Defending democracy - a tough task

At a seminar in Quetta organised by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan on Balochistan's current situation, Ms Asma Jahangir, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, cautioned the Army that she would be the first to resist any extra-constitutional move against the democratic system.
In her address, the focus was on the recovery of four lawyers who had been abducted, and she hinted at 'some elements' taking advantage of the law and order chaos due to government's "weakness and immaturity", and its "lukewarm" attitude towards the evolving threats in Balochistan - reflections on the democracy she resolutely defends.
She was right in saying that "stability of the country is linked with peace in Balochistan" but what about the role therein of the in- and out-of-power 'Sardars' with claims to being 'democratic', and foreign agents (unless 'some elements' refers to them)? Pakistan's democracy is far worse than its failed versions in the West - the bastion of democracy. The recession beginning 2008 proved that beyond doubt.
The Army did not intervene until democracy turned the state into a mess, as now. While only the West backs such democracy, Pakistanis have nothing but regrets. Defenders of such democracy, who rarely fault all that is wrong with state governance, place their sincerity in doubt. The way PPP Sindh protested against the Supreme Court decision to remove the NAB chief yet again belies its claim about striving for the rule of law.
Given the present state of democracy, defending it is tough even for its staunchest supporters; the saner among them, very sensibly, are pleading for reforming the system to credibly deliver on its governance obligations. But what we witness everyday is a steady decline in the ethical and intellectual standards of the political debate, and defenders of democracy don't see the many questions hanging over it.
To begin with, Nadra's latest disclosures about accuracy of the electoral rolls (basis of the 2008 elections) are shocking; collectively, 45 percent of the entries in these rolls appear bogus, and just over a quarter of the eligible voters cast their vote. Impliedly, just about 15 percent of the genuine voters elected the sitting parliament that claims the majority's mandate.
Although the famous political philosopher John Locke believed in the principle of majority, he made it clear that governments did not possess unlimited rights eg no taxation without representation, as enshrined in America's famous Bill of Rights that has been sidelined. According to him, legislators had to have the 'sense' to realise what served the peoples' best interests - a quality they clearly lack now.
According to Locke "whenever legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved of any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence", as now the case in the Arab World.
What the media exposes everyday is how the state is squandering peoples' wealth (tax revenue). While the worst of this scenario applies to Pakistan, it applies to the US and European democracies as well. Reason: majority became the sole yardstick for electing legislators, not their ability to distinguish between prudent and imprudent, fair and unfair, right and wrong.
Free enterprise (gift of today's democracy) triggered the green-house effect, resource shortages, price wars, corruption in state offices and armed conflicts - all paid for by the masses - while politicians fought turf wars, including with the judiciary, as in Pakistan. Bank of England Governor Mervyn King still doesn't find public anger very alarming, but as higher inflation is rammed home, Britain will experience real public anger.
Over the centuries, we sidelined the principle laid down by Plato in his masterpiece - The Republic - whereby government had to be an aristocracy of merit - the best and the wisest in the state - who had shown that they could apply their learning to the real world. Defying this principle, nations intermittently kept elevating the incompetent to their legislatures.
Each economic recession and the many unprincipled conflicts over the centuries manifest that. Tragically, even in the 21st century, and its "knowledge revolution", we erred repeatedly, ie, went by majorities, not merit. Not being politicians, conscientious managers can't necessarily be voted in, especially by the Pakistanis, who are addicted to deceptive sloganeering.
Relying on this weakness, and to exercise unobstructed discretion in squandering the state (that repeatedly debased democracy), politicians kept this class out instead of benefiting from its reason and experience. Politicians and their defenders defied even common sense by forgetting the edge "naqal ke liyea bhi aqal chahiye" (even to be dishonest you have to be clever).
In her address in Quetta, Ms Jahangir also said that "judiciary isn't playing the role it should have played. All institutions should work under the constitutional framework rather than challenge each other." Earlier, Ms Saima Ahmed of the International Crisis Group had told The Economist about "how hard the judges fought to reject any elected oversight" in the matter of judicial appointments.
The counter-question is, "is a legislature composed of (many) members, who lied even about their educational qualifications, competent to appoint judges to the higher judiciary?" The judiciary is trying only to contain the fallout from the pervasive incompetence of the state in addressing even basic issues that it should have remedied but the state doesn't show any inclination there for.
We regard Ms Jahangir very highly, but should she be suggesting that the Frontier Constabulary be sent back to the barracks? If indeed she has evidence to propose this radical step (and its likely fallout) while "some elements" continue to exploit the law and order chaos, she should disclose it. Without doing so, her demand seems 'popular' rather than prudent.
We plead with the wisest among us (like Ms Jahangir) to reject populism, and adopt prudence and rationality as the bases for suggesting improvements in governance of the state. By defending incompetence and corruption, we reward and protect a system that, in its present form, is putting Pakistan's future at stake - conduct unbecoming of the wisest (or the expedient?) among us.