Mediaboss Marketing

WHAT options lie beyond democracy for Pakistan? The national path to high-quality democracy is long and multi-staged globally. Transitional/nascent democracy follows autocracy. A few credible elections have been held here, governance remains poor, non-elected institutions often remain powerful and coups thus probable.

Stable democracy is where regular elections become routine, non-elected institutions subservient, coups improbable and governance starts improving, as in Indonesia. Finally, there is western-style mature democracy.

Pakistani democracy could never graduate beyond transitional democracy during its previous brief eras of four, five and 11 years (1947-51, 1972-77 and 1988-99). Even in the longest phase, four elected governments were dismissed prematurely.

The last 6.5 years represent democracys longest uninterrupted sojourn here. Pakistanis have only seen democracys worst face (transitional) but have never been allowed to witness stable democracy where its fruits begin sprouting. In contrast, non-democratic periods lasted 20 (1951-71), 11 (1977-1988) and nine (1999-2008) years.

Global experiences show that democracy has a longish gestation period but its performance improves, while that of autocracy deteriorates, with longevity. Pakistan has treated democracy like an infant given five years to start performing like adults, failing which it is executed for ostensibly destroying Pakistan.

Ironically, the adults who removed the infant to save Pakistan inflicted greater mortal damage. The worst democracies are supposedly better than the best autocracies. Pakistani experiences validate this saying. Even Pakistans transitional (ie the worst) democracies have outperformed its best (Ayubs and Musharrafs) autocracies overall. Superficially, both autocracies had higher economic growth rates than elected regimes.

However, the gap narrows considerably once one removes the contributions of external factors, eg, greater American aid to dictators and booming global economies during the Ayub and Musharraf eras but enormous global economic crises during the elected 1970s and post-2008 eras.

Even the remaining edge traceable to superior economic management under dictators loses its allure since Pakistans worst political crises all started under dictatorships. These include the alienation and separation of the former East Pakistan, spread of extremism and ethno-sectarian violence under Zia and rise of terrorism under Musharraf.

If even Pakistans transitional democracies have outperformed its best autocracies, how much better a stable democracy, if allowed in Pakistan, would do? Indonesias case is instructive for Pakistan here since both countries share many similarities. Both are large, ethnically diverse, Muslim countries with populations of around 200 million. Both suffered around 40 years of autocracy and disintegrated under it. Both have experienced serious terrorism.

However, since 1998, Indonesia has become a stable democracy and is today one of the three non-oil Muslim countries (along with Turkey and Malaysia) progressing economically. Ironically, all three are democracies, demolishing arguments about the non-compatibility of Islam, democracy and development. Those propagating East Asia-style dictatorship should study Indonesia most, since it is more similar to Pakistan.

Read the original post:
Our worst political crises all started under dictatorship.