A pseudo-democracy

Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) provide country rankings based on essential dimensions of governance. WGI rates the success of any government on (i) the process leading to its election and formation; (ii) its capacity to formulate and implement policies; and (iii) the citizens’ acceptance and adherence to these policies. WGI holds critical citizens’ endorsement of these three aspects to establish a government’s legitimacy.

In turn, this legitimacy molds the quality of governance. If the people have confidence in their delegation of political power, it creates an enabling environment and a stable government. This conformity creates harmony, a crucial element of governance and nation-building. Above all, the people feel comfortable voicing their opinions and grievances. They have no grounds to create instability or resort to politically motivated violence. All these factors enable prudent policies and their unhindered execution.

Democracy, as a legitimate political system, has inbuilt tools of self-correction. It hinges on people choosing and replacing their leaders in free and fair elections. On the contrary, any dispensation ‘sanctified’ by a flawed election process is essentially a pseudo-democracy. It offers nothing to the citizens as in-place power structures remain unaffected and the ones calling the shots.

A pseudo-democracy remains prone to the use of power. It is defined by creating administrative and practical firewalls aimed at arbitrary checks and balances that erode civil liberties, freedom of expression and assembly and smother civic space that is essential for democracy. A pseudo-democracy is synonymous to a police state.

The pre-poll coercive events and the recent election process itself faced severe criticism at home and abroad. The PTI, apart from much else, was stripped of its election symbol and restrained from the electioneering process. It braved all these trials and tribulations and emerged as a leading party with an overwhelming majority in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The recent SC verdict has now endorsed the PTI's claim of being the largest elected party. It also ruled that the PTI was and remains a political party and was improperly denied at least 20 parliamentary seats. Despite vindication of its stance, the PTI remains in the crosshairs.

Walter Lippmann’s ‘Public Opinion’, published in 1922, is deemed the most persuasive critique of democracy. It coined the phrase ‘manufactured consent’. Lippmann held public opinion as an irrational force. He asserted that the truth remained in concealed facts and not with “ignorant voters”. To him, manufactured consent was essential to manage this irrationality and for democracy to flourish.

Having failed at stoking this manufactured consent and outdoing the PTI politically, the government has set out on the extremely fractious path of initiating Article 6 against three PTI members and banning the party on arguably frivolous charges. The late Gen Musharraf, though armed with the power to enact constitutional amendments single-handedly, did not threaten to or ban any political party.

On March 28, 2023 Myanmar’s military banned 40 political parties. This was because these parties had refused to register with the military-appointed Union Election Commission saying the military had no legal power to set election rules.

Thailand has a monarchy. Its elections in May 2023 saw The Move Forward Party (MFP) emerge as the largest party with 151 seats. Pita Limjaroenrat, who led the MFP to victory, defined it as a win “not about personalities but about policy reforms.” Despite the clear majority, the MFP was blocked from forming a government.

The Constitutional Court accepted a petition from Thailand’s Election Commission. It alleged that the MFP had committed high treason by calling for reform in the law of lese-majeste – insulting the monarchy – and called for the MFP’s dissolution. A decision is expected soon and given the preordained ban; the MFP has devised a policy to ensure it keeps representing its 14 million voters.

On August 16, 2023, all political parties within Afghanistan were banned. Abdul Hakim Sharaee, the Taliban justice minister, said they were not in the interest of the nation and were the main factor in causing turmoil for decades. The Taliban government operates without a constitution.

We are neither a monarchy like Thailand nor ruled by a military junta like Myanmar and surely Pakistan is not without a constitution like Afghanistan. Why is it then that the deeds and actions of this government are akin to a juxtaposition of the three?

A pseudo-democracy with a shadow government pulling the strings is a recipe for disaster. An extremely vulnerable system of government, it can be manipulated from within and easily intimidated from outside.

Thankfully, the judiciary at large has rallied to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s call for creating a firewall around the judicial system. Justice Athar Minallah too has unequivocally stated that anyone who breaches the constitution must face the consequences. Nothing could be more critical for the future of Pakistan.

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum. A governance vacuum too, emanating from a dearth of legitimacy and burgeoning autocracy, dredges up the unwanted. Apart from many other ills, hasn’t terrorism and poverty surged because of it?

Barring the ever-receding customary sound bites, does the comity of nations take us seriously? How long will the country and the 245 million people within be held hostage to narcissism and bloated egos at the cost of the motherland?

The writer is a freelance contributor. He can be reached at:

miradnanaziz@gmail.com