Connect with us

South Asia

Understanding the concept of Democracy in Pakistan

Mehwish Akram

Published

on

The word democracy is used widely in contemporary era and often considered as common sense. Democracy has its roots in Greek city-state but it was not as developed as it is now, however, it becomes a refined system of governance after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. (Shin, 2017)

Therefore, Europe can be called as a birth place of democracy in modern world, and gradually it reached to other parts of the world with decolonization process and now the current form of democracy is considered as the best form of government for almost all states of the world. (“Democracts in America – ch. 4,” n.d.) In simple words, democracy was not as stable system in past as it has become, particularly in the wake of evolutionary process of last two decades.

In Pakistan’s context, defining democracy is as hard as it is to develop a consensus on the generic definition of democracy and main reasons behind the weak democratic norms can be classified as follows; firstly, there is not enough scholarly work done by Pakistani scholar to adapt the Western form of democracy in accordance with the local dynamics of Pakistan. (Hussain, 2014) Secondly, the process of democratization requires time to evolve and attain the final form. Thirdly, the oscillations between authoriantism and democracy have also contributed in strengthening the non-democratic norms. Fourthly, the application of democracy is limited to electoral democracy, which is still not as developed as it is in Europe. Fifthly, the phenomenon of democracy in Pakistan is relatively a new concept in comparison with other modern liberal democracies throughout the world.

Democracy is the most widely used term but in terms of its application as a form of government it lacks the conceptual understanding. It is advocated by almost all states of the world but it varies in context of its application or implementation The missing links between theory and practice of democracy is evident throughout the globe as there is no consensus to define the democracy and there is no operational definition that is acceptable for all stake holders without any difference of opinion over the definition. (Bahadur, 1998) In Pakistan defining democracy is relatively a new concept because it is adopted from Western world and it can only be applied in Pakistan by adjusting with the local dynamics of the country. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the success of democracy in Pakistan is largely depended on the clear understanding of internal dynamics by the scholars from this part of the world. The comparative politics is useful in providing sound foundation in terms of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of democracy in different parts of the world. Since it draws commonalities between them in order to make sense of the process itself and identifying the missing links or factors that distinguishes the different cases, especially in case of Pakistan, where the concept of democracy is derived from western form. Therefore, comparative politics is effective in not only defining democracy, but it also guides in improving the existing system in a variety of ways. Defining the concept of democracy is itself very hard due to the absence of universal application in all cases, whether in Europe or any other part of the world.

 In the traditional sense, democracy as a system of government, having checks and balance with the help of an opposition in the government and power was divided into various organs of the state: judiciary, legislature and executive. Election is another important characteristic of traditional democracy, including a responsible government. However over the course of time, the traditional definition of democracy underwent changes in the 19th century, those changes were mainly based on the principle of equality; treating all people as equal and providing them justice. Likewise, self determination provided everybody the right to live independently without any pressure, and majority ruled the minority through the process of election.

In other words, the state had a constitution in terms of particular rules and regulation for the citizen residing inside the state. But this calls into question an important point; can liberty and equality co-exist with each other at the same time or not? The answer of this question depends on one’s definition of liberty. Hypothetically speaking, if everybody is free to spend his or her life without any restriction, quality would imply that all the members or citizens should have same rights and privileges, but the problem arises when one person’s liberty infringes upon the right of equality of another. In simple words, if everybody has the liberty to do what they want to, it may be used or abused to exploit the very right of freedom to violate the rights of other. Therefore, the co-existence of liberty with equality is hard to achieve without any clash or conflict between the two.

This research essay has attempted to define democracy in case of Pakistan, which has been overlooked in the literature before. Since the main focus of existing literature concerned more with identifying the strengths and weakness of a democratic system in addition to highlighting the causes of instability as compared to the developed world. With regards to Pakistan, colonial past and the overemphasis on religion to develop an ideological foundation makes it a unique case study, when it comes to translation of democracy in theory to practice. The constant shift or transition between semi-democratic, semi-theocratic and semi-authoritarian system has contributed in complicating the problem further. Likewise, the weak institutional system also continues to hinder the process of democratization. Therefore, it would be safe to compare the case of Pakistan with Latin American states due to their common authoritarian past. For example, most of Latin countries have had authoritarian rule like Pakistan and lacks the institutional system for an effective working of the state machinery. 

Mehwish Akram holds masters degree in International Relations and currently doing M Phil in Political Science. Her areas of interest are Democracy, Political theory and Environmental politics .

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Kashmir Issue at the UNGA and the Nuclear Discourse

Haris Bilal Malik

Published

on

The Kashmir issue has more significance in view of the nuclearization of South Asia as many security experts around the world consider Kashmir a potential ‘nuclear flashpoint’ between India and Pakistan. The revocation of the special constitutional status of Kashmir by the BJP government on August 5, 2019, also referred to as Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019 and the subsequent lockdown in Kashmir has since considerably increased political and diplomatic tensions between India and Pakistan. India’s recent moves and actions in Kashmir have once again internationalized the Kashmir dispute. This was evident during the UN General Assembly’s 74th Session, where the Kashmir issue remained a crucial agenda item for several countries.

During this year’s session prominent leaders of the world condemned Indian brutalities in Kashmir. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan criticized the international community for failing to pay attention to the Kashmir conflict and called for dialogue to end this dispute. Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said that Kashmir “has been invaded and occupied” by India despite the UN resolution on the issue. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also discussed the issue and called for a peaceful resolution of the dispute based on the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions. Based on the grave importance of Kashmir as a potential ‘nuclear flashpoint’ between India and Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan, while addressing the UNGA warned the world community about the dangers of a nuclear war that according to him might break out over Kashmir due to Indian atrocities. The current situation appears to be the most critical time for both the countries and the region as both countries are nuclear-armed.

However, unfortunately, the Indian leaders and media perceived Prime Minister Imran Khan’s warning as a nuclear threat and termed it as ‘brinkmanship’. Contrary to this perspective, it is worth mentioning here that the Indian leadership itself is involved in negative nuclear signaling and war hysteria against Pakistan in recent months. For instance, the 2019 Indian General Election campaign of Prime Minister Modi was largely based on negative nuclear signaling comprising of several threats referring to the possible use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan. Furthermore, as an apparent shift from India’s ‘No First Use’ (NFU) policy, on August 16, 2019Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, while on a visit to the Pokhran nuclear test site paid tribute to the late former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and asserted that India might review its NFU policy. He stated that a change in future circumstances would likely define the status of India’s NFU policy. Since then there is no official denial of this assertion from India which indicates that India might abandon its NFU policy.

Moreover, India’s offensive missile development programs and its growing nuclear arsenal which include; hypersonic missiles, ballistic missile defence systems, enhanced space capabilities for intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance and the induction of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile-capable submarines clearly indicate that India’s nuclear weapons modernization is aimed at continuously enhancing its deterrence framework including its second-strike capabilities vis-à-vis Pakistan. This is also evident from India’s military preparations under its more recent doctrines such as the 2017 Joint Doctrine of the Indian Armed Forces (JDIAF) and the 2018 Land Warfare Doctrine (LWD)which are also based upon more proactive offensive strategies and indirect threats of pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan.

As evident from the above-mentioned developments, it seems likely that India aspires to increasingly project itself as a regional hegemon and a potential superpower. The BJP government under Prime Minister Modi inspired by the Hindutva ideology is taking offensive measures under the notions of ‘a more Muscular or Modern India’ based on strong military preparedness. In such circumstances, Pakistan’s threat perception would likely remain increasingly inclined towards its eastern border. Pakistan due to its economic constraints would also likely face considerable difficulties in competing with India toe to toe with respect to its military modernization plans. Pakistan is already punching well above its weight, and nuclear deterrence would be the only way through which Pakistan can maintain a precise balance of power to preserve its security. This could only be carried out by deterring India with the employment of both minimum credible deterrence and full-spectrum deterrence capabilities. This posture clearly asserts that since Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes in principle, they are aimed at deterring India from any and all kinds of aggression.

Hence, at the present India’s forceful annexation of occupied Kashmir and the resultant nuclear discourse at the UNGA has further intensified Pakistan-India tensions. Under present circumstances, the situation could easily trigger another politico-military escalation between India and Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi has bet his political reputation on his move to annex the region and his political career is on the line. The same way Pakistan’s politico-military establishment is equally unlikely back down from its stance on Kashmir. It would be difficult for both countries to come down from the escalation ladder because politico-military reputations would be at stake at both ends. Consequently, Pakistan might be forced to take action before India’s modernization plans get ahead and might respond even sooner.

The nuclear discourse in Prime Minister Imran Khan’s speech against the backdrop of the Kashmir crisis at such a high forum like UNGA would likely keep the issue internationalized. The situation demands the UN fulfill its responsibility of ensuring peace and to prevent billions of people from the dangers of a nuclear war. However, Indian blame game, aggressive behavior and offensive nuclear signaling against Pakistan all present a clear warning of nuclear war. It would greatly limit the prospects for international mediation especially by the United Nations whose resolutions on Kashmir clearly provide a right of self-determination to decide Kashmir’s future.  

Continue Reading

South Asia

1.2 trillion rupees on the move: Modi’s greatest piece of purchase yet

Sisir Devkota

Published

on

Last week, the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) was taken aback by more than a surprise. Just when it was dealing with the uncomfortable series of events that led to the transfer of surplus 1.2 trillion rupees into the government of India; social media erupted. It quickly realized that losing the battle regarding the transfer would only add fuel to the hoax of closing down nine commercial banks. RBI enjoys considerable amount of autonomy and independence in the largest democracy, and still, it had to kneel down to Modi’s alleged quick fix.

The RBI would have to vouch for the government in times of need, it is primarily what is expected of the institution; but there was a great deal of discomfort in how the government justified it. A committee set up under the ex-governor, Mr Bimal Jalan, cited how central banks would not need so much of surplus to carry out their affairs. Effectively, it was an order, not a request, which became the underlying discomfort behind RBI’s hesitancy in adhering to the views of capital transfer committee. Not that anyone expected the central lender to protest longer, it did however, request Mr Jalan to reconsider the decision at the face of various consequences. To say the least, it was embarrassing for a premier financial institution to be put under the public eye. The social media hoax was another ridicule of the sickly RBI. In the tales of grand conquests, the victorious army steals the wealth from the losing party. Similarly, the BJP led government in India are redefining all forms of state tools in favour of their interests.

Stolen wealth is most often than not used to correct economic blunders. Just like in the tales of grand conquests, the decision to transfer national wealth from the reserve bank is nothing new. It is nevertheless baffling, that the money transfer is looping in the same direction. While the BJP government in India were imposing a comprehensive GST (Goods and Service Tax) policy, they would not have anticipated complaints from large industries over decreased consumer consumption. For a party that is now known to redefine the legitimacy of governance, falling prey to NBFC’s (Non-bank Financial Companies) incompetence or bankruptcy is a visible defeat. Unlike many other soaring economies, there are large group of subsidiary lenders operating in India. On hindsight, economic policies are barely creating tunnels through which the capital is getting recycled in the same loop. Revenues are not generating further revenues. It is merely closing down on its self-inflicted gap.

The Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) almost played with fire. Uncharacteristically, it proposed a framework to work together with the RBI in order to claim outstanding defaults from high value clients. The RBI was never going to agree with a defaming offer as such but the incident did fuel the argument of capital shuffling. It only makes the bluff look more real. A strategic plan to counter all measures that would have blocked the transfer of trillions. As Mr Jalan sheepishly implied how the importance of central bank and what is does is only limited to the public perception, RBI fought a fix in between larger or rather dangerous political agendas. Consolidating requests from SEBI to only fall into the whims of the government shows the lack lustre personality of the central funding institution. For the time being, Narendra Modi has his way, a theft of national treasure-like his opposition colleague Rajiv Gandhi expressed in the media. However, there will also be a far-fetched evaluation of Modi’s actions. A move of 1.2 trillion rupees in the same pot. Not by any means, a cunning cover up.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Walking the tight rope: India’s Diplomatic Strategy in the Middle East

Published

on

India’s diplomatic corps have been resolutely articulating India’s stances and furthering its interests in the international fora where multiple challenges emanating from historical and contemporary contexts are being faced. One important factor which India’s astute foreign policy makers have faced is the complicated and crucial engagement with the Middle East. There are multiple facets to India’s engagement in the contemporary context that add to this complexity. One, India’s old adversary and neighbor Pakistan has upped the ante in its diplomatic blitzkrieg especially within the Muslim world. Second India’s has varied strategic interests in the warring Middle East factions. Third, the economic interdependencies and the crisis in the international trade in the Trump era has further complicated India’s position as an economic actor in the region. While there are various constituent elements of India’s Middle East outreach, the contemporaneous concerns relate more to its relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Turkey.

India and Saudi Arabia have historically engaged in deep and multi-dimensional political, economic, cultural, defence and strategic cooperation. Saudi Arabia has long been an important Indian trade partner; the Kingdom remains a vital source of energy for India, which imports almost a fifth of its crude oil requirement from Saudi Arabia. Enhanced security cooperation has added a new dimension in the bilateral ties between New Delhi and Riyadh. Recently, Indian PM Narendra Modi was conferred with the highest civilian award of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia even as the top leadership continues to send signals of deep comradarie and solidarity.

With the ascent of the crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman, various layers in this important diplomatic relationship have surfaced. This has happened in a particularly peculiar geopolitical and geostrategic context where both countries have faced tough challenges to their internal stability and international position. While Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is still emerging from the consequences of the massive attack in its oil fields as well as the widespread criticism of humanitarian crisis in Yemen at the international fora, India is grappling with international criticism and discourse about the situation in Kashmir in context of dilution of its political autonomy as well as prolonged information and communication blackout.KSA has had a mediating role in the Indo-Pak tussle since Pulwama and how this hyphenation has led to competitive photo-ops of diplomatic support. Even as KSA has stood by Indian leadership’s vital interests. However, the Pakistani leadership has been relentless in its attempts to appeal to the leader of the Islamic world for vital economic and diplomatic support, especially in context of the Kashmir situation. Even as Saudi Arabia has managed this delicate equation with deftness, it has given in to Pakistan’s economic demands while making a symbolic gesture of closeness by offering the private jet to Pakistani Prime Minister for his visit to the West.  It doesn’t help that the Indian economy is going through a rough phase. However, the audacious announcement to invest $100 Billion in the fledgling Indian economy is a bold testament of the veritable and vibrant economic partnership between New Delhi and Riyadh. It is pertinent to note that in the contemporaneous challenges that the countries face, Iran as well as Pakistan emerge as key actors that affect the bilateral engagement in a pronounced manner.

Iran is India’s historic ally and third largest supplier of crude oil. However, the India-Iran relationship transcends oil. India, with an investment of $500 million, aims to develop Iran’s Chabahar port as a transit hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Additionally, India is developing two gas fields, namely Farzad-B gas field located in Tehran and the South Pars field located between Iran and Qatar. These projects clearly highlight India’s long-term engagement with Iran. However, India’s muted response to US pressure has been causing slight tension in the bilateral relationship. Even though the top-level bilateral meeting between Indian premier Modi and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani was successful to diffuse tensions to an extent. The crisis in Yemen, oil trade and even India’s action in Kashmir continue to affect the relationship.

In this context, the challenges emanating from Turkey are also a sign of worry. Even as Turkey has remained an old ally of Pakistan and a supporter of the ‘Kashmiri’ cause, its open support for a rather lonely Pakistan should cause some worry in India’s strategic circles. This is because India has fine diplomatic relations with Turkey and has considerable economic and trade interests.

However, oil being an important consumer and agricultural good in India’s economy, it is important to secure its interests to have access to reliable and affordable Iranian crude oil. The trade negotiations and engagements with the US haven’t had any headway even as the threat of sanctions for buying oil from Iran continues. India could emerge as a trouble-solver in this context especially since this KSA-Iran conflict in oil supply context has global implications. PM Modi’s personal chemistry with the US leadership could be useful in this context.

Continue Reading

Latest

Europe1 min ago

The return of a “political wunderkind”: Results of parliamentary elections in Austria

At the end of September, the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), led by the former Chancellor – the 33-year-old “political prodigy”...

Newsdesk2 hours ago

Landmark labour reforms signal end of kafala system in Qatar

Qatar has announced sweeping reforms to its labour market, with a view to ending the kafala system and marking a...

Science & Technology3 hours ago

US Blacklist of Chinese Surveillance Companies Creates Supply Chain Confusion

The United States Department of Commerce’s decision to blacklist 28 Chinese public safety organizations and commercial entities hit at some...

Middle East6 hours ago

The Turkish Gambit

The only certainty in war is its intrinsic uncertainty, something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could soon chance upon.  One...

Economy8 hours ago

A more effective labour market approach to fighting poverty

Gainful employment is still the most reliable way of escaping poverty. However, access to both jobs and decent working conditions...

Environment10 hours ago

Major Environmental Groups Call On Businesses To Lead On Climate Policy

Eleven leading environmental and sustainable business organizations published an open letter in the New York Times today, urging the CEOs...

Human Rights12 hours ago

Venezuela, Poland and Sudan amongst 14 new Human Rights Council members

14 new members were elected to the Human Rights Council on Thursday, following a secret ballot held in the General...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy