The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

Democracy works in homogeneous scoieties with fairly and many learned citizens. i.e. ancient Athens.

Where corruption is rampant, and feudalism, alliances, and tribals, religious rife, it is a slow poison.

To its credit, it has worked wonders in India, where large number of minorities form a good portion of the population. Its drawbacks are obvious too.

Democracy - its such a wonderful dream but somehow things goes wrong everytime when there any hope in Pakistan. My father tells me when Bhutto became the PM the civilians somehow felt confident so confident that they even abused Military Men publicly - same feeling was when Mohtarma Bibi won the elections in 88 - but somehow we didn`t handled it good but I see hope in years to come and beyond that one day we ( civilians ) will be first-class citizens of Pakistan ( Insh`Allah ) . My father tells me that a Brig. used t make list of every phone call and everyone PM meets when Bibi and Baba were Prime Ministers and that how to this vary day MI and ISI does all the credit from I.B and how a Major tells a ADG or DG I.B what to do !!!!
is there any hope ? whats liberalism ? whats happening ? I still see hope

I tend to agree with Zakaria. As do opinion polls in most poor countries. As do demographic migration patterns. The ideal thing to have is a liberal democracy (liberal does not refer to clothes, sex, secularism etc., necessarily). Liberalism refers to justice, economic opportunties, freedom of thought, action, security etc.

However, given a choice between an illiberal democracy and a liberal dictatorship, people (specifically poorer people) chose the later, again and again. Economic progress and security are the biggest priorities for most people. Which is why so many of us Pakistanis are sitting out in the West. We gave up our democratic rights to vote in favor of making more money and a better lifestyle......on H-1B non-voting visas and green cards.. This is also why people leave India to migrate to Dubai.

Re: # 3,
Just a quick comment on the Indians going to Dubai thing. While Indians do go to Dubai to make money, they don`t settle there, they invariably return back home.

Romair #3

`` I tend to agree with Zakaria. As do opinion polls in most poor countries. As do demographic migration patterns. The ideal thing to have is a liberal democracy (liberal does not refer to clothes, sex, secularism etc., necessarily). Liberalism refers to justice, economic opportunties, freedom of thought, action, security etc.

However, given a choice between an illiberal democracy and a liberal dictatorship, people (specifically poorer people) chose the later, again and again. Economic progress and security are the biggest priorities for most people. Which is why so many of us Pakistanis are sitting out in the West. We gave up our democratic rights to vote in favor of making more money and a better lifestyle......on H-1B non-voting visas and green cards.. This is also why people leave India to migrate to Dubai.``

All successful ``liberal`` dictatorships have been in highly homogeneous, sometime small societies that enjoyed support from USA and Japan. Pakistan is neither small nor homogeneous.

``In my opinion Zakaria’s article provides a perfect insight on the flaws of the current democracies in the world.``(author)

miaN sahib -- first have democracy in Pakistan -- then talk about the `flaws` of democracy -- talking about flaws of democracy in a dictatorship is like Sheikh Chilli kicking the basket of eggs in his dreams..

...rught now ......democracy for Pakistan is still Mush-Chillis sahib`s nighmare.....

and Romair miaN -- beware -- when you try to take out ``sex and secularism`` from liberalism -- beside being no fun -- it will not be liberalism -- it will become religious fundamentalism of the extremist kind........

For democracy to establish itself and flourish there has to be one key ingredient - i.e the elite (beit fuedal or otherwise) has to see an incentive in the form of self-preservation at inception. The author quoting zakaria put his finger on it when he said

``the idea of liberalism comes from the times in England when the rights were limited to a certain privileged people. Like Zakaria says, “To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals and the separation of church and state”(zakaria 26). ``

Currently in many countries this is not the case. The elites had no incentive to be democratic. They are at the half way house - that is illiberally democratic. The reason for this is it is bad PR to be otherwise.

Once the elite sees that there is an incentive to be liberal and democratic the rest will follow.

In an otherwise good article, I found the following jarring, it spoilt the flow :
``Being related to an uncle who is a senator in Pakistan, can attest to the fact that a constitution is necessary for a country to function democratically.`` -

``liberal`` dictatorships - but these are only liberal in a limited sense. try doing something the things youdo in US in say Singapore and then measure the time before you hit the cell floor.

Romair: Also you are being trained in the art of democracy in the US when you are on those non-voting visas. It is a state of mind - democracy. We might know the definitions and parrot them. But when it comes to the crunch we dont put it into practice. That is why being on a non-voting visa initially makes sense (unless ofcourse you are a commonwealth citizen in the U.K then you have the right starightaway).

Romair dont you find that you are contradicting yourself - when first you say
``(liberal does not refer to clothes, sex, secularism etc., necessarily).`` and in the very next sentence you say ``Liberalism refers to justice, economic opportunties, freedom of thought, action, security etc.``

always the example of the chicken and egg - no progress is ever made in the argument put forward by the elite. When the ruling class dont to hand over power to the great unwashed masses, they say that the institutions are not there for this hand over. Theunwashed masses will not know what to do with the power. Actually the ruling class is scared that once the masses take poer, they the ruling class will be reduced to dust. Thus you get statements like

``I agree that a lot of the societies like Pakistan are holding free and fair elections without having the necessary structure to provide the rights of many citizens. The acceptance of this trend world wide is unhealthy.``

Let the institutions evolve. You cannot put them in place. they have to be part and parcel of the peoples character. Institutions are abstract entities. Pakistan has the physical institutions but the ruling class is not ready to hand power over. That is the problem.

One significant measure of a successful democracy is the turn-out of enthusiastic voters on election day. Voters come out to vote if they believe that their vote matters. By that measure alone, Iran and India - with their very high voter turn out, seem to be much more of a thriving democracy than US.

In fact, going by author`s logic, India is the epitome of democracy with its cheap and affordable sex labor. My cursory research shows that the rate of an average street hooker in the streets of DC is at least 109 times higher than that of an average hooker in the streets of Delhi. In addition, various forms of sex, such as child sex, while freely available in the slums of India, are to a large extent a taboo in US.

In conclusion, I believe that sex drive - as important as it is, is still second to the hunger drive. You can live without sex, but you cannot have sex without food. In fact, I would argue that you can have better sex if you are well fed.

As long as a system of government provides food to the population, its a good system. Iraqis under Saddam Hussein were not dying of hunger. They were well fed, had the best healthcare system in middle east. In fact, as Romair has often so articulately pointed out, people from democracies such as India would have done anything to migrate to Iraq, rather than vice versa. Also, I came to US not so that I can caste my vote or to get my fill on sex. I came because of economic reasons.

You might be wondering why I have boldened the word sex in my post. Well, for two reasons: I want to sound liberated (as per author`s logic) and because of the simple reason that sex sells.

re: nasah #6

Couldn`t say it better. Positive attitudes toward sexuality and secularism are absolute prerequisites to democracy and liberalism.

elections are a necessary first step on the road to ``liberal`` democracy .......


...............fareed zakaria is a little sceptical about iraq but he is still okay - in my opinion he underestimates the significance of elections which is the first step on the road to democracy.........of course we all recognize the danger of voting in people who believe in ``one man, one vote, one time`` and must safeguard against it - that is the role of mature democracies and the united nations ............the whole world has a stake in making sure fascists, neo-nazis, ex-communists and islamic fundamentalists do not get into power under the guise of democracy .........

but generally speaking fareed has many valid points .......... how can he be wrong - after all he is an epicure and the the best connoisseur of fine wines the islamic world has produced since omar ............ i read his book and even though he is overly cautious i must say he does have some valid points...............


............ i hate to cut and paste, but i thought this from the Feb 7 issue of newsweek might be of interest :


By the time you read this, you will know how the elections in Iraq have gone. No matter what the violence, the elections are an important step forward, for Iraq and for the Middle East. But it is also true, alas, that no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim. Unless there is a major change in course, Iraq is on track to become another corrupt, oil-rich quasi-democracy, like Russia and Nigeria.

In April 2003, around the time Baghdad fell, I published a book that described the path to liberal democracy. In it, I pointed out that there had been elections in several countries around the world—most prominently Russia—that put governments in place that then abused their authority and undermined basic human rights. I called such regimes illiberal democracies. In NEWSWEEK that month, I outlined the three conditions Iraq had to fulfill to avoid this fate. It is currently doing badly at all three.

First, you need to avoid major ethnic or religious strife. In almost any ``divided`` society, elections can exacerbate group tensions unless there is a strong effort to make a deal between the groups, getting all to buy into the new order. ``The one precondition for democracy to work is a consensus among major ethnic, regional, or religious groups,`` says Larry Diamond, one of the leading experts on democratization. This has not happened. Instead the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds are increasingly wary of one another and are thinking along purely sectarian lines. This ``groupism`` also overemphasizes the religious voices in these communities, and gives rise to a less secular, less liberal kind of politics.

Second, create a non-oil-based economy and government. When a government has easy access to money, it doesn`t need to create a real economy. In fact, it doesn`t need its citizens because it doesn`t tax them. The result is a royal court, distant and detached from its society.

Iraq`s oil revenues were supposed to be managed well, going into a specially earmarked development fund rather than used to finance general government activities. The Coalition Provisional Authority steered this process reasonably well, though its auditors gave it a less-than-glowing review. Since the transfer of power to the Iraqi provisional government, Iraq`s oil revenues have been managed in an opaque manner, with scarce information. ``There is little doubt that Iraq is now using its oil wealth for general revenues,`` says Isam al Khafaji, who worked for the CPA briefly and now runs Iraq Revenue Watch for the Open Society Institute. ``Plus, the Iraqi government now has two sources of easy money. If the oil revenues aren`t enough, there`s Uncle Sam. The United States is spending its money extremely unwisely in Iraq.``

This is a complaint one hears over and over again. America is spending billions of dollars in Iraq and getting very little for it in terms of improvements on the ground, let alone the good will of the people. ``Most of the money is being spent for reasons of political patronage, not creating the basis for a real economy,`` says al Khafaji. Most of it is spent on Americans, no matter what the cost. The rest goes to favored Iraqis. ``We have studied this and I can say with certainty that not a single Iraqi contractor has received his contract through a bidding process that was open and transparent.``

The rule of law is the final, crucial condition. Without it, little else can work. Paul Bremer did an extremely good job building institutional safeguards for the new Iraq, creating a public-integrity commission, an election commission, a human-rights commission, inspectors general in each bureaucratic government department. Some of these have survived, but most have been shelved, corrupted, or marginalized. The courts are in better shape but could well follow the same sad fate of these other building blocks of liberal democracy. Iraq`s police are routinely accused of torture and abuse of authority.

Much of the reason for this decline is, of course, the security situation. The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq and is simply trying to fight the insurgency and gain some stability and legitimacy. In doing so, if that exacerbates group tensions, corruption, cronyism, and creates an overly centralized regime, so be it. Lawrence Kaplan, a neoconservative writer passionately in favor of the war, who coauthored ``The War Over Iraq: Saddam`s Tyranny and America`s Mission`` with William Kristol, has just returned from Iraq and written a deeply gloomy essay in the current The New Republic. His conclusion: ``The war for a liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq.``

Iraq will still be a country that is substantially better off than it was under Saddam Hussein. There is real pluralism and openness in the society‹more so than in most of the Middle East. Russia and Nigeria aren`t terrible regimes. But it was not what many of us had hoped for. Perhaps some of these negative trends can be reversed. Perhaps the Shia majority will use their power wisely. But Iraqi democracy is now at the mercy of that majority, who we must hope will listen to their better angels. That is not a sign of success. ``If men were angels,`` James Madison once wrote, ``no government would be necessary.``

hamidm,

``.the whole world has a stake in making sure fascists, neo-nazis, ex-communists and islamic fundamentalists do not get into power under the guise of democracy ......... ``

Yet bush got elected.

Economics. It is ALL about the economics. Kenya and Congo can become liberal democracies...ain`t no one going to line up at their borders. NO one.

Meanwhile, as Romair already pointed out, people from India were flocking to the Mid East back in the day. I wonder why. Similarily, you have Turks and Algerians rushing to nations that treat them like dirt.

No matter what the ideology, if you can look after the two basic human concerns security and income...you have a winner. China is doing just well, thanks...don`t see no one advocating that as yet another `model` to follow...

Now, on the other hand (and this is most important) a liberal democracy does NOT gaurantee economic success. Let`s put the silver bullet back in the gun, and start working on the economy...

more than 100,000 Iraqis killed-- more than a quarter million Iraqis injured maimed and totured -- and still counting -- a city of 340,000 Iraqis razed to the ground -- more than 1400 American boys and girls dead -- 17000 American kids injured maimed, damaged physically and mentally for life -- with a price a tag of 200 billion dollars of my tax money -- with a pending request of 100 billion dollars more this year alone...

...ONLY to HOLD an ELECTION -- AN ELECTION to -- just to present on a platter -- a religious Shiite Iraq -- to Ayatollah Al Sistani.......and to his ``Guidance Council` ....Bravo....Murhabaa

MY GOD!!!!-- what a devilish sense of proportion!!!

....only an utterly stupid Mongoloid Moron from thyroid deficient Texas and his equally moronic elitist supporters will gloat over SUCH a blood soaked expensivest -- Kafkaesque Election -- in the entire history of the Universe....

all those hijabi Iraqi ladies showing their blue tipped fingers -- turns out that most of them were giving fingers to George Bush...!!

nasah,

...... i am willing to give up my tax break and pay an additional 5% in taxes to bring freedom to the people of iraq ....... and iran, syria and saudi arabia .......it is a very small price to pay to preserve our own freedom.............

......... i think sistani has learned a lesson from the ayatollas of iran and we will see a much more moderate government in iraq - maybe on the lines of turkey ......... as long as you can get a drink in baghdad and women are not forced to wear a chaddor, it doesn`t matter ........ bush is not carter - he will make sure the mullahs in karbala and najaf don`t get out of hand .......... have faith

re:#10 by malik99
(As long as a system of government provides food to the population, its a good system. Iraqis under Saddam Hussein were not dying of hunger. They were well fed, had the best healthcare system in middle east. In fact, as Romair has often so articulately pointed out, people from democracies such as India would have done anything to migrate to Iraq, rather than vice versa.)
The simple truth is that people will migrate to areas where they are rewarded according to their skills. For much of the last 50 years, India followed the Soviet model and stagnated. So, many Indians went even to countries ruled by despotic regimes just because these offered jobs with good salaries. Eg many doctors migrated to Saudi Arabia as they got payed better there. This does reflect the sad plight of many doctors in India but does not imply Saudi Arabia is a better society. If you ask the Indian migrant workers there, most will tell u that they are there temporarily and want to return some day.
Not so with many immigrants to countries like the USA. Most immigrants here would like to settle down if given the opportunity.
Iraq under Saddam Husain, was a secular nation and many Indians worked there. Iraq ruler was still despotic and there was nothing in Iraq that would have commended a large scale migration there. We have all heard stories about good health care etc etc before. Soviet Union was the first country in the world to have a ``free health care for all`` implemented for every citizen. It provided free housing and food to every citizen there. Why did the system fail? Not just due to cold war because Soviet Union rivalled USA in military hardware.
Human beings above all want freedom. Freedom to think, make choices, freedom of artistic expression etc etc. Therein, human beings differ from animals. Where such freedom is not available, the system will fail. There is an inner contradiction in a system where (as my fellow Russian resident during my residency days said once) a waiter in a restaurant got paid more than a heart surgeon. This was what was happening in Soviet Union where labor was valued more than creativity. So, that system collapsed on itself.

Pak is another example. Here, a benign dictator wants to do good for Pak but does not realize that the only good thing he can do is to give up his post and let democrazy bloom. Now, the inner contradictions are slowly coming to the fore. There is a lot of disenchantment among Baluchs agains the Army. Nobody consulted them about the Gwadar port. In a democracy, such things would have been freely debated. Ditto for Jihad in Kashmir. It was popular among the rabid mullah elements but these were a miniroty. In a liberal democrazy again the pros and cons of a jihad in Kahmir would have been debated before such things became official policy. Pak ruler is now between the rock and a hard place. He can`t put a complete stop to jehad, otherwise he will displace many powerful mullahs and Army commanders. He can`t have jehad openly either, as this would displease Uncle Sam. See the contradictions?
Sridhar