n the list of responses one most expects as a teacher of political science, the answer(s) you get when you ask students to define democracy tops them all. Invariably, the answer one usually gets is President Lincoln’s “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Admittedly, Lincoln’s description of democracy is both succinct and comprehensive, and as a rarer attribute for concepts in political science, it evokes consensus. I find it fascinating that the first two parts of the said definition concern the process, the third – ‘for the people’ – involves the outcomes.

The idea, as I tend to understand it, is that true democracy works for the people. So, the institutions of democracy – the parties, parliament, the cabinet – and the processes – the campaigns, elections and the debates and protests – are all important only so far as the system, comprising these institutions and processes, works primarily towards the public good.

In Pakistan, conventional wisdom among the proponents of democracy suggests that so long as we ensure the process, given sufficient time, the outcome will take care of itself. We believe that if enough elections are held, and assemblies and cabinets complete their terms, the system will work to improve lives of the people. Probably, more out of hope than experience, I continue to believe in this idea. But my faith in it has been considerably weakened by the evidence of the current political crisis. On more than one occasion, it appeared that the elite high politics of power has shown little regard for how people’s lives are impacted.

Around July this year, with all the political chaos caused by calls for protests, and politicians pulling the rug from under each other’s feet in the Centre and in the Punjab, the already weak rupee started sliding against the dollar. Inflation soared to new heights. The standard of living for large swathes of population nosedived. Failure to provide for one’s family became a reality for the middle class. In my own little optimistic view of our elected politicians, I reckoned that this may be the moment when our politicians will band together to get us out of this pit.

What happened next, however, is why cynics have always been right about our poor nation’s politics. The federal minister for finance suggested that it was the political turmoil that caused the freefall of rupee and the associated inflation. And credit where it is due, he also suggested that political parties should come together on the single agenda of an economic plan. But the relentless political maneuvering of trying to hold on to the Punjab continued.

Again, in the months that followed, we were faced with a bigger economic calamity – the spectre of a national default on external debt. And I wish I did not have to remind anyone of this, but such is the state of our national amnesia, the growing risk of default came at the back of historic floods of the proverbial biblical proportions. With millions without shelter and in need of instant help against hunger and disease, one would think that certainly the great democrats with their fingers on the pulse of the nation – one that was out in the open without shelter and occasional access to nutrition – would listen and act. But the politicking continued.

The government went ahead with by-polls and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf continued to hold rallies. In the cruelest turn of our democratic politics, Imran Khan suggested that the government could not be trusted with relief aid. In the same vein, the government made fun of Imran Khan’s efforts to raise money for the flood victims. Even the money raised, however, was only to suggest the popularity of either side. It was not for the people. It was still about politics. Politics never stopped, not even to take a serious look at the plight of people.

Since then, we have seen and heard many things, and that is to say apart from the video and audio leaks. But we rarely saw character and empathy.

I mentioned earlier that the floods might sound like an ancient memory or, more correctly, a forgotten event, because the elite power politics or the politics of ego proved its point with the flood victims. Now it had more points to prove. The news cycle predictably moved to the next big thing, the appointment of the army chief. The political circus prolonged.

I will indulge in a rare audacity to suggest that I am not the only one whose faith in our procedural democracy has been considerably diminished. A system can only be considered democratic if it is not only of the people and by the people but also for the people. Unfortunately, our rulers have thus far done little to convince me and many others having faith in democracy that this is what our current politics is about.

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Peshawar. He can be reached at aameraza@uop.edu.pk