As Pakistan grapples with hybrid democracy, we are often presented with the example of the United States as a model democratic state. Yet should Pakistan really be looking up to American democracy?

On the face of it, elections in the US have historically been conducted freely and fairly. The three branches of government moreover--the executive, the legislature and the judiciary--form a system of checks and balances such that no branch becomes too powerful or encroaches upon the other. Dig deeper however and one finds that the real control in American politics rests with the donors, not the voters.

“There’s a word for rishwat in America,” I recall a friend telling me back when I graduated from law school, “it’s called lobbying,” he said. Truer words may not have been spoken. From gun advocates to big pharmaceutical companies, special interests have ensured that American politicians look out for their interests over those of the American people, and they have done so by spending millions of dollars.

Take the National Rifle Association (NRA), for instance. According to the non-partisan US research firm, Open Secrets, since 2010, the NRA has spent more than $140 Million funding pro-gun candidates. In turn, they have ensured that measures restricting gun ownership do not become law despite the fact that guns are the leading cause of death in American children and teens, and since 1999, more than 338,000 students in the US have experienced gun violence at school.

When it comes to foreign policy, the power of the Israel lobby has been well-documented in a book co-authored by John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago professor) and Stephen Walt (Harvard professor). The controversial manuscript had cautioned that “by encouraging unconditional US financial and diplomatic support for Israel and promoting the use of power to remake the Middle East, the lobby has jeopardised America’s and Israel’s long-term security and put other countries--including Britain--at risk.” Divided as the Democrats and Republicans are in today’s polarised America, it is a testament to the Israel lobby and the spending efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC spent in excess of $42 Million in 2024 alone according to Open Secrets), that neither party or presidential candidate is willing to take any measures to curb Israel’s genocide in Gaza, or halt its offensives in Lebanon or Iran.

A recent article in Politico entitled, “Members of Congress have taken hundreds of AIPAC funded trips to Israel in the past decade,” details that not only have both Republicans and Democrats partaken but that these trips are designed to maintain a one-sided understanding of the conflict. Furthermore, AIPAC has not hesitated to pour money into electoral races where one of the candidates is deemed antithetical to Israel’s interests. A case in point was the congressional race in New York’s 16th district, where the incumbent, Jamaal Bowman, was unseated and the AIPAC-backed George Latimer won the contest. According to a June 26, 2024 report in The Guardian, AIPAC spent over $20 Million to elect him and defeat Bowman, who had criticised Israel and called for a ceasefire in Gaza.

On August 7, 2024, New York Times reported that AIPAC spent $8 Million to defeat Cori Bush in Missouri, “the second Democrat it successfully targeted for not supporting Israel in the war.” On the 3rd of March, 2024, Politico had reported that AIPAC had allocated a “$100 Million war chest to sink progressive candidates.” Special interests and lobbyists aside, one cannot ignore the out-sized role of billionaires in American politics. A key factor in naming J D Vance as Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate, for example, was the backing of Peter Thiel (co-founder of PayPal). Thiel had once given Vance a job at his Silicon Valley venture capital firm, was instrumental in introducing him to Trump and had contributed $15 Million to Vance’s Senate campaign, the largest amount ever contributed to a single Senate candidate, as reported by Politico in 2022.

Elon Musk, reportedly worth $250 Billion, moreover has endorsed Donald Trump. At a rally, Trump bragged that Musk gives him “$45 Million a month”. Musk later denied the claim. Nevertheless, he acknowledged funding a pro-Trump Super PAC (political action committee with tax exempt status) because it is possible to donate a lot more money to Super PACs than to candidates directly. Super PACs are a relatively new addition to the corrupt world of American politics, through which unlimited sums of money can be raised and spent on elections. In 2010, a highly contested Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, reversed a century-old campaign finance restrictions and thereafter, another federal court decision in the same year, Speechnow.org v FEC, opened the floodgates for Super PACs. From 2010 to 2018, Super PACs spent approximately $2.9 Billion on federal elections. Most of that money came from just a few wealthy individual donors. In the 2018 election cycle, for instance, it was reported that nearly 78% of all Super PAC spending came from the top 100 donors.

In other words, elections in the US are increasingly manipulated by financial injections made to Super PACs by extremely wealthy individuals. The restrictions on campaign finance and requisite transparency about donor identity necessary to a well-functioning democracy have been severely eroded by controversial court decisions in the last decade and a half. An extremely polarised America today is looking at an ominous election that not only portends a nasty aftermath but is also influenced disproportionately by shady money without robust checks on the amounts spent or the sources of the funding. Countries like Pakistan therefore would be better off finding their own way to a more democratic governance structure, and should not look to the United States for any inspiration or guidance.

Ayesha Ijaz Khan
The writer is a lawyer who has worked for Pakistani and American law firms and currently lives in London. X: @ayeshaijazkhan