Some politicians, actually demagogues, are very vocal that elections are a panacea for all Pakistan’s politico-economic and societal ills. They consider elections a sine qua non of demo-kratia (government of the people).
Be that as it may, demo-kratia had a lame duck run in Pakistan. None of the “elected” governments made an effort to ameliorate the lot of the common man. However those at the helm of affairs did enrich themselves and their kith and kin at the cost of national exchequer. The poor performance of the democrats emboldened the praetorians to overthrow the “elected governments” or precipitate their downfall through political engineering. If not overthrown, some governments preferred to stay tamed and devolve the blame for mis-governance on the invisibles.
The demagogues have no worldview. They pander to base sentiments of the gullible electorate to garner votes. They are megalomaniacs without any ideology. Bolman and Deal say `Great leadership begins when a leader’s world view (Weltanschauung) and personal story, honed over years of experience, meet a situation that both presents challenges and opportunities’. They add, “Great leaders test and evolve their story over time, experimenting, polishing, abandoning plot lines that don’t work, and re-inventing those that do “(Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E Deal, How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing, 2014).
The German-word equivalent of world view is Weltanschauung. The word combines Welt (world) with Anschauung (view). It connotes a particular philosophy or view of life. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.
Study of leadership styles across swathes of literature indicates that the two traits, a `world view’ and a `storyline’ are common in all business leaders (Steve Job, Penny, Eisner, Ford, and Rockefeller). Or in political leaders like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Lincoln, whether you abhor or adore them.
The leaders share their ‘world view’ with people who fall in line to leave behind a legacy, a story.
Hitler, otherwise viewed as a psychopath, explains his ‘world view’ in Chapter 1 of his autobiography Mein Kampf (My Struggle). He says ‘Thus we brought to public knowledge those first principles and lines of action along which the new struggle was to be conducted for the abolition of a confused mass of obsolete ideas which had obscure and often pernicious tendencies’.
Napoleon’s ‘world view’ (like Julius Caesar’s) is less pronounced than his lust for power and contempt for `constitution’ (like Bhutto, Zia, et al). Pakistan’s prime ministers and prime-ministers-to-be forgot French jurist Jean Bodin’s dictum `majesta est summa in civas ac subditoes legibusque salute potestas, that is ‘highest power over citizens and subjects [is] unrestrained by law’ (Roedad Khan, Pakistan: A Dream Gone Sour).
Surely Pakistan is a plutocracy, not a democracy. Those insisting on elections are the countries who expect to be rewarded for their blind support to parties without any ideology or world view. Fusfeld says, “This is the age of the economist (Dynamics of Development). To correct multifaceted social injustice, all stakeholders, in khaki and muftis, should try to evolve the Aristotelian `Golden Mean’. Or else, continue on auto-pilot until divine retribution strikes.
Why it is so? Stanley A. Kochanek unpuzzles the conundrum by pointing out `Parties in Pakistan are built from the top-down and are identified with their founders. The office holders are appointed by the leader. Membership rolls are largely bogus and organizational structure exists only on paper’ (Interest groups and Development, 1983). `Most political parties are non-democratic in their structure, character and outlook. The process for leadership selection is not by election, but by nomination. Political parties have no links with the policy process as personalities rather than issues matter’ (Saeed Shafqat, Contemporary Issues in Pakistan Studies).
Those enamoured of elections and democracy ignore that democracy has some inherent flaws that engender questions about its potential to deliver the goods (welfare of the masses).
The Law states that all complex organisations, including ‘democracies’, regardless of how democratic they are in the beginning, eventually develop into oligarchies.
Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organisation can function purely as a direct democracy, that power within an organisation will always get delegated to individuals within that group; elected or otherwise.
During the Aristotelian age, the city states participated well in decision making. But, as the population, grew they left participation jobs to their representatives. American political dissident Noam Chomsky calls even American people ‘a bewildered herd’.
A feudal aristocracy was created by British raj whose generations ruled post-independence governments. Some pirs and mashaikh (religious leaders) even quoted verses from the Holy Quran to justify allegiance to the Englishman (amir), after loyalty to Allah and the Messenger (PBUH). They pointed out that the Quran ordained that ehsan (favour) be returned with favour. The ehsan were British favours like titles (khan bahadur, nabob, etc), honorary medals, khilat (royal gown) with attached money rewards, life pensions, office of honorary magistrate, assistant commissioner, courtier, etc. A Tiwana military officer even testified in favour of O’Dwyer when the latter was under trial for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Ayub Khan added the chapter of 22 families to the aristocracy. About 460 scions of the pre-partition chiefs, a legacy of the English Raj along with industrial barons created in the Ayub era are returned again and again to the Assemblies. They do not allow agricultural incomes, industrial profits or real estate to be adequately taxed.
Both houses represent the rich. In his study of political systems (oligarchy, monarchy, and so on), Aristotle concluded demokratia was probably the best system. The problem that bothered him was that the majority of free people (then excluding women and slaves) would use their brute voting power to introduce pro-poor legislation like taking away property from the rich. During the Aristotelian age there was only one house, a unicameral legislature. Aristotle too was a man of means. His household had slaves.
Aristotle suggested that we reduce income inequalities so that have-not representatives of the poor people were not tempted to prowl upon haves’ property.
Like Aristotle, American founding fathers were unnerved by the spectre of `rule of the proletariat’. James Madison harboured similar concerns. He feared ‘if freemen had democracy, then the poor farmers would insist on taking property from the rich’ via land reforms (Noam Chomsky, Power Systems).
The fear was addressed by creating a senate (US) or a house of lords (Britain) as antidotes against legislative vulgarities of a house of representative or a house of commons., a house of peoples (lok sabha) vs. council of states (rajya sabha) in India, and so on.
William A. Welsh says, `The rise of democracy has signalled the decline of elites (Leaders and Elites). Not true of Pakistan? Here talent rusts and mafias prevail. We see mafias all around, in media, politics, justice, education and health-care. The USA progressed by leaps and bounds by eliminating mafias and making economic opportunities accessible to the ordinary people.
Pakistan’s constitutional history is marred by egotistic clashes between power claimants. Even judicial judgments swung in the direction of the wind vanes of the time. Shortly before pronouncing his verdict in the Dosso case, then Chief Justice Muneer declared that ‘when politics enters the portals of the palace of Justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor’.
The kingpins in various institutions tend to forget French jurist Jean Bodin’s dictum ‘majesta est summa in civas ac subditoeslegibusque salute potestas’, that is ‘highest power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law’. Bodin explained power resides with whosoever has ‘power to coerce’. In the past, Pakistan’s bureaucrats, judges, politicos, and even praetorian rulers fought tooth and nail to prove ‘I’m the locus in quo of ultimate power.’
Surely Pakistan is a plutocracy, not a democracy. Those insisting on elections are the countries who expect to be rewarded for their blind support to parties without any ideology or world view. Fusfeld says, “This is the age of the economist (Dynamics of Development). To correct multifaceted social injustice, all stakeholders, in khaki and muftis, should try to evolve the Aristotelian `Golden Mean’. Or else, continue on auto-pilot until divine retribution strikes.
