I had opined in my piece “Democracy Hustlers” published in May 2024: “In 1970, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (late), rose to power politics by giving the slogan of Roti, Kapra aur Makan (food, clothing, and housing) to the people; and in 2024, his party, PPP, is still in power based on the same slogan without satisfactory delivery on any one element of the 1970 election slogan. The PPP’s closest rival, and ten years younger, PML-N is also again in power with similar illusory promises, while people remain deprived of the basic necessities of a normal life after 77 years of independence. Although people felt temporarily a little better off under three military rules, yet the Democracy Hustlers, including their orchestrated supporting clans of well-rewarded political cohorts, goons, rentable writers and media tycoons, and firmly entrenched elements among executives and the judiciary, have throughout kept the underprivileged voters in line as a sustained election-winning strategy… ironically, all in the name of democracy.”

In these politically turbulent times, the “illusion of democracy is fading worldwide,” as one pundit wrote recently. The “mirage” of democracy comes from widespread misconceptions about this political system, despite clear misgivings from the most illustrious political thinkers of the past. The most important fallacies about democracy are that elected representatives are generally loyal and honest, and that the electorate is generally informed and rational with regard to politics. David Hume wrote in his famous Essays (1777) that democracy cannot be “representative” because all societies are “governed by the few”; and viciously so in a country like Pakistan. In 1911, sociologist Robert Michels, in his work Political Parties, defined the “iron law of oligarchy,” i.e. methodically showing that all mature organisations, without exception, become oligarchic (i.e., ruled by minorities). American composer and musician Frank Zappa said, “Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.” Sadly, Pakistan still remains a true example of oligarchy in the name of sham democracy by the fake aristocrats who, at best, have become “rags to riches” in just two generations; hand in glove with top notches among other power brokers in the country as mentioned above.

Unfortunately, the inability of the masses to function scientifically in politics rests primarily on the following factors: the huge size of the mass group, which makes it too awkward for the use of scientific techniques; the ignorance, on the part of the masses, of the methods of administration and rule; the necessity, for the masses, of spending most of their energies on the bare making of a daily living, which leaves little energy or time for gaining more knowledge about politics or carrying out practical political tasks; and the lack, in most people, of a sufficient degree of those psychological qualities—ambition, ruthlessness, and so on—that are prerequisites for active political life. Any awareness in the public about the above-cited weaknesses is strictly suppressed by the powerful ruling elite as a threat to minority rule and to maintain the illusion of democracy. Nevertheless, now most people would concede that though they have elected “representatives,” they actually have no real say over several areas (e.g., foreign, internal, monetary and trade policies, freedom of speech/movement, safety of respect, life and property, and provision of justice); even though these areas impact their lives greatly. Though democracy might sometimes seem to work well, the never-ending economic, social, demographic, and technical changes to society make such impressions short-lived.

It has been experienced here that irrespective of the political system, the power balance at any given time between state and society, and between the ruling minority and the ruled majority, is constantly disrupted by changing internal, regional and global conditions. The outwardly inevitable increase in state interventionism has a negative impact on business ventures and communal liberties, leading to a rise in political tensions. When the state becomes more bureaucratic, it fails to keep up with a changing society with better awareness, and thereby undermines the power balance. Additionally, political tensions also arise if the ruling minority pushes a political agenda that disregards or even antagonises the majority. Thus, democracy, in particular, is subject to constant swings of political tensions due to its inherent lack of fairness: the losing side of an election is not represented. When the state’s power is extensive, the majority surely has high expectations from democracy, since the direction of society disturbingly depends on the decisions of its executive and legislative branches. It is, therefore, fair to assume that a drawdown of state power is necessary in order to reduce political tensions in society and to introduce much-needed stability, irrespective of whether the political system is considered “democratic” or not. This requires a devolution of decision-making and a reduction of the role of the state, by strengthening the free market and individual/collective rights. The result would be a freer society, able to adapt more naturally and harmoniously to the changing conditions. As Tocqueville said, “I dearly love liberty and respect for rights, but not democracy.” Thus, what people need is “more freedom” rather than “more mock democracy.”

Saleem Qamar Butt
The writer is a retired senior army officer with experience in international relations, military diplomacy and analysis of geo-political and strategic security issues.