Sitting back in the office,
with a regular cup of early morning brew, scanning the newspapers, a particular
headline walloped my bejabbers off: the Prime Minister (PM) pleading that the
anti-terror consensus must not be lost. The nation’s political leadership and
increasingly independent media deserve laurels for having projected the wishes
of their constituents in such a succinct manner, and that too within days of the
most horrible event in the history of Pakistan. This is surely a victory for
democracy and freedom of speech. For the benefit of readers who share Sheldon
Cooper’s inability to discern, this was sheer sarcasm.
Not being a security expert, it would not be appropriate to comment upon the
steps taken in the first place but all does not appear hunky dory, especially
with the government appearing desperate for a consensus on the way forward.
Frankly, all that a layman can see is a couple of All Parties Conferences (APCs),
a lot of hype and rhetoric on the media by people who should not be called
experts in the first place, and tweets about protecting the Constitution. Do
these liberal fundos not get it? The people just do not care!
All that the common man wants is security for his family, safeguarding of his
assets and opportunities to earn a decent and honourable living. If this system
fails, and it is an abject failure on all counts, the underlying documents, at
the very least, need to be revisited, if not scrapped in entirety. The notion
that the man on the street even knows what the Constitution looks like, let
alone understands its utility and is passionate about protecting it, is
ridiculous. What is even more preposterous is the opinion that the common man is
concerned about getting the narrative right, whatever that means; all that the
average Pakistani wants is tangible action. However, the intelligentsia will not
understand these simple facts or perhaps does not want to understand because
doing so will bring its ivory tower crumbling down.
Ladies and gentlemen, the gloves are off and this write up is not for
fainthearted supporters of democracy. For the past few years, being a minuscule
minority sceptical about all the gifts that democracy promised, the sensible
code of conduct was to sit back and in fact hope that all that was promised
would transpire. There were numerous times when personal limits of patience were
tested by the zealots of democracy in their boisterous enthusiasm but,
thankfully, each time better sense prevailed. In fact, the devil’s advocate was
not even granted the dignity of a fair debate and was summarily booted out on
the premise that there was no flip side to democracy, and they lied.
Fundamental human rights and their protection is the biggest sell for democracy.
Those worried about military courts should recall that the oldest democracy came
up with something called the Patriot Act a decade ago and even today their
agencies believe that torture is a good thing. As if African Americans enjoy
equal rights. In poor democracies should even a middle class person dare to
tangle with the ruling elite, or even get on their bad side, the person is more
likely than not to end up behind bars. Justice is a concept alien to the lower
classes that are left to fend for themselves.
Assessing fundamental rights, solely on the ability of civic society to air
their views freely, is indeed a remarkable criterion invented by those who
benefit from this very principle. Even if freedom of speech was accepted as a
key variable, does it honestly make a difference? When has the free press
criticised western democracies on their favourite past time, bombing weaker
nations? And when has the so-called independent press ever raised the matter of
accountability of the state, even after so much has happened?
Accountability is a pillar of democracy. When in this world, baring a few
exceptions that are almost impossible to recall, have the ruling elite ever been
held responsible for their blunders in any democracy? Redistribution of income
is perhaps why the poor joined the democracy bandwagon; fat lot of good it did
them. According to another news item, the net worth of the world’s 400
wealthiest billionaires increased by $ 92 billion in 2014. Yes, 400 out of a
world population of seven billion and yes it is dollars in billions. What kind
of system gets the poor to vote for a government in which the rich get richer
and they themselves are worse off? After enjoying democracy for decades, the
poor in the largest democracy are still 60 percent of the population, and
increasing. The worst part is that repeated elections will not make a
difference, since the rich have figured out, or perhaps always knew, that money
can buy any democracy.
To add salt to the wound, democracies have dreamt up amazing economic indicators
that somehow prove that their respective economies are growing and everybody is
happily employed. All this time the populace wonders why these amazing numbers
do not translate into poverty alleviation. What they should really be asking is
if countries do not have money to spend on welfare, where did the $ 94 billion
come from in the first place?
Considering space limitations and also because there is no need to state the
obvious, lengthy deliberations on writ of the state, property rights, public
utilities, justice and policing are avoided. What has ever been so puzzling is
why democracy never moved to undo the related repressive practices and systems
from the times of the British Raj in Pakistan.
At this juncture, fellow countrymen might ask, what has dictatorship done in
this regard? True, nothing! Dear readers, definitely a dictatorship is
repressive and tyrannical, the populace has no rights, land grabbing by the
state is the norm and the state may even be fascist but one thing it is not: it
is not a lie, there is no cheating. They never claim to be for, by and of the
people. And grandmother always warned: be weary of liars. Someone who can lie is
capable of everything and anything.