“Without governance and development in democracy, National Security will face more daunting problems and herculean challenges.”
Dr. Ahmed Adam Okene. Talk at College of Arts and Sciences, Malaysia 1 Oct 2011
Abstract
National security is the vital part of the policy to ensure existence of Pakistan. This is primarily because the threat that Pakistan has historically experienced from its neighbours India and Afghanistan, as well as the recent threat of a different nature originating from the anti-state elements, have not been seriously addressed. National security consists of two major parts i.e. security from external threats and internal security of a country. The latter comprises the safety and well-being of all citizens, their lives and properties. Both these parts of our national security have been under threat for quite a while. Of late, both the threats have begun to overlap and interact with each other. Based on the Chankiyan adage “An enemy of an enemy is a friend”, our strained relationship with Afghanistan has led anti-Pakistan forces to continue with them to endanger our internal security. Obviously. the state has failed to recognize the importance of national security, and has, therefore, lagged behind in developing the national security concept. In this article, I will endeavour to trace reasons for this failure and try to show how we can practically construct the national security paradigm within a democratic political system.
Keywords: Pakistan, national security, policy, state, democracy.
Introduction
It is a joint task of the military and civilian government and its institutions to preserve and enhance the national security of the country under a common strategy.1 The strategy must be developed together by all institutions of the state (military being the major partner), based on a common understanding about what constitutes the national interest of Pakistan. What are its parameters and limits? And how the larger national interests can be separated from narrow political, economic and military interests?2 The major component of national security – a consistent national security strategy and a common understanding about what is Pakistan’s national interest – is currently lacking. These two elements needs to be developed through debate and discussions within the major institutions of the state. It goes without saying that the nation must be kept totally involved in the process by the primary stakeholders.
Political Dimensions
The overriding concern of a common citizen is security, both internal and external.3 While national security in its military dimension is being taken care of by the Pakistan Armed Forces, the civilian or political part is more comprehensive and more important in a modern state. The security of Pakistan’s borders is not only secured militarily but is also influenced, stabilized or destabilized, in no minor way, by the foreign policy of the government. The internal security of Pakistan depends first and foremost on good governance especially in security-related institutions like police, intelligence, and disaster management. In a wider understanding, it depends also on a working economy, effective law and order, maintenance and dispensation of justice to the citizens, fair and proper education, comprehensive and adequate healthcare, and many other factors. For too long the people, who are the basic ingredient of democracy, have not been involved in the process of governance. This has led to the military intervention into domestic affairs – if and when the unity of the state was challenged, as is currently the case with the military operations in the tribal areas. However, this failure is a sure sign of malfunctioning of the civilian government institutions over a protracted time. That means a functional political system is a prime precondition of national security. Any malfunction of a political system has repercussions on the internal security of the country that brings the military into action. Failure may occur because of various reasons; the prime among these is a penchant for nepotism and corruption by the ruling elite. An essential part of the national security is to ensure accountability across the board so that the requisite control can be exercised over nepotism.
Spiritual Dimensions
Apart from these material and functional aspects of national security factors, there is a spiritual dimension to it i.e. the feeling of national unity amongst a country’s population. A national state, like Pakistan, founded on ideology rather than historical and cultural cohesion, has its fundamental basis on the premise that all the inhabitants of the country identify with their national state and accept all citizens as equal parts of that nation. If this is not the case, those excluded or treated unequally would find it difficult to identify themselves whole-heartedly with the nation and the country. This would create political and, consequently, security-related problems. In a country like Pakistan, where the population not only identifies itself on the basis of ethnicity, culture and religion but also with regard to their clans’ loyalties and place in the socio economic order, there are multiple hazards challenging the national unity. Resultant ethnic policies and secessionist movements in Balochistan, and to some extent Sindh, presents a challenge to national security.4
Forcing a national identity on different stakeholders in exclusion to their racial, social, and cultural roots can be problematic. A democratic process has to be evolved so that the entire cross section of society considers it important and profitable to be the citizen of Pakistan, without losing their distinct sub-national identities such as ethnicity, religion and cultures.5
Acting in Sync
Last but not the least, in order to hold together the national security structure of the state, it is important that the civilian and military establishment thinks and acts in sync. Both have to understand that the success of their respective performances and responsibilities depends heavily on effective and meaningful coordination with one another. That pre-supposes mutual trust and reliability as core values in the relationship between the two.
Ambiguities in State Structure
Historically, Pakistan can, partly, be regarded as a British legacy.6 The World War II had weakened the British and their Indian empire so much that they decided to withdraw from the Sub-continent and as a result, Pakistan and India came into being as independent states. Both these countries inherited from the British a state structure that persists today. Our current state can be best described as ‘post-colonial’ in as-much that it builds itself upon the main principles and institutions that had been installed by the British during their two hundred years of colonial rule. All Indian national leaders prior to 1947, including Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru, never questioned this part of their political heritage. The political system of Pakistan is modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy. The monarchy/vice-regal system has been replaced by a supposedly neutral President in the Constitution. The Quaid’s speech of 11 August 1947, lays down the principles of a democracy along Western lines, including those parts that have become quite controversial, like secularism and the idea of equality of all citizens regardless of their ethnic, religious or social status7. Given the fact that Pakistan was founded on a religious ideology and that its citizens had never experienced a secularization process like that of Europe, a leading role in the state was automatically given to Islam.
The Quaid was looking at a Pakistan as a Muslim majority state that would once and for all solve the problem of reliable access to political power for most citizens of the newly founded state. Pakistan became an Islamic or a state where Islam played a dominant role, even though this role remained unclear and was not well defined. Only six months after the demise of the Quaid-i-Azam, the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949, adopted the ‘Objective Resolution’. Since then, Pakistan has been grappling with this commitment made in the Objective Resolution and trying to figure out how Islam could be the uniting factor in a diverse nation. The failure to answer this question in a democratic, all inclusive way, until today, has led to the marginalization of not only non-Muslim religious minorities but also the followers’ minority sects within Islam.
The Problem of Ethnicity
During the early stage of the nationhood in the 1950s, ethnicity had become a powerful force. The Bengal language movement in the Eastern wing of Pakistan was an early warning signal on the political horizon that ethnicity was becoming a factor that not only had to be addressed but given importance and equal treatment within national. ideology8. The integration of diverse ethno-cultural identities into the newly created Pakistan nation was the major demand of the hour that was neglected, and at times denied.9 Unfortunately, no lessons were learnt even atter the painful break-up of Pakistan in 1971.10 While the Pashtunistan demand did not reach a critical level and vanished as Afghanistan became embroiled in its own wars, Sindhi and Baloch secessionist movements became apparent in Pakistan. Issues like the status of regional languages and their position vis-a-vis Urdu are a proof of this unfortunate and regrettable failure. In addition, the demand for more provinces on administrative and political grounds and a demand for acknowledgement of ethnic identities has gained ground. After the change of name of NWFP to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), the non-Pakhtun Hazara elements want their province named ‘Hazara’. This illustrates the implications of ethnicity in the national context. This is a process that cannot be reversed in the short run, and therefore, it has to be acknowledged.
Adjusting Religious and Cultural Divide
The special challenge in coalescing a conducive national environment for creating a Pakistani nation state consists in adjustment of the religious and cultural divide among its people11. This, however, is not the only problem. Equally problematic is the huge disparity in economic development between different regions of Pakistan. Even in the case of Punjab, the most developed province, we have areas of high urban industrial development and focus on modernity in Lahore and Faisalabad intermingled with rural backwardness all over the province. The same is true for the province of Sindh. As the first capital and the only developed harbour of Pakistan, Karachi has seen breathtaking development since 1947. However, the areas surrounding Karachi and the rural hinterland of Sindh have been unable to keep up with and benefit for this development and remain backward even creating multiple problems today. Economic deprivation was one of the major factors leading to the break-away of East Pakistan. Similarly economic deprivation is the main feature of resentment in the Balochistan province and to an extent in KPK, but even more so in the tribal areas of Pakistan that have been economically neglected for decades12. The economic inequality is compounded by social inequality. The Pakistani society is highly hierarchical and patriarchal that prevents the ideas of equality, which is a prerequisite for modern democracy. Feudalism is on retreat all over the world, but is thriving in Pakistan. The acceptance of tribal leaders, feudal landowners, pirs and the likes, as ‘special’ or ‘good families’ ordained to rule, is contrary to the basic idea of democracy, where all citizens, irrespective of caste, creed or social position, are considered equal. Only this way merit can be made the only factor deciding who is worth representing or being promoted or getting the job. As long as Pakistan’s politicians promote their own kith and kin on tribal, biradri or family grounds or on grounds of political loyalty, no equality can be achieved. In our nepotism infested society, merit seems to be a disqualifier. Achieving equality is a long process’ which took hundreds of years in Europe to accomplish; this is not achievable in our society within a year or two. Even then, if the state has to survive as a viable, independent entity, the beginning has to be made now.
Policy Advice for a Viable National Concept
A national security concept must include a comprehensive and effective strategy to integrate different parts of Pakistan’s population13. Ethnic _and national identities have to be compatible and not mutually exclusive. Given the multiplicity of languages in Pakistan, their status as national languages can be an important step towards national integration. Furthermore, international research shows that in primary schools and at lower levels of education, teaching is preferable in the mother tongue of a child. This important fact must be taken into account while reforming education in Pakistan.
Secondly, while Islam may well be the basis of the Pakistan state, those parts of Islam that provide for tolerance of other religions and religious opinions within Islam have to be promoted explicitly at all levels, through education and media, in order to combat sectarianism and intolerance.
With regard to economic inequalities, it is in the national interest to remove them. Poverty is a main challenge in Pakistan as is a fast growing population. The IMF and World Bank demand that economic growth must be the main indicator for successful economic policy but, unfortunately, this advice has been ignored. Instead poverty alleviation and the improvement of living conditions of the poor are considered the real indicator of a successful economic policy. Economic development in Balochistan and the tribal areas is a moot point but we must not forget similar areas of neglect in other provinces.
Social Obligations
With regard to the social structure of our society, there cannot be a short-term solution. The state must pay special attention to socially disadvantaged people and groups by providing scholarships, reserved seats in education, jobs and in representative institutions like the worker and peasant seats in the local government scheme, as initiated by the Musharraf regime. Deserving people from socially weak background need to get the same respect as people from so-called ‘good families’ in schools, in the job market and in the media.
Our multiple problems must be thoroughly addressed. Clearly, even if a short term solution is found to national security, change can take place within a year or two. However, a good beginning must be made that can lay the basis for a protracted process of national integration. The happy feeling of belonging to an integrated nation and being accepted as an equal citizen is of primary import.14
Good Governance
The most important part for the success of this concept is the implementation of the defined process. This requires good governance and a functional political system. Representative democracy in Europe is a product of processes like industrialization, secularism, individualization of society, scientific revolution and enlightenment. These processes motivated the movement against aristocratic privileges and a demand for equality and fraternity as embodied in the French Revolution. The political system of Pakistan is still fragile and wobbly. The eradication of feudalism, tribalism, aristocratic prerogatives and the separation of church and state in Europe were accompanying features and preconditions for the working of democracy, because all members of the society had to accept the rules of the game of democracy, which is constitutional liberalism. Our proposition here is that without these preconditions, democracy cannot work properly. At least the main factors such as a fair and equitable economic structure based on land reforms have to overcome tribalism and feudalism in economy. This requires a. change in mindsets and only then can we make democracy work.15
Unfortunately, these preconditions are absent in Pakistan and thus the political system in vogue does not match the social and economic reality of our society. Moreover, the religio-cultural diversity puts an equally strong challenge to it. That is why good governance and honest politics are lacking. Why is that? Democracy as a political system demands the rule of law and is a manifestation of majority rule. That presupposes that ‘the people’ are ready for democracy, that they are able to form an independent political opinion and take an active part in the political life of the nation. Obviously that means the nation has to be not only literate b.ut educated and independent in opinion making; free of influence of the imam of a mosque, a pir, a landlord or a tribal elder. In case of Pakistan, even after 67 years of trial and error, democracy faces challenges posed by the poor quality of governance, national coherence and national security. In our case, elections are rigged, or bring people into power that have no liberal mindset required to understand what is national interest and how to pursue it, instead they aim towards their personal or group interests.16
Dysfunctional Democracy is Universal
This problem is not a Pakistani problem alone. The proliferation of new democracies in the 1980s and 1990s after the break-down of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as well as in Asian and African countries, has led to a number of academic investigations trying to find out why those new democracies are flawed. Samuel Huntington in his book ‘The Third Wave’ has stated that! “Democracy alone, the change of government through elections has brought into power governments that were inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable· but not undemocratic”17. In another analysis on the working of democracies in Eastern European and non-European countries Fareed Zakaria in his essay, “The rise of illiberal democracy” elaborates that the development of constitutional liberalism, the ideology that tells about a government’s goals, is what is missing in those newly democratic societies18.
‘Constitutional liberalism refers to the tradition, deeply embedded in the Western history, that seeks to protect an individual’s autonomy and dignity against coercion whatever the source, state, church or society.’19
Responsible Leadership
It is thus not democracy alone that is needed but democratically and even minded people to run it. Such are the people who accept the rules of the democratic game and play these accordingly to the rules. They not only subscribe to the rule of law that is the essence of democracy but also adhere to it.20 Autocrats are an anathema to the democratic traditions. Let me hasten to add that even in the West, democracy does not work right always. German history amply proves that even Western birth and education could not ensure a liberal character under Adolf Hitler, who was democratically elected. He is, therefore, a glaring example of illiberal democracy. With the fall of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, many Eastern European states entered the fold of ‘democracy’ though not of liberalism. Zakaria quotes former American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to have said that the 1996 elections in Bosnia were “free and fair” but those elected were racists, fascists, separatists who were publicly opposed to peace and reintegration. That is the dilemma.21
Critical Electoral Reforms
One way to make democracy more real and effective in Pakistan is electoral reforms. Historically, progressive, bourgeoisie in Pakistan has compromised with imperialism and feudal/tribal elements. The basic ingredient of any functioning democracy, elections, must not be reduced to a ritual-like exercise with whoever comes into power considers it as a free licence to loot, plunder and oppress the people for the next five years.22
Known also as the “Majoritarian” or First-past the-post (FPTP) system, our present electoral system, which became prevalent during the 12th Century, is under electoral reforms in many countries. Many newly emerged democracies opted not to adopt this unsatisfactory system. Given that a constituency has 100 eligible voters and 10 candidates. A gets 11 votes, B gets 9 votes· and the other 8 candidates get 10 votes each. Assuming 100 percent participation, we have someone winning the election with 11 percent of the vote with 89 percent vote against. If only 40 percent of eligible voters vote, roughly the norm for Pakistan, the winning candidate could win with even 5 percent of eligible voters.
The inherent defect in the Electoral Rolls continues to cause protests about rigging and gerrymandering. Before correcting them, it is necessary to have a national census with proper and fair delimitation of constituencies. In Sindh, rural constituencies have about 15,000 voters, while in Karachi there are 45,000 voters. There is 1 to 3 ratio that negates the one man-one vote principle. The maximum permissible deviation should be plus/minus 15 to 20 percent of the voters, not 300 percent.
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled in June 2012 in the “Workers’ Party Case” that the British model FPTP system adopted by Pakistan violates the principle of majority (citing that over 40 percent of races in the 2008 election were won with just a plurality – under 50 percent – of the vote) and directed that it should be replaced by an appropriate system “to, ensure true representation of the people and rule of the majority’’. The SC advised the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consider adopting “run-off voting” for single seat election. Second round being held if no candidate gets a clear majority in the first round. They also advised switching to “Proportional Representation”.23
Due to lack of accountability, total public apathy, rampant nepotism and corruption, the nation is resigned to accept corrupt leaders as players in the process of democracy. In a true democracy the. corrupt would have been held accountable and punished. The very basis of democracy; governance by local bodies, is being refused by those who come into power. In its judgment on Civil Appeal 297 of 2014, on March 19, 2014, the Supreme Court (SC) held that delaying of holding Local Bodies (LB) elections for 9 years was a violation of the Constitution. They directed the ECP to hold the LB elections within 5 months from March 19, 2014 (this deadline expired on August 18, 2014), and for the provincial governments to frame laws within 45 days, i.e. by May 3, 2014. Nobody bothered to listen except Government of Balochistan.
The prevailing FPTP electoral system in Pakistan has many disadvantages, some of which are: (a) Very low voter turnout- 44.6 percent in 2008 against about 35 percent in 1997. The Highest turnout was 63 percent in 1977. The basic. reason of low turnout is the feeling, particularly in the educated and relatively well to do community, that “my vote will make absolutely no impact on the results”. This feeling needs to be changed by reforming the electoral system. (b) The winning party usually bags only about 15 to 20 percent votes of the total registered voters. 55 to 65 percent voters do not vote at all. Such type of democracy, where a party with only 15 to 20 percent of the popular vote forms the government and rules the entire 100 percent of the population, is highly questionable. The system needs to be changed and the party with genuine majority support should rule the country. (c) Mostly the support of regional parties is required for assuring majority and in such cases these smaller parties dictate the policies which are biased towards regional interests and the national interests are usually compromised. (d) Smaller regional parties representing smaller regional interests end up getting some seats, whereas, smaller parties with national appeal and with their supporters thinly spread throughout the country get no seats at all despite the fact that the total number of votes bagged by them may be higher than the regional parties. (e) As a consequence, regional interests dominate over national interest and as such the system does not encourage integration of the country. The disintegration of Pakistan into two parts i.e. Bangladesh and Pakistan is partly the result of our electoral system and not the desire of our political parties or leaders.
Anyone who gets between 20-25 percent of the votes gets him or her elected in the first past the post “FTFP” rule. It is no secret that the winning candidate depends upon hard core voters, who prefer him/ her not because of their capability or honesty but hard rule dominates. This is not democracy but an absolute farce. The candidate, therefore, only targets a part of the electorate and excludes the major part of the electorate who mostly become spectators. This core group of ethnic, sect and caste based voters ensure that result swings in the favour of their candidate. This enhances divisions within the society as certain groups become disenchanted of the system and begin to look for alternatives like secession from the mother country. This is why the current system promotes disintegration, whereas, our aim should be that candidates should have support from a wider cross-section of the society. The system in vogue produces a weak government as candidates get elected who do not owe any allegiance to the majority of voters in their constituencies and thus are available for defection to the highest bidder. Pakistan is a classic example of everything that has gone wrong with democracy but could have been different provided we were logical and truthful in our concept. Some other obvious disadvantages of FPTP system are as follows:
• Winner-takes-all bonus phenomenon, produce winning candidates with only 25 percent votes and the majority view is unrepresented. In a close race, a candidate with 49.9 percent votes can lose, leaving 49.9 percent voters unrepresented in government/ legislature.
• FPTP system is often caused due to gerrymandering and poor voter turnout.
• It may elect a government which does not have support of majority of electorate.
• Instead of issue-based politics. it encourages voting pattern based on caste/religion/ language.
• It promotes a two-party system.
• It encourages voters to vote against somebody rather than vote for somebody.
• A spoiler candidate may disturb the outcome of an election overruling popular will by splitting votes. In the 2000 American presidential election, Ralph Nader became the spoiler candidate for AI Gore who lost to George W Bush.
• Voters’ mind can be affected by media projection of leading contender.
As a result of the socio-economic structure of our society, our country is bedeviled by nepotism and corruption. The root of this malady lies in the “selection” rather than the “election” process that is presently in vogue in this country. The mechanics of our democracy are very wrong. While one cannot doubt that many corrupt individuals· will still get through, the exhaustive election process through various tiers will severely curtail their chances. The direct mandate of the people is the one person-one vote process, which must be the ultimate and direct arbiter of candidates for any elected office. Similarly by adopting the “grass root approach” of qualifying the candidates aspiring for Provincial and National Assemblies as well as the Senate by making it obligatory for them to take part in Local Bodies elections from basic unit upward, so that they become deeply involved in their respective constituencies. Every elected office in the country including the Presidency must be directly elected by the people on the basis of adult franchise. That is the only way of making sure that the democratic system serves its main purpose, ameliorating the many problems of the masses.
Democracy can only prevail when the majority vote prevails. In the process Shia will have to align with Sunni, Awan with Rajput, Mohajir with Sindhi, etc and so on. Only candidates who command the confidence of the majority of the eligible electorate should get elected. If Pakistan is to be saved, then we must change the system to reflect the correct interpretation of democracy, not one that works in favour of feudals, the rich and the influential. Of all the ills we dream about reforming, there is nothing more important to Pakistan’s survival than democracy in its correct form to reflect the true will of the majority vote.
Democratic aspirations can only be translated into reality through Proportional Representation (PR), as well as run-off second round elections meant to secure the choice of a simple majority of total voters in a single constituency when ultimately faced with two stark choices instead of the multiple ones in the first round. The engagement, empowerment and participation of the citizens should happen more often than just on Election Day and that politicians and public officials should not be the only ones involved in governance. In short, democracy is meant to flow upwards from the populace and unless that happens in Pakistan, democracy will malfunction.
Electoral reforms should include some more changes as well:
• All elections including the Senate and the Assemblies should be by direct vote, on party basis.
• All aspirants for elections to the Assemblies must first get elected at the basic community level and not be allowed to be a candidate for more than one seat.
• Candidates must be registered; income tax payers giving proof of residence in the area for at least 3 years with their declaration of assets and that of their immediate family reconciling with their known sources of income.
• All elections must be by majority vote, i.e. If anyone does not get an absolute majority, then the first two candidates to go through run-off elections to ascertain the winner of more than 50 percent of the majority vote.
• Elections to the Assemblies must be preceded by Local Bodies elections, with individual stakeholders self-governing a t the grass roots level.
• The Presidential election must be by direct vote between the candidates nominated by any political party having not less than 10 percent of the popular vote in the National Assembly elections. The Governors of provinces should be so similarly elected.
• The life of the Senate, the National and Provincial Assemblies and the Local Bodies must not be more than 4 years.
• 25 percent of the seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies above the present allocation should be on the basis of “proportional representation” and similarly, 25 percent of seats should be reserved for the losing female candidates of each political party.
• Accountability of the candidates for the Assemblies is crucial. The initial scrutiny should be followed by a detailed one, an on-going process through the tenure of the elected Assembly.
In an article dated May 5, 1995, titled ‘Direct Vote and Democracy’, I wrote: “Other than bad advice our political leadership is forced to depend upon “special interest groups” (and individuals) for survival, once they are in office, rather than on the electorate that voted them into office. Unless an innovative fresh (and natural) approach is made to minimizing the predilection of our elected legislators for misusing the powers and privileges bestowed on them by the system, the debilitating process in our fraying society will continue.”24
Is Western Democracy the Only Answer?
I am afraid the suggested electoral reforms may not bring the expected results immediately. The social structure of Pakistani society will not change at short notice and the development of liberalism may not be contemplated even in future. Despite this and the comprehensive critical analyses coming from the academic world, it is an accepted fact that, democracy alone can bring stability and development and will have to be promoted. Democracy, promoted as a precondition for aid and IMF programmes, in places like Myanmar and Afghanistan, in Libya, Iraq and Egypt, has had fatal results. As a close ally of the US and NATO, Pakistan is under the obligation to run a democracy. However, the US did not refrain from supporting the military regimes when it suited their interest in Pakistan.
The repeated breakdown of democracy in Pakistan has been blamed by ‘democrats’ to be the fault of the military. The continued military rule over Pakistan for roughly half its existence is blamed for preventing the development of a stable democracy and its democratic institutions. This statement is not entirely true because the civilian governments have failed to develop a working democracy including a national security concept in coordination with the military. The newly founded state was brought to the edge by the politicians, which made the army step in to ensure national security.
Conclusion
To answer the question asked in the title, it should become quite clear that Pakistan is not ready for democracy and democracy does not suit the current state of our social and economic development. Actually Pakistan needs development more than democracy and it is not true that only democracy produces development. On the contrary, democracy is slow and expensive. Development is faster and cheaper in places like China and Singapore where there is a different political system in place. The kind of muted democracy that is present in Pakistan is a security risk in itself, because it has been unable to maintain law and order and provide a cohesive national security concept. This is not surprising because, as Fareed Zakaria mentioned in his essay, “Without a background in constitutional liberalism, the introduction of democracy in divided societies has actually fomented nationalism, ethnic conflict and even war.”25
Make no mistake, national security is presently under serious threat. It is high time we acknowledge this fact and consider the alternatives. The Westminster model of democracy certainly has not performed well especially in the face of the missing liberalism in our society. Civil liberties, in the hands of people who are not liberal minded, will be misused by them and this freedom will produce anarchy and corruption instead. This has been taken into account by Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore who consistently rejected liberal democratic values, which he typified as Western and stated that there should not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to a democracy. His successors persist with laws restricting the freedom of speech in Singapore and that is justified by claims that they are intended to prohibit speech that may breed ill will or cause disharmony within Singapore’s multiracial, multi-religious society. Some offences can lead to heavy fines or caning and there are laws which allow capital punishment in Singapore for first-degree murder and drug trafficking.
In a situation where Pakistan’s security is threatened from the Western border by the withdrawal of Western troops and the connected security risks threatened by a weakened state, bad governance, rising militancy and multiple other problems, the idea and practice of ‘democracy’ surely needs to be updated and adjusted to ground realties. This has to be amended in such a way that it improves the governance of the country that checks law and order and enables the institutions of the state, in particular the government and the military, to cooperate more efficiently and result in the development of a working national security concept that both are able to implement jointly.
Such ‘amended’ or ‘basic’ democracy will draw a lot of national and international criticism from Western allies and institutions like IMF and WB, Human Rights organizations and others. Pakistan will have to face this and the consequences flowing from it in the interest of our national security.
(Reprinted with permission from PAKISTAN ARMY GREEN BOOK 2014)
Notes
1 Babar Ayaz, “What’s wrong with Pakistan?” P.1-3
2 Ikram Sehgal, “National Security Policy of Pakistan”, the Nation, February 27th, 2014.
3 “Rethinking National Security of Pakistan: Challenges & Opportunities”, Institute of Strategic Studies Report on Pakistan,26 December 2013
4 Ikram Sehgal “Concept of National Security”, http://www.thenews.com.pkldaily_detail.asp?id=146453
5 Naveeda Khan, “Muslim Becoming, Aspirations and skepticism in Pakistan” P 234.
6 Alistair Lamb, “Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy” P 325.
7 Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, August 11, 1947.
8 “Contending Ethnic Identities: An Issue to Pakistan’s Internal Security”, Journal of Political Studies, Vol. 19, Issue – 1,2012.
9 Ikram Sehgal, “The Baluchistan Quagmire”, the News, October 4, 2012.
10 Lieutenant General Kamal Matinuddin, “Tragedy of Errors”, P 301.
11 Khurshid Khan and Afifa Kiran, “Emerging tendencies of radicalization in Pakistan: a proposed counter-radicalization strategy”, P12.
12 Akmal Hussain, “Strategic Issues in Pakistan Economic Policy”, P200.
13 “Internal Security Strategy for Pakistan”, Report of Pakistan’s Institute of Peace Studies on January 2011.
14 “Socio Economic challenges in Pakistan”,COMSATs seminar from 26 to 28 October 2009.
15 “Politics of Democracy and Good Governance”, Report published by Pakistan by Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT).
16 Ikram Sehgal, “Good Governance”, 20 April 2011.
17 Samuel Huntington, “The Third Wave”, P 209.
18 Zakaria Fareed, “The rise of illiberal democracy” (Foreign Affairs November/ December 1997): pp 25-26
19 Ikram Sehgal, “Imperfect Democracy”, http://defence.pk/threads/imperfect-democracy-ikram-sehgal.
20 Yasmin Aftab Ali, “Pakistan’s leadership Crisis”, The Nation January 28, 2014
21 Zakaria Fareed, ‘The Rise of Liberal Democracy” (Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1997).
22 Ikram Sehgal, “Reforming Pakistan Electoral System”, 11 Sep 2014.
23 Ikram Sehgal, “Direct Vote and Democracy”, the daily Express Tribune, September 4, 2014.
24 Ibid, May 4, 1995.
25 Zakaria Fareed, “The Rise of Liberal Democracy” (Foreign Affairs, November/December 1997).
