Why are Pakistanis afraid of democracy?

[gambit]

@Gambit Democracy has it's flaws, if you read up on it's history, it seems to have failed every time. I personally found it very facinating reading about what the US founding fathers had to say about it - they abhored democracy, even though the memory of being under the food of a tyrannical government was very fresh in their mind. They called democracy "mob rule". "Mobs" can democratically agree to ransack places and set people's stuff on fire, it doesn't mean it's right.

I don't think that democracy is a particularly good form of government. I feel that an informed and active populace is the key, that element can make governance work, regardless of whether it's a democracy or not.

I highly recommend you do some more research on this, you already seem like a very well-informed person on so many topics, it would be neat if you were equally well-read on this. I suggest looking at The Truth about DemocracyThe truth about Democracy

And The War on Democracy
The War On Democracy by John Pilger

I would love to hear any logical argument supporting democracy, in the context of the various logical points made in these two documentaries.

Really? Europe works their democracies quite well. So is Canada. Mexico is a mess, true, but other countries in the Americas seems to be far more functional democracies than you feebly tried to portray them as failures. Looks like it should be you who should read up on history and what 'democracy' really mean.

 

[Qasibr]

Really? Europe works their democracies quite well. So is Canada. Mexico is a mess, true, but other countries in the Americas seems to be far more functional democracies than you feebly tried to portray them as failures. Looks like it should be you who should read up on history and what 'democracy' really mean.

The Nordic countries certainly seem to work well, but my point was, that it seems to be a function of whether the poplace is informed&active, not whether the place is a democracy or not. Many of these European countries functioned well under kingships, and some don't function that well despite being a democracy(Greece).

Canada's had it's share of problems with their french-speaking Quebec. Minorities in many, many places have problems in democracies, it's one of it's flaws. Minorities are left at the mercy of the majority. I'm not feebly singling out any one place as a failure, I'm talking about the very concept of democracy, and the examples I gave were to shed some light on how this concept's flaws exhibit themselves in various instances.

 

[killeragent]

My point is that a Non-Muslim with a best of best intellect and full capabilities to steer and rocket the nation towards RIGHT PATH, could NEVER EVER become a P.M. in this democracy of Islamic republic of pakistan.

Need is removal of religion from state.

 

[MastanKhan]

I ask myself why so many people are against democracy in Pakistan or to say the least are afraid that democracy does not conform with Islam? Is it because they don't understand it completely? Or is it in fact against the tenets of Islam?
What does the school curriculum teach about democracy in the civics chapter? Is is present at all as part of the social studies?
Someone please answer...

Hi,

I want to thankyou for starting this discussion.

Pakistanis are not aganist democracy---and democracy is as islamic as apple pie to americans---.

You are right when you say--"they don't understand it"----the school curiculum teaches the same thing in civic lessons as it being taught anywhere else.

Except that pakistanis have misplaced the position of democracy on the chart of good governace.

The biggest problem that I see with my countrymen is that they have a problem in understanding the basic fundamentals----they are clueless as to how important are the foundation stones to a structure---and why they don't know---because they have been taught very poorly in their homes by thgeir parents and grand parents---.

Where there is no democracy at home---amongst the family members---where there is proverbial matriarchial or patriarchial DICTATORSHIP ruling the roost of the families----then how can a generation of boys and girls can be nurtured for decocracy under such circumstances.

In a nation that looks down upon free thinking, how can we look for freedom of thought in the people.

When the people think the government is something foreign---pakistanis still relate their government to that of the british rule government---they treat their government officials as a representative of King George---and in the similiar manner the govt officials consider themselves as ruling class and the elected members do the same---then you can understand as to how lost the the nation is regarding its ideology.

When the british ruled us---and we wanted to hurt the economy---remember we used to do strikes---wheel jam strikes so the british economy would get hurt---guess what---we still do wheel jam strikes to protest---even though those protests have nothiong to do with what has happened in pakistan---we hurt ourselves---.

Something happens against the palestimnians in israel----we form a strike group and shut our businesses---something happens in kashmir or in india against the muslims---we call for a strike---sometimes these strikes turn violent and cause more loss to the nation---.

One can insult the prophet in one of the scandinivian countries and we will burn half of our buses down in protest---.

You have to wonder---what kind of people are we---you have to understand from where this lunacy comes from---. You have to ask ---have the people of this nation lost their marbles some centuries ago.

A sane person has to wonder and has to make this statement----pakistanis citizens are indeed lost in direction.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

A free thinker is often labeled as zanmureed

BTW the democracy itself has some drivers like the modern economic system which contours the boundaries set by religion and thats where the conflict lies.The religious ideology is far more stronger than the concept of nationhood or the form of governance they hold.That is why we see demonstrations into the streets of Pakistan,India,Indonesia and many other Muslim countries.That is why people stick to it and don't easily get carried away by the democracy which by far has done nothing wonderful for them.
However that trend will not last long as there will be a time when there will be no force stronger than the modern economic system which would eventually consume everything within it ensuring its facilitation.
Though whatever the nature of people be living in Pakistan,People still have respect for the elders here but that trend too will diminish over time as the economic constraints further tighten up.
Democracy/Good governance/Religion means nothing to People fighting over scrap of meat.

 

[gambit]

The Nordic countries certainly seem to work well, but my point was, that it seems to be a function of whether the poplace is informed&active, not whether the place is a democracy or not. Many of these European countries functioned well under kingships, and some don't function that well despite being a democracy(Greece).

Regarding Greece, you are confusing an economic crisis with an ideological crisis. A more appropriate argument would be Mexico where whatever democratic institutions the Mexicans have are being under assault by the drug cartels, who views themselves above the laws and answers to no one. Mexico's collapse as a society will come before Greece.

An informed populace and a functional democracy feeds each other. But usually the initial push towards even a nominal democracy has always been the freedom of association and with it carries the implicit demand that these associations will not attract physical violence. The moment the people are afraid of forming their own associations, the seed of democracy will not grow, no matter how informed and educated the populace. Ever notice how the educated and professional classes are the first to be persecuted whenever a dictatorship is trying to assert control?

Canada's had it's share of problems with their french-speaking Quebec. Minorities in many, many places have problems in democracies, it's one of it's flaws. Minorities are left at the mercy of the majority. I'm not feebly singling out any one place as a failure, I'm talking about the very concept of democracy, and the examples I gave were to shed some light on how this concept's flaws exhibit themselves in various instances.

You misunderstood and wrongfully interpreted the founders of the US when they criticized 'democracy'. If you examine the political institutions in the US, you will find no shortage of where the popular vote rule the issue. In the US House of Representatives, it is majority vote that a budget is passed. This idea trickles down to the local level in every city and township. What the American founders wanted was a MEASURED democracy for the country they were about to create. A 'measured' democracy mean the raw sentiments of the people must be filtered and refined at the lowest possible level. The people's passions for the issues important to them should not be expressed with no counter arguments from other viewpoints. And the best method to date for that balance is a 'republic' or a 'republican' form of government. Please...please...please...Do not conflate 'republican' with 'Republican'.

The flaws of democracy or republican methods of governance should not be the reason why a people should shun the concept. Is the current religious fervor in Pakistan any more attractive? There are no flaws in a theocracy? Will Allah descend from Heaven and take the central seat of the Pakistani government and be that 'benevolent dictator' we all hope for? How about 'No' to all three questions? As long as Man is the instigator, innovator, or inventor of anything, whatever it is will be flawed. For the political realm, the question is how are you going to deal with those flaws at whatever level you might find them.

It is always funny to me -- an American -- to see how the Pakistani members call US ignorant and brainwashed when I see imams in Pakistan telling their followers what to do and their followers have no problems with that.

 

[divya]

Ahhh...The classic desire for a 'benevolent dictator'. If this type of personality is so common, there would be no need for 'democracy' to start. So let us know when you find this leader, aka 'God'.

Sir, I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that even democracy is bound to fail even in the hands of wrong leadership. Just having democracy does not guarantee prosperity for the nation. It always needs to have some Lincolns to actually work out. And if these Lincolns would have been part of other form government system it was bound to function well and it will. Till the guys are good things are all fine. The real need for democracy arises when the leadership goes wrong and they are ought to be removed.

In short with good guys any form of government system is fine democracy is required actually to keep a check on the bad guys.

 

[gambit]

Sir, I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that even democracy is bound to fail even in the hands of wrong leadership. Just having democracy does not guarantee prosperity for the nation. It always needs to have some Lincolns to actually work out. And if these Lincolns would have been part of other form government system it was bound to function well and it will. Till the guys are good things are all fine. The real need for democracy arises when the leadership goes wrong and they are ought to be removed.

In short with good guys any form of government system is fine democracy is required actually to keep a check on the bad guys.

I never said it does. The freedom of association is a double-edged sword. That freedom carries with it the implicit demand that the groups are free to express their opinions. But the next question is will these groups with their diverse political viewpoints, be willing to battle in the arena of words and persuasions. People can change their minds with regards to politics. But they cannot come back from the dead. Sending a few of the opposition parties to the afterlife is still the best way to increase one's odds of supremacy. In the end, it does not matter if a group is religious or secular, right or left, it only matter on how many of the other side can we kill. Literally, speaking of course.

 

[flameboard]

If democracy only works in highly educated societies why does the US try to force other nations to adopt democratic system?

Are you stupid, what the hell is wrong with? The very premise of of your statement is that Pakistan's society is an incapable, illiterate and an uneducated society. The very act of associating and identifying one's self or one's society with such a picture is itself a display of illiteracy and ineptitude. Certainly one without an education especially one who is inept does not deserve the right to have his voice heard, and deserves to be dismissed. To practice such a right would be on the basis of democracy, which might I remind you, is a system that you have just stated an opinion against.


Take your bulls#!t and shove it up your a$$

The very act of electing a democratic government is to entrust the right people to mange the short comings of a political system be it democracy itself.

 

[Husnain_Ali]

the title kind of bothers me because im pretty sure pakistani nation isn't scared of anything like democracy.

 

[Bang Galore]

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
British politician (1874 - 1965)

Democracy may or may not succeed but I have never seen people protesting on the streets in favour of dictatorship, enlightened or otherwise.

Democracy works best in a liberal environment. Democracy rarely works if the other institutions of the state are fettered or if the constitution is illiberal in its nature.. Democracy should not be confused with mobocracy, where the writ of the mob can trample the minority. Certain rights have to be inalienable regardless of what the majority wants & these should be protected by courts. There can be no constitutional sanction for second class citizens.

Pakistan's problem arises from the basic setup of the Pakistani state as a religious one. When that happens there will always be a conflict for primacy between religion & democracy itself & usually democracy fares worse. The blasphemy law is a prime example. Such a law can exist in a democracy but only if it treats all its citizens equally & not just the majority. If a law sets out to safeguard only the feelings of a segment of society regardless of the numerical strength, then the society automatically gives up any claim to be a democracy in its true sense.

 

[flameboard]

the title kind of bothers me because im pretty sure pakistani nation isn't scared of anything like democracy.

Agreed The question already implies that Pakistanis are against democracy, which as a result has brought about the anti-democracy sentiment in those who wish to defend what they think is their nation's opinion, based on a question which implies more than it asks, this inquirer is already (either consciously or unconsciously) biased before even presenting the question, which is apparent in the way it was asked. Just by removing the "why" in the question, the tone totally changes into a neutral one, which is how this question must have been asked.

 

[Qasibr]

@Gambit
Theoretically, an informed populace could create a functional democratic style of governance. Practically, people who actually have the knowledge, integrity, experience, and credentials to make good decisions tend to be vastly outnumbered by the majority that is unsophisticated, and ignorant of the real issues. The masses tend to be vulnerable to social engineering and the science of appearance and persuasion, and studies in group dynamics demonstrates this quiet vividly. Political science really is the art of how much BS the masses can stomach.

Socrates, for example, made what is widely believed to be a superior compelling logical argument against the witch-hunt that democratically went on in Athens. And yet, more people voted than he be poisoned by hemlock, than the number of people who voted that he was guilty. Opinions that the ignorant masses agree upon aren't necessarily right, and very often they drone out informed/educated opinion(like Socrates). For example, informed opinion would not have elected Obama or Bush, and *many* other presidents and leaders around the world. And informed opinion wouldn't elect corrupt leaders in Greece, I was referring to their political history, not their current financial crisis.

This is the very heart of the issue with democracy. I'm having to repeat myself here, but in the golden words of a great poet of our subcontinent, democracy is a system of government where people are counted, but the value of their opinions are not weighted. Everyone's opinion does not carry the same value. A highly learned and wise person, capable of making well-informed decisions, gets the same one vote that a uneducated and uninformed person gets. And there are alot more unsophisticated and uninformed people in this world, even in places like the US where public education is mandatory.

A theocracy is not the solution, but neither is democracy. The founding father of my nation pointed out, there has *never* been a theocracy in Islamic history. The concept of European theocracies where people would by law impose their religion on others and you could only buy a place in "smaller" heaven for five pounds and "proper" heaven costed ten pounds, which was beyond what most poor people could afford. I don't want to have a religious debate here, the discussion is about democracy, not religion and theocracies. We need to think out-of-the-box, it isn't necessary to pigeon-hole ourselves into ready-made opinions and pre-defined "sides" on issues. The ignorant mullahs are highly democratic just so you know. In "mob rule", they excel in manipulating sentiments of the ignorant mob, feeding them half-truths and outright lies to support their own agenda. The mob unanimously and democratically follows, no-one forces them, they consent because they aren't sophisticated enough to see through it. There are records of Britishers "hiring" Mullahs to get the version of facts they supported, disseminated in the populace. And these Mullahs democratically drone out saner voices, for example, religious scholars like Professor Rafiq Akhtar(and other people, who make compelling and sophisticated arguments).

And this isn't only in Islam, there have been many groups and movements, religious, political, social, where this happens. Scientology, in the west, is one fascinating example of this, in modern times. There really seem to be logical and compelling reasons why democracy does not work, and your defense of it seems to be centered based on criticizing crappier alternatives. I just think that we shouldn't have to choose between bad and worse. Perhaps the genius that humanity demonstrates in so many areas, could provide better alternatives. My point remains, that logically, democracy is a flawed system of government. I'm not talking about whether other systems are flawed, or which has deeper flaws, that would be subjective and not what this thread is about.

I appologise if you felt that my questioning the validity of democracy in any mocked or insinuated that the people in the US are ignorant or brainwashed. I did not say that, and did not intend to imply that.

 

[gambit]

A theocracy is not the solution, but neither is democracy.

Yours is the typical argument of those who refused, either through cowardice or indecision, to take a stance. You have no problems pointing out the theoretical errors in all systems while ignoring the pragmatic successes displayed all around you. No one ever said that applied democracy will create a perfect society. The only people who always claimed that they are capable of creating a perfect society are communists and theocrats. Take your pick. Or stand there with furrowed brows in deep thoughts about the flaws of democracy while your society burn and the democrats enjoys the fruits of their labor.

 

[Infinity]

@ Quasir,

Dont Envy with Indian Democracy

Indian Democracy: You have Two Cows, Neta and Bureaucrat takes home one each. You are asked to look after the cows in return you get cow-dung .