efore this year’s parliamentary elections, several surveys on elections and democracy in Pakistan revealed a paradoxical trend. Most participants said that they planned on voting in the election. However, most also declared their lack of trust in the electoral process and the results that would flow from it. In April, the International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance published another survey that confirmed the dwindling public trust in the democratic process and institutions of the country. In this survey, the confidence in democracy was found particularly worse among the low-income groups that form a clear majority.

It can perhaps be argued that citing surveys to claim that democracy in Pakistan has lost public confidence is pointless. One can deduce as much by just looking around. In the past few weeks, there have been massive protest gatherings in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Weeks before that, there were massive street protests in Kashmir. And as I write this, Jamaat-i-Islami has staged a sit-in in Islamabad.

Expressing dissent, holding protest demonstrations and staging rallies do not automatically equate to distrust in democracy. At least theoretically, such expressions of discontentment strengthen democracy. However, there are two reasons why I view these protests as a vote of no confidence in Pakistan’s democracy. First, for the most part, democratically elected leaders are largely absent from these rallies. Second, the demands, except those made in the Jamaat-i-Islami protest, are not even directed at the elected government. On most occasions, the expression of grievance and the demands made have been directed towards the military leadership.

On a lighter note, the members of the incumbent government have also time and again said that the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf is seeking an ‘NRO.’ They certainly do not imply that the PTI is seeking concessions from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government.

The decline in confidence in what is left of Pakistan’s democracy should hardly come as a surprise. With experience and evidence, the public has come to understand that to form a government a party depends less on public approval and more on some Faustian backroom deal. Over the past decade, new terminologies – such as ‘hybrid,’ ‘selected,’ and ‘guided’ democracy – have not only entered public vernacular, but also been embraced by the political elite with remarkable comfort.

The opaque nature of our politics and policy leaves much room for such speculative reasoning and distrust of institutions.

In a democracy, the legitimacy of the government is critical. An illegitimate system might still have public approval if it ensures the security of the person, protects fundamental rights and delivers basic services. In our case, as things stand, rather than being a guarantor of security, the state is viewed by many as the foremost source of insecurity. Rightly or wrongly, the issue that brings diverse protestors together is the growing sense that the state structure is the problem, and cannot be a part of the solution.

The opaque nature of our politics and policy leaves much room for such speculative reasoning and distrust of institutions. The populace has little idea about many of the critical affairs of the state. In the aftermath of the Bannu protests, claims were made on social media that certain “good Taliban” were accommodated in the city as part of the integration and mainstreaming of reformed militants. This seemed to have been confirmed when several arrests were made following an understanding between the provincial apex committee and a local jirga. However, the existence of such a policy was denied by everyone supposedly responsible for such policies. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister acknowledged his awareness of armed men posing as government officials. One suspects that he did not know much beyond that and had little power to make or influence such a policy. The Washington Post’s official slogan states: democracy dies in darkness. Our democracy is also an unfortunate victim of the belief among the powerful that they know what is best for everyone and that it is best that only they have information about the affairs of any significance.

A long-term challenge to democracy is the modest ideological investment in the system. Think of all the occasions you read about democratic values or the great democratic leaders in your textbooks. Recall all the television shows where great democratic leaders were lionised and their struggles and achievements glorified. Cannot think of many? Me neither. We have been brought up in messianism. We have been taught that great deeds were accomplished by individuals who exercised their will, often tyrannically. Our people vote. They vote to get their favourite dictator elected.

More than anything else, the stock of our democracy is dwindling because people feel unheard. The prevalent belief is that the elected government is a façade – as Frank Zappa said “the Entertainment Division.” To the outsider, the system is a contradiction between form and substance.

A group of young people recently asked me what they should do to work towards a fairer country. As a political scientist, I should have told them to participate in the democratic process. I did not give them an answer. Not that I had one.

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