William A. Welsh says, `The rise of democracy has signaled the decline of elites (Leaders and Elites, p.1). Not true of Pakistan? Here talent rusts and mafias prevail. We see mafias all around, in media, politics, justice, education and health-care.
The ‘equal citizen’ as enshrined in the golden words of our constitution is a myth. About 460 inter-related figures would continue being perched in Parliament for another 100 years. The journalist, Zahid Hussain, in his article. House of feudals, in a 1985 issue of a new magazine portrayed the dynastic composition of our Parliament.
Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in Why Nations Fail point out, “The United States became rich because their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed, where the government was accountable and responsive to citizens, and where the great mass of people could take advantage of economic opportunities. The result was a fundamentally different political and economic trajectory culminating in the Industrial Revolution.”
They observe that Egypt [for example] could not change for the better as each upheaval led to the substitution of one elite with another. They point out that Egypt is poor precisely because it has been ruled by a narrow elite that has organized society for its own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people (as in Pakistan).
Political power has been narrowly concentrated and has been used to create great wealth for those who possess it, such as the $70 billion fortune apparently accumulated by ex-president Mubarak. The losers have been the Egyptian people, as they only too well understand.
Though the Egyptian shook off the Ottoman and British Empires, and in 1952 overthrew their monarchy, these cataclysmic changes were not revolutions like that of 1688 in England. Rather than fundamentally transform politics in Egypt, they brought to power another elite as disinterested in achieving prosperity for ordinary Egyptians as the Ottoman and British had been. In consequence, the basic structure of society did not change and Egypt stayed poor.
Under Pakistan’s Constitution “sovereignty belongs to Allah Almighty” and “authority” is exercised by elected representatives. Pakistan’s rulers presume that being chosen they are clothed with “divine authority” like that of the kings. However, Locke reminds us that people have the right to overthrow even the divine rulers if they do not deliver the goods.
Locke postulated that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government.
When Parliament becomes irreverent to the masses, non-political or non-elected entities ascend in the asymmetry to make it irrelevant. Will we never learn?
Life, liberty, and property are the cornerstones of Locke’s ideas. According to Locke, Government exists to protect and secure the rights of the subjects. A person with rights has something of his own for the government to secure, and in that sense has “a property” to protect.
A person without rights has nothing of his own and is a slave, not a member of political society. This thought has a long lineage and is at least as old as Cicero. It follows, as Locke is at pains to say that absolute authority is not the essence e of political authority, as Hobbes and Filmer said, but inconsistent with it.
The feudal elite of only 1.1 percent of the population own 22 percent of the country’s farm area. A study revealed the feudal aristocracy and industrial robber barons together enjoyed privileges of a whopping Rs. 1114 billion. The feudal enjoyed Rs. 370 billion while the business tycoons enjoyed Rs. 724 billion.
Being perched in Pakistan’s Parliament they ensure that Pakistan’s taxation system remains regressive. The average income of a high net-worth household is 600 times more than that of an average Pakistani household. Despite being filthy rich, the high-net-worth bracket evades taxes worth over Rs. 168 billion.
The 20 percent richest devour 50 percent of the country’s national income as compared to seven percent which the poorest 20 percent get. Instead of paying most taxes, the high net-worth individuals enjoy privileges amounting to Rs. 368 billion.
Pakistan is unable to undertake radical land and capital reforms. It could not do away with the jagirs granted by the British raj to its “chiefs” and “chieftains”, as India did. Bhutto’s land reforms were annulled by a majority decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench in the Qizilbash Trust vs. Karachi Commissioner Case.
The UNDP foresees a social movement to transform the baneful system. But the sine qua non of every movement is grass-root awareness. That’s lacking in Pakistan.
Factors contributing to Pakistan’s economic malaise are obvious. However political will to grapple with them is lacking. We should activate the planning commission and the statistical offices.
We should float fair global tenders to tap our mineral resources. China should launch turnkey projects to utilize our local resources and create jobs. The import-export policy should be bridled. Economic relations with the Muslim world should be improved. It is India, not Pakistan, that is benefiting from the economic potential of Muslim countries. Each year India’s ministry of information publishes India’s Year Book and India’s Joint ventures abroad to guide the investors. Add to them the Statesman’s Year Book and the Times of India year Book and Directory.
A paradox of democracy
Demokratia is the government of the people. In his study of political systems (oligarchy, monarchy, democracy), 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, the American founding fathers were unnerved by the spectre of ‘rule of the proletariat’. James Maddison 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.
Democracy in Pakistan failed to deliver the goods as it ignored the sine qua non of Aristotelian demokratia. They were honesty, merit, nationalism, spirit of sacrifice, corruption-free public services, across-the-board military-civil accountability, truthfulness and welfare of the masses. History shows that the demokratia (the power of the people) has always been an ideal. No system, including ochlocracy (mobocracy), could ever diminish the power of the governing elites. Although the goal of democracy was to equalise citizens, the ‘equal citizen’, as enshrined in the golden words of our constitution, remains a myth.
The demokratia envisioned opportunities of political participation for larger proportions of the population and across-the-board accountability. But, Michel’s Law of Oligarchies precluded popular participation in democracy. A handful of legislators exercise brute power forcing Noam Chomsky to call even the American public a `bewildered herd’.
Aristotle would rejoice in the grave to see Pakistan’s National Assembly and Senate, populated by the rich. One member defiantly wears Louis Moinet `Meteoris’ wrist-watch, worth about Rs. 460m. Another, with a self-claimed capacity to shut down the whole country, lives in a 30-kanal house. They never took any legislative steps to equalise citizens in access to education, healthcare, housing and jobs. In short, in all realms of life.
The political baton is passed on to scions of political dynasties and their ilk. Taxes become regressive, throttling the poor, and sparing the rich (owners of plazas, car fleets, farm houses, posh idyllic mansions including those at Bani Gala, Jati Umrah, Clifton, Sea View, and elsewhere at home and abroad).
When Parliament becomes irreverent to the masses, non-political or non-elected entities ascend in the asymmetry to make it irrelevant. Will we never learn?
