- Ellora Puri

In 2013, I was asked to write the Freedom House report on Pakistan (and Pakistani Kashmir, their shorthand for Pakistan administered Jammu and Kashmir). Despite being hard-pressed for time, I agreed because I have a long-standing intellectual interest in the area, and didn’t want to let go of the opportunity. The report, published annually, looks at certain parameters of democratic governance and participation, and rates countries on a scale of 7 (1-best and 7-worst) to determine their state of freedom, political and civil liberties, and avenues for democratic change. Overall, the report for 2013 concluded that the state of freedom in the world declined for the eighth year in running. Pakistan was given a freedom rating of 4.5, 5 for civil liberties and 4 for political rights. The ratings for it were the same as the year before. However, there was one significant difference, the country got an upward trend courtesy the fact that for the first time in its history, Pakistan saw a successful transfer of power from one civilian government to another. Consequently, it qualified to be an electoral democracy. In a Skype meeting with the other area experts, I had to forcefully argue my case to acknowledge this change. Given the misgivings as regards the innumerable problems that imperil freedom in Pakistan, others felt that an upward trend was not merited. In 2013, the country had seen unprecedented violence, mostly targeting its minorities, inter-sectarian clashes, and no reduction of structural restrictions on freedom for minorities and women. While all that was true, I contended, the elections had been acknowledged by various international and domestic observers to be relatively free and fair. They had been undertaken under an improved legal and regulatory framework that was judged favourably by these observers. The voter turnout was higher than the previous elections (55.02%) and elections were fiercely competitive. A number of parties that boycotted the earlier elections contested the 2013 elections. Ultimately, we did agree to give Pakistan an upward arrow for political rights. The unexpressed hope was that, at least, as far as electoral politics was concerned, democratic processes were growing roots, and gradually becoming entrenched. However, this expectation was challenged in 2014 when Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led by its charismatic leader Imran Khan launched a protest movement against the incumbent government alleging massive rigging in the 2013 elections. The protest continued till the middle of December, when he was forced to withdraw it after the massacre of nearly 150 school children in Peshawar by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The protest got unparalleled support on the streets, and brought the country’s capital to a halt for exactly four months. Things came to such a pass that long time Pakistan-watchers feared for the future of democracy in the country. The very foundation of what was thought to be a deepening of democratic processes in 2013—the relatively successful elections—were being challenged by a mass of people making demands for the ouster of the government in power. The emotion that informed the mass upsurge on the streets, however, remains as the movement was withdrawn as a result of a catastrophic event not because it reached some form of conclusion. The sentiment for a revolutionary change of the system was trumped by a sentiment of despair and disgust.

Pakistan has its own exceptional set of circumstances that determine how and when it can be considered a democracy. The nature of its state and the stance towards the minorities is testament to its distinct historical trajectory. The important role of the army and violent non-state actors cannot be gainsaid. Nevertheless, the sequence of events in Pakistan also pose questions that inform democratic theory debates and a few cues can be taken from them: Is democracy just about successful elections? How does a changing political system gain legitimacy and move towards better accountability? What are the conducive conditions for a democratic change to happen? How successful can any experiment with electoral democracy be when political actors think that the real avenue of political expression is on the streets? What mechanisms ensure that the needs and preferences of the citizens are communicated successfully to the political decision makers? What role do legal processes have in entrenching democratic processes? What makes for a democratic citizen?

What is clear is that Pakistan’s political system has still a long way to go before it can be a called a democracy because: democracy is not just about elections, but is about how effectively they provide a mechanism for legitimate expression of people’s will; it is about the amount of trust citizens have in the ability of the new political system to deliver; it is about the ability of the political actors to articulate the interests of those they are representing coherently and to work towards attaining them; it is about the belief in the legal structure to work non-capriciously for all citizens. It is about striking an adequate balance between representation, participation, and governance. Till the citizens of the country have more faith in charismatic leadership, which bases its legitimacy on street politics, democratic polity is not a possibility. It is, therefore, additionally about the maturity of political actors who chose to provide voice to the citizens in the political system, and eschew politics of sentiment.

It seems like Pakistan will have to wait for some time before observers can move it up on the democracy scale.