Why Democracy?

No idea about the article....but regarding the IIM vs LUMS debate , lets put it this way. During job placement via campus selection held this year at IIM-Bangalore , the highest job offer made to a student was by a major MNC investment bank - US$193,000. If anything even remotely close was ever made at LUMS , do let me know.

Yehee Hota hai Jyada Purrney Se.

Kitabee Keera!!

#39 by Romair on October 19, 2005 10:00am PT


Pakistan faces a huge dilemma, because it does not have the pre-requisites of democracy. Specifically due to feudalism.


The Pakistani army, according to Dr Ayesha Siddiqi-Agha, is the bigest feudal...I mean we can understand their inability, as demonstrated by their repeated failures, in getting back Kashmir from the horrible hindus...

but what`s their excuse for not getting rid of feudalism in Pakiland itself...They got rid of Nawaz didn`t they? what`s stopping them from getting rid of the feudals?

Could it be, perhaps, that they have a vested interest in the feudal structures...being that they`re the the most powerful landowners in Pakiland....

Democracy won`t work in Pakistan because the military will not allow it. There are too many hot button issues like Punjabi dominance, role of Islam, Kashmir etc in addition to your usual culprits like poverty, illiteracy etc.

To folks like Romair all East Asian countries have relatively small homogeneous populations - Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea. They are geographically compact. Malaysia is multi-racial but has abundant natural resources. They enjoy close relations in a positive manner with USA, Japan and other industrial powers.

Even Singapore that has succeeded beyond wildest dreams of Lee Kuan Yew is facing unprecendented economic challenge from India and China.

Democracy with checks and balances is the best form of governance.

Re: # 38
Mirmir Sahib..what are you talking about?? Have you found a street map of your nearest Patrol Pump (gas station) in your car’s user manual? Assuming that you drive.
Ah, Kulharee, if ignorance is bliss you must be indeed a happy man.
mirmir

Ghazia,
Welcome to the Club.
Politics and development models have been repeatedly debated. As democracy is all about pluralism and inclusivity, does it really always happen? As an ends means relationship, democracy must deliver to the people a better and ever improving development environment. In political economy, this is the moot point on which many differ. Theories provide a normative sense, but once they interact with ground realities and expediencies, things change.

Please dont misunderstand, I am not showing a bias towards an authoritarian development model.

Cheerios

Re: # 39

Romair yaar, this is a “theoretical” discussion. OK?

And Singapore model can never be applied to Pakistan. Singapore has the best record on race relations while Pakistani Sunnis like to kill Christians, Ahmadis and Shias. Mahatir is a certified bigot a-hole anti-Semite and you want Mushy to be like him? You have very low standards for Pakistani leaders, and it is sad.

Anil #28: ``Personally, I think for Pakistan, the military dictatorship is the best way to start. It is an institution, it is a class of fortunate few. It has the discipline to provide stability, and has demonstrated to have provided a spell of stability during last 57 years.``

I think your argument carries merit, other than the above part..........There is a saying, ``Best govt., good Czar; worst govt. bad Czar....More bad czars, than good czars.`` All Pakistani leaders have been Czars; whether elected or unelected.

The most efficient form of govt. is a centralized authority, being run by a good czar. I would put Jinnah into that category. He centralized power, both in his party and in Pakistan, and did a good job. I would put Lee Kuan Yu in the same category. Singapore has been run by him and his son, for nearly its whole existense. And his party still occupies 95% of the seats in Singapore`s govt.!!

In Pakistan`s context, within the economic sphere, I would place Ayub Khan and Musharraf`s rule in this category. Both their govts. carried out economic mini-miracles. According to economist Omar Noman, Pakistan would be where Malaysia is today, had Ayub`s economic policies been allowed to continue. And Pakistan, now, has some of the highest growth rates in Asia, under Shaukut Aziz and Musharraf.

Zia did OK on the economic side (consistent 6% economic growth). But was a terrible czar on the social side. Zulfiqar Bhutto did OK on the social side. But was a terrible czar on the economic side. Nawaz and Benazir were terrible on both sides.

Pakistan faces a huge dilemma, because it does not have the pre-requisites of democracy. Specifically due to feudalism. All it can, thus, do is to hold elections. Every civilian leader, produced by these elections, also has been a dictator. Just look at the way Nawaz Sharif stormed the judiciary. Bhutto actually became a civilian Martial Law Administrator !! In fact, I have never lived under real democracy, anytime, in my life, in Pakistan. Benazir is the lifetime President of her own party. Even though she has been convicted in Switzerland. Nawaz Sharif`s party is named after him!!

In fact, internally, the only truly democratic parties are some of the religious parties like Jamaat-i-Islami. But they have other problems, as they have no room for anyone who does not think like them........

Pakistan will, thus, always produce dictators, be they military or civilian. However, the military, in any country - be it Pakistan or otherwise - can never be the long term solution for governance. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While the Pakistani military is very dedicated and honest at the ranks of Col and below (as you have seen in this recent tragedy), it has been corrupted at the higher ranks, through legalized corruption. It is the largest civilian business entity in Pakistan, at the moment..........

I agree with your argument, for stablity in Pakistan, for a certain amount, even if through authoratarian rule. This is, infact, the only thing that has worked in Asia. India, despite having democratic change of govts. is still in the third world. While China, Korea, Malaysia, etc. have moved out.

However, the centralized control should come through a civilian govt. (dictator; use any word). Pakistan needs a Lee Kuan Yu. Or a Jinnah, for that matter. Someone who is somewhat of a civilian dictator. Or a Muhathir. Someone who does not head an institution like the military. And someone who does not represent feudal or religious interests etc. Someone whose base in support from the common man, because the common man sees him/her as his best hope for economic progress.........

I think Musharraf has a golden opportunity to take the country along this direction, as a Lee Kuan Yu type figure. Everyone is waiting for him to show leadership, after this crisis. Everyone is united. The only fault line that may develop is between irrationally religious and secular forces. But the remaining part of the country, along all other lines - ethnic, social, economic - will remain united.........

Musharraf should take some major decisions now. He needs to completely re-adjust budget allocation. He should move all budget development to the social side. Cancel all future military purchases. Cut down the top echelon of the military, beaurecracy and even ministers etc. (if possible). Take about 50% of the manpower of the Army and shift it to civilian engineering roles or civil defence. Forget about anything related to foreign policy and concentrate on domestic policy for ten years..........Start taking swift action against traditionally corrupt institutions. Get rid of feudal land holdings etc........

Everyone will follow him, after this tragedy. Even the ones who don`t like him, acknowledge that he is honest. Then, at some point, he will have to become a civilian. He has to legitimize himself. Once he has take the above tough decisions, he should retire from the Army, and put his faith in the people, who are behind him at the moment.............

Who knows maybe he can be Pakistan`s Lee Kuan Yu. He certainly has delivered on the economic side. If not him, then someone else will have to. And it should be someone who has not already been tried, and proven corrupt. It would have to be someone new..........

Otherwise, Pakistan will remain in a circle of civilian and military dictators........

The scope of democracy (theoretically speaking) is vast: It is practically impossible to conclude anything one way or another. There is a huge huge debate between classical sources and contemporary democracy theorists. In terms of applied economics or its influence on governance, the first thing one learns in any undergrad economics course at any decent school outside of Pakistan is that the basis of theorem is a lot more intriguing than its practical implications. Most students of democracy theory could care less what goes on in the world…(if they did, they had too much time on their hands). The current democracy theory (economic democracy, deliberative democracy, and civil society) represent implicit and explicit critique of the revisionist paradigm and its shortcomings – goes without saying that each has faced extensive criticism, and although normative democratic theory has been around since the 60s, most empirically-oriented social scientists remain devoted to a revisionist paradigm.

Mirmir Sahib..what are you talking about?? Have you found a street map of your nearest Patrol Pump (gas station) in your car’s user manual? Assuming that you drive.

Re: # 23
Again, clear definitions (and the origin of words) help clarify discussions - constitute, constitution. As I pointed out earlier on Chowk (pedant that I am), the British constitution can`t properly be called an ``unwritten`` constitution. It is more correctly called an ``uncodified`` constitution, parts of it being written. The constitution of the U.S.A., and most constitutions after that one, is a ``codified`` constitution - a wholly written document (at least in theory). This, though, isn`t (in my opinion) the most importance difference. Most importantly, the British constitution IS the government and it can be changed almost at whim by Parliament while the constitution of the U.S.A. is superior to the government and can only be changed by the supreme authority, that is the people. mirmir

Before a reasoned debate about “democracy” can get off the ground, there must be agreement on the definition of terms. Have any of you checked the Constitution of the U.S.A. including the first 10 amendments (or the Bill of Rights)? Do you find the word “democracy” there, anywhere? It entered the political discourse of the U.S.A. very late. Republic or Republican were the common terms used by, and the objective of, the Founders. The two words tended to become linked as in “Democratic Republic.” Neither “Democracy” nor “Republic” have the same meaning today as they did originally and it is very, very hard to obtain a consensus on the meaning of either today. Labels really don’t help much. The two most frequent distinctions within democracy are “pure” democracy and “representative” democracy. “Pure” democracy (feared by the Founders) certainly does not exist in the U.S.A. and many, myself included, don’t think that representative democracy exists either. The U.S.A. is, in the opinion of many people, more properly called an oligarchy or a plutocracy. This is not, of course, what the founders intended - not even Hamilton - but some (like Patrick Henry who refused to attend the constitutional convention) anticipated it.

Here’s what John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. had to say:

“…there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is ``an empire of laws, and not of men.`` That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics.

Of republics there is an inexhaustible variety, because the possible combinations of the powers of society are capable of innumerable variations.”

And another of the Founders referred to the newly christened Constitution this way:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults… because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administered; and I believe further that this is likely to be well-administered for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need a Despotic Government, being incapable of any other”.

mirmir

... looks like A Level Econ has opened up some old wounds...

What else is striking is that our kid gorilla maintains the long and healthy tradition of self flagellation and self-hate so utterly essential to being recognised by the Injuns as a true Pakistani pinko-liberal...

re #27 mantolives... shaking head at ``A level econ``.. nevermind. There are ignoramuses and ignoramuses.

re# 28, I do not think it fair to compare LUMS to IIM. IIM has extremely rigorous entrance exams and is completely merit-based, you cannot bribe your way in, or so I have seen from family members who have sat for IIM exams and some (less well-off ones) gotten in, some (richer ones) not. Whereas a number of my weathly but completely addle-brained or below average schoolfriends went to LUMS. Even after they graduated I felt that many IIM grads of my acquaintance were better at quantitative skills, debates, discussions, and had a better general knowledge overall. Not to belittle LUMS grads, but I think that in LUMS if you have money you can get in. Correct me if I am wrong.

Re: # 13
HP, Conformist people can continue to be so even in a democracy. This is the case in some parts in India. Democracy has the ability, or at least the potential, to evolve according to the social and polical mores of its citizens.
ghazia #14,
``In order to understand you have to simplify and economics has been able to do it best in social sciences. The burden of understanding the implications of these assumptions falls on whoever tries to implement the theory to reality not the theorist. ``
Your point about simplification is taken. Indeed economics has been able to explain and predict some social phenomena. Anyhow, every paper should list its assumptions and shortcomings; because the aim is or should be to understand the nature of reality. More so because the events on which economics is based are perceptually real .It is not a purely conceptual science such as pure mathematics. This is also necessary to have some sort of validation for the theory, otherwise how can we differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory?
Anyhow, probably we are going off topic here.
ghazia #17 Talking about theories, sometimes in this article we are tending to compare a certain theory with an application of democracy.Theories should be compared with the theory of democracy. Otherwise the comparison doesnt serve any useful purpose.
I am however, intrigued by your theoretical arguments against democracy and if you can write in more detail about them some other time,I will look forward to it.

Democracy as a form of government always has the following characteristics:

there is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.

there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.

there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a parliament).
the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state (government and courts), which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.
the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.
in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.

Democracy as a form of government always has the following characteristics:

there is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.

there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.

there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a parliament).
the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state (government and courts), which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.
the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.
in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.