WASHINGTON DIARY: Deficit of democratic forces —Dr Manzur Ejaz

In societies like Pakistan where the ruling elite is still largely drawn from the feudal class and the middle class is smaller, weaker, and has been infested with conservative social traditions, democratic periods have been conducive to narrow-mindedness

Somehow, many of us happen to believe that democracy leads to openness, enlightenment and freedom of expression. However, historical experience shows that the necessary link between democracy and enlightenment is rather shaky. If one examines the actions of Pakistan’s parliamentary committees regarding the enlightened lifestyle or freedom of expression, it becomes clear that the present democratic era is much more conservative and narrow-minded as compared to its preceding military-dominated period. Most of the movements of social conservatism and religious extremism in Pakistan prospered during democratic spells.

Quite recently, the National Assembly’s parliamentary committee on culture had put a squeeze on Ajoka Theatre’s play ‘Burqavaganza’, alleging that it can corrupt young minds. The play was being shown during the Musharraf era without much government intervention. Before this incident, the parliamentary committee for sports, headed by the infamous holder of a fake degree, Mr Jamshed Dasti, had fined the manager of Pakistan’s hockey team for hugging a French coordinating lady while departing. Numerous other such reactionary decisions have been handed down by such committees at national and provincial levels.

These examples show that democracy does not always lead to enlightenment or progressive social trends. As a matter of fact, pro-jihadi or Taliban-sympathising political parties can win the elections and impose a suffocating strict conservative code of ethics on society. A large section of the intelligentsia believes that Nawaz Sharif’s disposition as prime minister was quite close to mullah shahi. The first stint of Benazir Bhutto was also marked by her overtly posing as a religious diehard. And we should not forget that the Taliban were created under the patronage of the PPP under Ms Bhutto. In the earlier period, after General Ayub Khan’s relatively secularist governance, it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who injected doses of theocracy into the state. Of course Ziaul Haq used the religious ideology to the hilt but he was not the initiator of this devastating trend.

In the light of these historical experiences it is not very difficult to infer that the quality of a democratic system depends upon the make-up and the ruling elite of a society. If the ruling elite is dominated by feudalistic elements, like in Pakistan, it will be more susceptible to retrogressive social choices. Furthermore, if the middle classes are weak or in the grip of feudalistic cultural traditions, then democracy can degenerate into retrogressive popular demands of the vocal groups. In societies like Pakistan where the ruling elite is still largely drawn from the feudal class and the middle class is smaller, weaker, and has been infested with conservative social traditions, democratic periods have been conducive to narrow-mindedness.

The feudals are usually two-faced: they act one way on their estates and another way while interacting with their urban counterparts. They sanction vani and karo kari in their controlled areas and keep mistresses at the same time: most big houses in ‘heera mandi’ are always run by big feudals. Therefore, they have mastered a two-tier hypocritical system. They believe that they can impose the strictest code of ethics on the population without themselves having to adhere to it. Consequently, if the conservative minority groups are powerful and can pressurise the feudal class, the ruling elite does not hesitate to concede to their demands. That is what the Bhuttos did and that is what is being done right now.

A society dominated and perpetually indoctrinated by feudalistic social values does not produce a sizeable quantity of enlightened intelligentsia who can create powerful pressure groups to keep the ruling feudal elite in line with modernistic norms. Most of the political space is taken up by religious or socially conservative elements, who are able then to wield their influence on society to adopt their agendas. The feudals do not mind this because they impose worse regulations on their tenants and segments of the population they control directly.

Industrialisation, commercialisation and mechanisation of the production processes and education can overturn the feudal hold. But initial conditions in Pakistan were such that the country was totally agrarian, where most of the population was comprised of uneducated peasants, labourers, artisans, small-scale merchants and the feudals. Better educated urban classes, industrialists, educators, financiers, etc, were Hindus who migrated to India in 1947. Consequently, Indian democracy developed as a stable system while the composition of the Pakistani population was prone to dictatorships and narrow-minded bickering and infighting of the feudal class. The deficit of democratic forces that existed in 1947 has not been eliminated.

Contrary to the pessimists’ whining, Pakistan has come a long way in industrialisation, commercialisation, mechanisation and the education sectors of development. The emergence of classes that are usually the backbone of a democracy are becoming visible (e.g. the lawyers’ movement) but the political landscape is still dominated by the anti-democratic forces. Subversion of the educational system through conservative indoctrination has not helped either. Therefore, unless the residual influences of retrogressive feudal culture are not eliminated and the meaning of true democracy does not seep into the fabric of society, democratic governments will remain prone to imposing rules and laws curbing individual freedoms.

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com