan or to have a stable government of a ``benevolent dictator`` who has the ability to lead Pakistan out of its morass? By this example, I am not condoning any undemocratic method, but just illustrating the complexity of issues involved.