“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.

”
― Mark Twain

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are
prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is
education. Franklin D. Roosevelt

Education is a human right with immense power to transform. On its

foundation rest the cornerstones of freedom, democracy and sustainable
human development. Kofi Annan

The ballot is stronger than the bullet—Abraham Lincoln

The primal principle of democracy is the worth and dignity of the individual.
Edward Bellamy

Defining democracy:
1: Government of the people:
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still
misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and
military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support
by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the
democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and
moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in
ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from
Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei
Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.
In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral
system."
2: Categories of Democracy:

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative.

In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected
or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions.
Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers
of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example,
or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single
room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or
majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed
to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have
numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum
number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct
democracy.
Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities
for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where
the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most
communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a
single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.
Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of
50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which
citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and
administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people,
such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful
and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy
that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

3: Majority Rule and Minority Rights

All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political
decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily
democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that
permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49
percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority
rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that,
in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic,
religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece
of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend
upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by
majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because
democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary
of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland:
"When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a
constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees
fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a
constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and
the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the
institutionalization of law."
These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern
democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy.
Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the
essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule
coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can
be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and
India.

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

• Sovereignty of the people.

• Government based upon consent of the governed.
• Majority rule.
• Minority rights.
• Guarantee of basic human rights.
• Free and fair elections.
• Equality before the law.
• Due process of law.
• Constitutional limits on government.
• Social, economic, and political pluralism.
• Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
THE CULTURE OF DEMOCRACY
A Civic Culture
Democracy is more than the sum of its institutions. A healthy
democracy depends in large part on the development of a democratic
civic culture. Culture in this sense, points out Diane Ravitch, does not
refer to art, literature, or music, but to "the behaviors, practices, and
norms that define the ability of a people to govern themselves.
"A totalitarian political system," she writes, "encourages a culture of
passivity and apathy. The regime seeks to mold an obedient and
docile citizenry. By contrast, the civic culture of a democratic society
is shaped by the freely chosen activities of individuals and groups.
Citizens in a free society pursue their interests, exercise their rights,
and take responsibility for their own lives. They make their own
decisions about where they will work, what kind of work they will do,
where they will live, whether to join a political party, what to read,
and so on. These are personal decisions, not political decisions."
Literature, art, drama, and film--the artistic expression of a society's
culture--also exist independently of government. A democratic
society may support or otherwise encourage artists and writers, but it
does not set artistic standards, pass judgment on the worth of artistic
endeavors, or censor artistic expression. Artists are not employees or
servants of the state. The primary contribution of a democracy to art
is freedom--to create, to experiment, to explore the world of the
human mind and spirit.

Democracy and Education

Education is a vital component of any society, but especially of a
democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be
ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was
and never shall be."
In contrast to authoritarian societies that seek to inculcate an attitude
of passive acceptance, the object of democratic education is to
produce citizens who are independent, questioning, and analytical in
their outlook, yet deeply familiar with the precepts and practices of
democracy. Vanderbilt professor Chester E. Finn, Jr., said in his
address to educators in Nicaragua: "People may be born with an
appetite for personal freedom, but they are not born with knowledge
about the social and political arrangements that make freedom
possible over time for themselves and their children....Such things
must be acquired. They must be learned."From this perspective, it is
not enough to say that the task of education in a democracy is simply
to avoid the indoctrination of authoritarian regimes and provide
instruction that is neutral concerning political values. That is
impossible: All education transmits values, intended or not. Students
can indeed be taught the principles of democracy in a spirit of open
inquiry that is itself an important democratic value. At the same time,
students are encouraged to challenge conventional thinking with
reasoned arguments and careful research. There may be vigorous
debate, but democracy's textbooks should not simply ignore events or
facts that are unpleasant or controversial.
"Education plays a singular role in free societies," Finn states. "While
the education systems of other regimes are tools of those regimes, in a
democracy the regime is the servant of the people, people whose
capacity to create, sustain, and improve that regime depends in large
measure on the quality and effectiveness of the educational
arrangements through which they pass. In a democracy, it can fairly
be said, education enables freedom itself to flourish over time.”

Conflict, Compromise, and Consensus

Human beings possess a variety of sometimes contradictory desires.
People want safety yet relish adventure; they aspire to individual
freedom yet demand social equality.
Democracy is no different, and it is important to recognize that many
of these tensions, even paradoxes, are present in every democratic
society. According to Larry Diamond, coeditor of the Journal of
Democracy and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a central
paradox exists between conflict and consensus. Democracy is in many
ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflict. At the
same time, this conflict must be managed within certain limits and
result in compromises, consensus, or other agreements that all sides
accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can
threaten the entire undertaking. If groups perceive democracy as
nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, the
society can shatter from within. If the government exerts excessive
pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the
society can be crushed from above. The answer is that there is no
single or easy answer. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself
once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. A democratic
society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability
of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.
It is important to recognize that many conflicts in a democratic
society are not between clear-cut "right" and "wrong" but between
differing interpretations of democratic rights and social priorities. In
the United States, there are many such debates. Is it proper, for
example, to allocate a certain percentage of jobs to minority groups
that have traditionally suffered from discrimination? Does the state
have the right to expropriate someone's home for a badly needed
road? Whose rights prevail when the society seeks to prohibit logging
in the name of wilderness preservation, but at the cost of job losses
and economic devastation to small communities dependent upon the
lumber industry? Are the rights of citizens violated, or are those of the
community protected, if the police stop people at random to curtail
drug trafficking?
These are not easy questions, and the broad precepts of democracy
only provide guidelines for addressing and analyzing these issues.
Indeed, the answers may change over time. It is for this reason that
the culture of democracy is so important to develop. Individuals and
groups must be willing, at a minimum, to tolerate each other's
differences, recognizing that the other side has valid rights and a
legitimate point of view. The various sides to a dispute, whether in a
local neighborhood or national parliament, can then meet in a spirit of
compromise and seek a specific solution that builds on the general
principle of majority rule and minority rights. In some instances, a
formal vote may be necessary, but often groups can reach an informal
consensus or accommodation through debate and compromise. These
processes have the added benefit of building the trust necessary to
resolve future problems.
"Coalition-building," Diane Ravitch observes, "is the essence of
democratic action. It teaches interest groups to negotiate with others,
to compromise and to work within the constitutional system. By
working to establish coalition, groups with differences learn how to
argue peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a democratic manner,
and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity."
Democracy is not a set of revealed, unchanging truths but the
mechanism by which, through the clash and compromise of ideas,
individuals and institutions, the people can, however imperfectly,
reach for truth. Democracy is pragmatic. Ideas and solutions to
problems are not tested against a rigid ideology but tried in the real
world where they can be argued over and changed, accepted or
discarded.
Self-government cannot protect against mistakes, end ethnic strife, or
guarantee economic prosperity. It does, however, allow for the debate
and examination that can identify mistakes, permit groups to meet and
resolve differences, and offer opportunities for innovation and
investment that are the engines of economic growth.

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
Democracy and Power
For authoritarians and other critics, a common misapprehension is
that democracies, lacking the power to oppress, also lack the authority
to govern. This view is fundamentally wrong: Democracies require
that their governments be limited, not that they be weak. Viewed over
the long course of history, democracies do indeed appear fragile and
few, even from the vantage point of a decade of democratic
resurgence. Democracies have by no means been immune to the tides
of history; they have collapsed from political failure, succumbed to
internal division, or been destroyed by foreign invasion. But
democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resiliency over time
and have shown that, with the commitment and informed dedication
of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardship,
reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in
time of war.
It is the very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by its critics
that give it resiliency. The processes of debate, dissent, and
compromise that some point to as weaknesses are, in fact,
democracy's underlying strength. Certainly, no one has ever accused
democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations:
Democratic decision-making in a large, complex society can be a
messy, grueling, and time-consuming process. But in the end, a
government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and
act with a confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power
is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of military force or an
unelected party apparatus.
Checks and Balances
One of the most important contributions to democratic practice has
been the development of a system of checks and balances to ensure
that political power is dispersed and decentralized. It is a system
founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its
potential for abuse is curbed and when it is held as close to the people
as possible.
As a general term, checks and balances has two meanings: federalism
and separation of powers.
Federalism is the division of government between the national, state
or provincial, and local levels. The United States, for example, is a
federal republic with states that have their own legal standing and
authority independent of the federal government. Unlike the political
subdivisions in nations such as Britain and France, which have a
unitary political structure, American states cannot be abolished or
changed by the federal government. Although power at the national
level in the United States has grown significantly in relation to state
authority in the 20th century, states still possess significant
responsibilities in such fields as education, health, transportation, and
law enforcement. In centralized, or "unitary," systems, these functions
are administered by the national government. For their part, the
individual states in the United States have generally followed the
federalist model by delegating many functions, such as the operation
of schools and police departments, to local communities. The
divisions of power and authority in a federal system are never neat
and tidy--federal, state, and local agencies can all have overlapping
and even conflicting agendas in such areas as education, for example-
-but federalism does maximize opportunities for the citizen
involvement so vital to the functioning of democratic society.
In its second sense, checks and balances refer to the separation of
powers that the framers of the American Constitution in 1789 so
painstakingly established to ensure that political power would not be
concentrated within a single branch of the national government.
James Madison, perhaps the central figure in the drafting of the
Constitution and later fourth president of the United States, wrote:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary,
in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of
tyranny."
Separation of powers is in some ways a misleading term, because the
system devised by Madison and the other framers of the Constitution
is more one of shared rather than separate powers. Legislative
authority, for example, belongs to the Congress, but laws passed by
Congress can be vetoed by the president. The Congress, in turn, must
assemble a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives
and the Senate to override a presidential veto. The president
nominates ambassadors and members of the cabinet, and negotiates
international treaties--but all are subject to approval by the Senate. So
is the selection of federal judges. As another example, the
Constitution specifies that only the Congress has the power to declare
war, although the president is commander-in-chief of the armed
forces--a source of tension between the two branches that was
apparent during the protracted Vietnam War of the 1960s and early
1970s and in the brief Gulf conflict of 1990- 91. Because of the need
for congressional approval to enact a political program, political
scientist Richard Neustadt has described presidential power in the
United States as "not the power to command, but the power to
persuade."
Not all the checks and balances within the federal government are
specified in the Constitution. Some have developed with practice and
precedent. Perhaps the most important is the doctrine of judicial
review, established in an 1803 court case, which gives the U.S.
Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress
unconstitutional.
The separation of powers in the American system is often inefficient,
but it provides an important safeguard against the potential abuse of
power by government--an issue that every democracy must confront.
Prime Ministers and Presidents
Among a democracy's most important decisions is the method of
electing its leaders and representatives. In general, there are two
choices. In a parliamentary system, the majority party in the
legislature, or a coalition of parties, forms a government headed by a
prime minister. This system of parliamentary government, which first
evolved in Great Britain, is today practiced in most of Europe, the
Caribbean, Canada, India, and many countries in Africa and Asia
(often former British colonies). The other major method is direct
election of a president independently of the legislature. This
presidential system is practiced today in much of Latin America, the
Philippines, France, Poland, and the United States.
The chief difference between parliamentary and presidential systems
is the relationship between the legislature and the executive. In a
parliamentary system, they are essentially one and the same, since the
prime minister and members of the cabinet are drawn from the
parliament. Typically, the government's term of office will run for a
specified period--four or five years, for example--unless the prime
minister loses a majority in parliament. In that case the government
falls and new elections are held. Alternatively, another party leader is
offered a chance to form a government by the head of state, either a
president or constitutional monarch, whose role is chiefly symbolic.
The separation of powers characteristic of the American-style
presidential system is lacking, since parliament is the preeminent
governing institution. Instead, parliamentary systems must rely much
more heavily on the internal political dynamics of the parliament
itself to provide checks and balances on the power of the government.
These usually take the form of a single organized opposition party
that "shadows" the government, or of competition among multiple
opposition parties.
In a presidential system, both the head of government and the head of
state are fused in the office of the president. The president is elected
for a specified period directly by the people, as are the members of
the congress. As one element of the separation of powers, members of
the president's cabinet are usually not members of congress.
Presidents normally can be removed from office before finishing their
terms only for serious crimes or malfeasance in office. A legislative
majority for the president's party can ease passage of his political
program, but unlike prime ministers, presidents do not depend on
such majorities to remain in office.
Representatives
Another important decision of any democracy is how to organize
elections. The fundamental choices are again two: plurality elections
or proportional representation. Plurality elections, sometimes referred
to as "winner-take-all," simply mean that the candidate with the most
votes in a given district wins--whether a plurality (less than 50
percent but more than any rival) or a majority (more than 50 percent).
Presidents are elected in a similar fashion, but on a nationwide basis.
Some systems provide for runoff elections between the top two
candidates if no one receives an outright majority in the first round.
Plurality systems tend to encourage two broadly based political
parties that dominate the political scene.
By contrast, voters in a system of proportional representation, such as
that employed in much of Europe, usually cast ballots for political
parties, not for individual candidates. Party representation in the
national legislature is determined by the percentage, or proportion, of
votes received by each party in the election. In a parliamentary
system, the leader of the majority party becomes the prime minister
and selects the cabinet from the parliament. If no party has received a
majority, the parties engage in intensive negotiations to form a ruling
coalition of parties. Proportional representation tends to encourage
multiple parties that, even though each commands the loyalty of only
a relatively small percentage of voters, often find themselves
negotiating for a place in a coalition government.
Parliaments and Presidents
A principal claim for parliamentary systems, which today make up
the majority of democracies, is their responsiveness and flexibility.
Parliamentary governments, especially if elected through proportional
representation, tend toward multiparty systems where even relatively
small political groupings are represented in the legislature. As a
result, distinct minorities can still participate in the political process at
the highest levels of government. This diversity encourages dialogue
and compromise as parties struggle to form a ruling coalition. Should
the coalition collapse or the party lose its mandate, the prime minister
resigns and a new government forms or new elections take place--all
without a crisis threatening the democratic system itself.
The major drawback to parliaments is the dark side of flexibility and
power sharing: instability. Multiparty coalitions may be fragile and
collapse at the first sign of political crisis, resulting in governments
that are in office for relatively short periods of time. The government
may also find itself at the mercy of small extremist parties that, by
threatening to withdraw from the ruling coalition and forcing the
government to resign, can make special policy demands upon the
government. Moreover, prime ministers are only party leaders and
lack the authority that comes from being directly elected by the
people.
Another concern is the lack of formal institutional checks on
parliamentary supremacy. A political party with a large enough
majority in parliament, for example, could enact a far-reaching, even
anti-democratic political program without any effective limits to its
actions, raising the prospect of a tyranny of the majority.
For presidential systems, on the other hand, the principal claims are
direct accountability, continuity, and strength. Presidents, elected for
fixed periods by the people, can claim the authority deriving from
direct election, whatever the standing of their political party in the
Congress. By creating separate but theoretically equal branches of
government, a presidential system seeks to establish strong executive
and legislative institutions, each able to claim its electoral mandate
from the people and each capable of checking and balancing the
other. Those who fear the potential for executive tyranny will tend to
emphasize the role of the Congress; those concerned with the
potential abuse of a transient majority in the legislature will assert the
authority of the president.
The weakness of separately elected presidents and legislatures is
potential stalemate. Presidents may not possess the votes to enact
their program, but by employing their veto power, they can prevent
the congress from substituting its own legislative program.
Presidents, by virtue of their direct election, may appear more
powerful than prime ministers. But they must contend with
legislatures that, whether or not controlled by the opposition, possess
an election base independent of the president's. Party discipline,
therefore, is considerably weaker than in a parliamentary system. The
president cannot, for example, dismiss or discipline rebellious party
members as a prime minister usually can. A prime minister with a
firm parliamentary majority is assured of passage of the government's
legislative program; a president dealing with a congress jealous of its
own prerogatives must often engage in protracted negotiations to
ensure a bill's passage.
Which system best meets the requirements of a constitutional
democracy: parliamentary or presidential? The answer is the subject
of continuing debate among political scientists and politicians, in part
because each system has unique strengths and weaknesses. It should
be noted, however, that both are compatible with constitutional
democracy, although neither guarantees it.

ELECTIONS
The Benchmark of Elections
Elections are the central institution of democratic representative
governments. Why? Because, in a democracy, the authority of the
government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The
principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental
authority is the holding of free and fair elections.
All modern democracies hold elections, but not all elections are
democratic. Right-wing dictatorships, Marxist regimes, and single-
party governments also stage elections to give their rule the aura of
legitimacy. In such elections, there may be only one candidate or a list
of candidates, with no alternative choices. Such elections may offer
several candidates for each office, but ensure through intimidation or
rigging that only the government-approved candidate is chosen. Other
elections may offer genuine choices--but only within the incumbent
party. These are not democratic elections.
What Are Democratic Elections?
Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, has offered this definition: "Democratic elections are not
merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive,
definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a
government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to
criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present
alternatives."
What do Kirkpatrick's criteria mean? Democratic elections are
competitive. Opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the
freedom of speech, assembly, and movement necessary to voice their
criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies
and candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition access
to the ballot is not enough. Elections in which the opposition is barred
from the airwaves, has its rallies harassed or its newspapers censored,
are not democratic. The party in power may enjoy the advantages of
incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the election contest must be
fair.
Democratic elections are periodic. Democracies do not elect dictators
or presidents-for-life. Elected officials are accountable to the people,
and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their
mandate to continue in office. This means that officials in a
democracy must accept the risk of being voted out of office. The one
exception is judges who, to insulate them against popular pressure
and help ensure their impartiality, may be appointed for life and
removed only for serious improprieties.
Democratic elections are inclusive. The definition of citizen and voter
must be large enough to include a large proportion of the adult
population. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group is not a
democracy--no matter how democratic its internal workings may
appear. One of the great dramas of democracy throughout history has
been the struggle of excluded groups--whether racial, ethnic, or
religious minorities, or women--to win full citizenship, and with it the
right to vote and hold office. In the United States, for example, only
white male property holders enjoyed the right to elect and be elected
when the Constitution was signed in 1787. The property qualification
disappeared by the early 19th century, and women won the right to
vote in 1920. Black Americans, however, did not enjoy full voting
rights in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of
the 1960s. And finally, in 1971, younger citizens were given the right
to vote when the United States lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.
Democratic elections are definitive. They determine the leadership of
the government. Subject to the laws and constitution of the country,
popularly elected representatives hold the reins of power. They are
not simply figureheads or symbolic leaders.
Finally, democratic elections are not limited to selecting candidates.
Voters can also be asked to decide policy issues directly through
referendums and initiatives that are placed on the ballot. In the United
States, for example, state legislatures can decide to "refer," or place,
an issue directly before the voters. In the case of an initiative, citizens
themselves can gather a prescribed number of signatures (usually a
percentage of the number of registered voters in that state) and require
that an issue be placed on the next ballot--even over the objections of
the state legislature or governor. In a state such as California, voters
confront dozens of legislative initiatives each time they vote--on
issues ranging from environmental pollution to automobile insurance
costs.
Democratic Ethics and the Loyal Opposition
Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very
important exception: the act of voting itself. To cast a free ballot and
minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy
must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the
protection of the ballot box and tallying of vote totals must be
conducted as openly as possible, so that citizens are confident that the
results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon
their "consent."
One of the most difficult concepts for some to accept, especially in
nations where the transition of power has historically taken place at
the point of a gun, is that of the "loyal opposition." This idea is a vital
one, however. It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share
a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors don't
necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another
and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to
play. Moreover, the ground rules of the society must encourage
tolerance and civility in public debate.
When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the
voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully.
No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the
common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political
opposition, know that they will not lose their lives or go to jail. On the
contrary, the opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can
continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that its role is
essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to
the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental
legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.
As the next election comes around, opposition parties will again have
the opportunity to compete for power. In addition, a pluralistic
society, one in which the reach of government is limited, tends to
offer election losers alternatives for public service outside
government. Those defeated at the polls may choose to continue as a
formal opposition party, but they may also decide to participate in the
wider political process and debate through writing, teaching, or
joining one of many private organizations concerned with public
policy issues. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for
survival but a competition to serve.

BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

• Freedom of speech, expression, and the press.
• Freedom of religion.
• Freedom of assembly and association.
• Right to equal protection of the law.
• Right to due process and fair trial.

POLITICS, ECONOMICS, AND PLURALISM

Participation
Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, and
they are free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating. But
without the lifeblood of citizen action, democracy will begin to
weaken. Citizens of democratic societies have the opportunity to join
a host of private organizations, associations, and volunteer groups.
Many of these are concerned with issues of public policy, yet few are
controlled or financed by the government. The right of individuals to
associate freely and to organize themselves into different sorts of
nongovernmental groups is fundamental to democracy. When people
of common interests band together, their voices can be heard and their
chances of influencing the political debate increased. As Alexis de
Tocqueville, the great 19th-century French political observer, wrote,
"There are no countries in which associations are more needed to
prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince
than those which are democratically constituted."
The myriad groups to be found in democratic societies can be
classified in several ways. Those that function primarily to pressure
government with regard to particular issues are referred to as interest
groups, or lobbies. Private interest groups, such as business
associations, professional groups, or labor unions, usually have an
economic stake in the policies they advocate, although they may also
take public positions on issues far outside their area of specialization.
So-called public interest groups, like environmental and social
welfare organizations, seek what they perceive to be a public, or
collective, good. This does not make such public interest groups wiser
or more virtuous than those with private interests. Rather, the degree
of self-interest is often secondary in the positions they take on public
issues.
Both types of interest groups are active in any democracy. Both pay
close attention to public opinion, making every effort to widen their
base of support as they seek simultaneously to educate the public and
influence government policy.
Interest groups serve as a mediating force between the isolated
individual and a government that is usually large and remote. It is
through the interplay of these groups--and through the process of
open debate, conflict, compromise, and consensus among them--that a
democratic society makes decisions affecting the welfare of its
members.
Voting
Voting in the election of public officials is the most visible and
common form of participation in modern democracies and also the
most fundamental. The ability to conduct free and fair elections is at
the core of what it means to call a society democratic.
The motivations of voters are as numerous as the societies and
interests that they represent. Voters obviously cast their ballots for
candidates who will represent their interests, but other factors
influence voter preference as well. Party affiliation is one: Individuals
who identify strongly with a political party are much more likely to
vote than those who identify themselves as independent or
nonpartisan. Indeed, in systems of proportional representation, voters
may only be able to vote for a political party, not for individual
candidates.
Political scientists have identified numerous other factors that can
influence voter preference and turnout at the polls. For example,
nations with systems of proportional representation, where every vote
counts toward representation in the legislature, tend to have higher
voter turnouts than nations where a simple majority or plurality of the
votes within a district determines the winner. Socioeconomic status,
the relative ease of registering to vote, the strength of the party
system, the media image of the candidate, the frequency of elections-
-all affect how many and how often voters will cast ballots. In
democratic elections, the struggle is often not to determine which
candidate commands the greatest public support but who can most
effectively motivate his or her supporters to convert their opinions
into votes. The lingering danger of voter apathy is not that public
offices will go unfilled but that office holders will be elected by
smaller and smaller percentages of eligible voters.
Political Parties
Political parties recruit, nominate, and campaign to elect public
officials; draw up policy programs for the government if they are in
the majority; offer criticisms and alternative policies if they are in
opposition; mobilize support for common policies among different
interest groups; educate the public about public issues; and provide
structure and rules for the society's political debate. In some political
systems, ideology may be an important factor in recruiting and
motivating party members; elsewhere, similar economic interests or
social outlook may be more important than ideological commitment.
Party organizations and procedures vary enormously. On one end of
the spectrum, in multiparty parliamentary systems in Europe, political
parties can be tightly disciplined organizations run almost exclusively
by full-time professionals. At the other extreme is the United States,
where rival Republican and Democratic parties are decentralized
organizations functioning largely in Congress and at the state level.
This situation changes every four years when national Republican and
Democratic party organizations, relying heavily on volunteers,
coalesce to mount presidential election campaigns.
Political parties are as varied as the societies in which they function.
The election campaigns they conduct are often elaborate, usually
time-consuming, sometimes silly. But the function is deadly serious:
to provide a peaceful and fair method by which the citizens of a
democracy can select their leaders and have a meaningful role in
determining their own destiny.
Protest
In a democratic society, citizens have a right to gather peacefully and
protest the policies of their government or the actions of other groups
with demonstrations, marches, petitions, boycotts, strikes, and other
forms of direct citizen action.
Direct action is open to everyone in a democracy, but it traditionally
has been used by oppressed, disadvantaged, or minority groups who
feel excluded from other means of influencing government policies.
Such protests have always been part of democratic society. Today,
nonviolent protest, often designed to attract the attention of the news
media, encompasses a wide array of issues, from environmental
pollution to nuclear weapons, foreign policy issues, and racial and
ethnic discrimination. One special form of direct action is the right of
labor unions to conduct strikes against employers with whom they
have disputes that have not been resolved at the bargaining table.
Protests are a testing ground for any democracy. The ideals of free
expression and citizen participation are easy to defend when everyone
remains polite and in agreement on basic issues. But protesters--and
their targets- -do not agree on basic issues, and such disagreements
may be passionate and angry. The challenge then is one of balance: to
defend the right to freedom of speech and assembly, while
maintaining public order and countering attempts at intimidation or
violence. To suppress peaceful protest in the name of order is to invite
repression; to permit uncontrolled violent protest is to invite anarchy.
There is no magic formula for achieving this balance. In the end, it
depends on the commitment of the majority to maintaining the
institutions of democracy and the precepts of individual rights.
Democratic societies are capable of enduring the most bitter
disagreement among its citizens-- except for disagreement about the
legitimacy of democracy itself.
The News Media
To govern is to communicate. As modern societies grow in size and
complexity, the arena for communication and public debate is
increasingly dominated by the news media: radio and television,
newspapers, magazines, books, even computerized data bases.
The news media in a democracy have a number of overlapping but
distinctive functions. One is to inform and educate. To make
intelligent decisions about public policy, people need accurate,
timely, unbiased information. Because opinions diverge, they also
need access to a wide range of viewpoints. This role is especially
important during election campaigns, when few voters will have the
opportunity to see, much less talk with, candidates in person. Instead,
they must rely on newspapers and television to explain the issues and
characterize the respective positions of candidates and their political
parties.
A second function of the media is to serve as a watchdog over
government and other powerful institutions in the society. By holding
to a standard of independence and objectivity, however imperfectly,
the news media can expose the truth behind the claims of
governments and hold public officials accountable for their actions.
If they choose, the media can also take a more active role in public
debate. Through editorials or investigative reporting, the media can
campaign for specific policies or reforms that they feel should be
enacted. They can also serve as a forum for organizations and
individuals to express their opinions through letters to the editor and
the printing of articles with divergent points of view.
Commentators point to another increasingly important role for the
media: "setting the agenda." Since they can't report everything, the
news media must choose which issues to report and which to ignore.
In short, they decide what is news and what isn't. These decisions, in
turn, influence the public's perception of what issues are most
important. Unlike countries where the news media are government-
controlled, however, in a democracy they cannot simply manipulate
or disregard issues at will. Their competitors, after all, as well as the
government itself, are free to call attention to their own list of
important issues.
Few would argue that the news media always carry out these
functions responsibly. Newspaper reporters and television
correspondents may aspire to a standard of objectivity, but the news is
inevitably filtered through the biases and sensibilities of individuals
and the enterprises for which they work. They can be sensational,
superficial, intrusive, inaccurate, and inflammatory. The solution is
not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definition of responsibility
or to license journalists, but to broaden the level of public discourse
so that citizens can better sift though the chaff of misinformation and
rhetoric to find the kernels of truth. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a
distinguished justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said in 1919: "The
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in
the competition of the market.”

Democracy and Economics

Democracy implies no specific doctrine of economics. Democratic
governments have embraced committed socialists and free marketeers
alike. Indeed, a good deal of the debate in any modern democracy
concerns the proper role of government in the economy. Nevertheless,
it would be fair to say that the proponents of democracy generally
regard economic freedom as a key element in any democratic society.
This fact has not precluded economic issues from becoming the chief
force dividing--and defining--the "left-right" political spectrum as we
know it today.
Social democrats, for example, have stressed the need for equality and
social welfare as the core of the government's economic policies. In
the past, this has entailed government ownership of the major
components of the nation's economy, such as telecommunications,
transportation, and some heavy industry. They also call upon
government to provide medical, unemployment, and other welfare
benefits to those in need. By contrast, centrist and conservative
political parties usually place much greater stress on the free-market
economy, unimpeded by government control or intervention, as the
most effective means of achieving economic growth, technological
progress, and widespread prosperity.
Virtually all sides in the economic debate, however, share a greater
common ground than they might concede in the heat of political
argument. For example, both left and right accept the important role
played by a free labor movement, independent of government.
Workers in a free society have the opportunity to form or join unions
to represent their interests in bargaining with employers on such
issues as wages, health and retirement benefits, working conditions,
and grievance procedures.
No contemporary democratic state has an economic system that is
either completely state-owned or totally free of government
regulation. All are mixtures of private enterprise and government
oversight. All rely heavily on the workings of a free market, where
prices are set not by the government but by the independent decisions
of thousands of consumers and producers interacting each day.
Political parties on the left, while generally social democratic in
orientation, recognize that the free market, acting in accordance with
the principles of supply and demand, is the primary engine of
economic growth and prosperity. Similarly, center-right parties, while
generally opposed to government intervention or ownership of
production, have accepted the government's responsibility for
regulating certain aspects of the economy: providing unemployment,
medical, and other benefits of the modern welfare state; and using tax
policy to encourage economic development. As a result, modern
democracies tend to have economies that, while diverse in the details,
share fundamental features.
In recent years, the collapse of centrally planned economies in many
parts of the world has reinforced the emphasis on the critical role of
free markets. In economic as in political affairs, it seems, the
indispensable element remains freedom. As Morris Abram, former
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission
and now chairman of UN Watch in Geneva, has said, "Freedom alone
may not guarantee economic success. But repression most certainly
guarantees economic failure." Even in those rare cases where
authoritarian regimes have made significant economic strides, they
have done so by granting the freedom in the economic realm that they
deny their citizens politically. Moreover, their success generally has
not strengthened the hand of the regime over the long term but has
contributed, as in the case of Chile and Taiwan, to demands by the
people for political freedom commensurate with their economic
freedom.
Democracies will continue to debate economic issues as vigorously in
the future as in the past. But increasingly, the debate is focusing not
on the failed alternative of state-run command economies but on
ensuring the benefits of the free market for all in an increasingly
interdependent world.
Voices
Democracies make several assumptions about human nature. One is
that, given the chance, people are generally capable of governing
themselves in a manner that is fair and free. Another is that any
society comprises a great diversity of interests and individuals who
deserve to have their voices heard and their views respected. As a
result, one thing is true of all healthy democracies: They are noisy.
Former U.S. president George Bush described the wide array of
volunteer organizations in the United States as "a thousand points of
light." The metaphor could also serve for the diversity, or pluralism,
of democratic societies everywhere. The voices of democracy include
those of the government, its political supporters, and the opposition,
of course. But they are joined by the voices of labor unions, organized
interest groups, community associations, the news media, scholars
and critics, religious leaders and writers, small businesses and large
corporations, churches and schools.
All of these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the
democratic political process, whether locally or nationally. In this
way, democratic politics acts as a filter through which the vocal
demands of a diverse populace pass on the way to becoming public
policy. As another former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, once said,
"The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself--
always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all
the more valuable for having been tested by adversity."
Possible Conclusion
Democracy itself guarantees nothing. It offers instead the opportunity
to succeed as well as the risk of failure. In Thomas Jefferson's ringing
but shrewd phrase, the promise of democracy is "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."
Democracy is then both a promise and a challenge. It is a promise that
free human beings, working together, can govern themselves in a
manner that will serve their aspirations for personal freedom,
economic opportunity, and social justice. It is a challenge because the
success of the democratic enterprise rests upon the shoulders of its
citizens and no one else.
Government of and by the people means that the citizens of a
democratic society share in its benefits and in its burdens. By
accepting the task of self-government, one generation seeks to
preserve the hard-won legacy of individual freedom, human rights,
and the rule of law for the next. In each society and each generation,
the people must perform the work of democracy anew--taking the
principles of the past and applying them to the practices of a new age
and a changing society.
The late Josef Brodsky, Russian-born poet and Nobel Prize winner,
once wrote, "A free man, when he fails, blames nobody." It is true as
well for the citizens of democracy who, finally, must take
responsibility for the fate of the society in which they themselves
have chosen to live.

A brief history of
Pakistan’s turbulent
democratic and political
evolution
1: 1947-1958: An incipient democracy struggles to assert itself as
the spectre of dictatorship looms

The first decade after Pakistan’s independence was marked by a

struggling democracy trying to impose itself on Pakistan’s landscape.
This first decade in fact laid the groundwork for the civil-military
imbalance that would come to define Pakistan in the coming years.
Pakistan’s beginnings were marked by contrasting fortunes of the
military and the civilian government. Pakistan’s founders harboured
genuine existential fears of India threatening action against Pakistan,
and this fear led to Pakistan diverting scarce resources to the military.
This Indian threat also led to Pakistan seeking a patron on the
international level that would guarantee Pakistan’s security. This line
of thinking led Pakistan to entrench itself firmly in the Cold War
camp on the hopes that America would protect Pakistan’s territorial
integrity. America, for its part, poured millions in the Pakistani army
in a bid to make it a bulwark against possible Soviet aggression in
Asia.

The patronage the military enjoyed from the Pakistani state and from
America led to the military modernising on a far more rapid scale
than Pakistan’s civilian establishment. The latter, in fact, suffered
from political squabbling and chose to adopt a centralised approach
instead of decentralising power to the provinces. This decision once
again stemmed from our leaders’ fears that enemy forces might
exploit fissures in Pakistan’s cultural and national make up, which
could lead to Pakistan breaking up.
The diverging paths of the military and the civilian government
eventually pitted the two forces in a conflict that was only ever likely
to have one winner. Pakistan’s first experiment with democracy thus
came to an ignominious end on 7th October 1958, when the then
President Iskander Mirza abrogated the constitution and declared
martial law in Pakistan.

2: 1958-1971: The years of development, conflict and direct

military rule

Iskander Mirza’s control of the state would turn out to be short-lived

as well. The army chief Ayub Khan took power in his own hands and
sent Mirza on a ‘vacation’ without a return ticket. Ayub then installed
himself as Pakistan’s president and presided over a decade that has
been defined as a turning point in Pakistan’s economic trajectory, but
which also witnessed Pakistan fighting a war with India in 1965. The
economic policies Ayub promulgated were also in large part
responsible for East Pakistan breaking apart from Pakistan.
Ayub was candid about his disdain for parliamentary democracy from
the beginning. Trained at Sandhurst and highly Western-oriented,
Ayub took pride in Pakistan being the United States’s ‘most-allied
ally’, and installed a political system that strongly mirrored America’s
presidential form of democracy.

Ayub’s 1962 constitution–which interestingly did not initially include

the ‘Islamic Republic’ in its title, envisioned an electoral college of
80,000 people who would elect the President. The Basic Democracies
system was in fact a multi-layered, and complex system that meant
that Pakistan’s president–who inevitably was to be Ayub Khan–
would be indirectly elected. This system of indirect elections was
moreover born out of Ayub’s belief that the Pakistani ‘mentality’ was
not suitable for Parliamentary democracy.
Ayub’s economic policies also made him stand out from his
predecessors and from those who would succeed him as Pakistan’s
leaders. Ayub harbingered the green revolution in Pakistan and also
set Pakistan on the path of unprecedented industrial development.
This growth, however, had a tremendous cost since it gave birth to
regional inequalities. Pakistan’s famed economist, Mehboob-ul-Haq,
for instance, dubbed Ayub’s economic policies ‘the Doctrine of
Functional Inequality’ and highlighted the stark inequality that had
emerged in Pakistan in the 1960s.

This inequality, coupled with Ayub’s stifling of democracy eventually

gave birth to the social unrest that forced Ayub to resign in 1969. The
former army chief, however, chose not to hold elections and instead
passed on the baton to the then army chief, Yahya Khan.

Yahya continues to remain an enigma in Pakistan’s history. Although

Yahya was the first leader to hold direct elections in Pakistan on the
basis of ‘one person, one vote’, his role in the subsequent political
crisis highlights his inherent bias and disdain for sharing power with
East Pakistan.
It remains a poorly kept secret of Pakistan’s history that the 1971
tragedy was down largely to West Pakistan’s economic and political
isolation of East Pakistan, and owed little to India’s pernicious role.
India did indeed exploit nationalist sentiment in what is now
Bangladesh, but the grounds for division were laid when West
Pakistan ignored economic development in East Pakistan, and when
Bengalis increasingly found themselves shut off from military,
bureaucratic and political positions in the country.

3: 1971-1988: The years of self-avowed ‘socialism’ and military

rule

The division of Pakistan meant Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his Pakistan
Peoples’ Party (PPP) found themselves governing the country. This
was perhaps the best time for civilian politicians to assert themselves
over the military since the latter found itself humiliated and devoid of
pride and public support after the 1971 incident.
However, as has become commonplace for our politicians, Bhutto
resorted to authoritarian rule that isolated his party cadre, and stifled
opposition in the country. Although Bhutto had soared to popularity
on his socialist mandate of ‘roti, kapra, makaan’, and he did
nationalise many industries in the country, his failure to implement
his land reforms and his action against prominent trade unions
highlight a sharp dichotomy and dissonance in his ideology.

Bhutto’s taste for authoritarianism was only compounded by an

economic crisis that gripped Pakistan. The floods in 1973-74 and the
OPEC oil crisis that triggered a global recession all contributed to
decreasing Bhutto’s popularity in the country. It thus only seemed
inevitable that the military would re-assert itself, and the straw that
broke the camel’s back was the claim that Bhutto rigged the 1977
elections. As opposition to Bhutto mounted, General Zia ul Haq led
‘Operation Fairplay’ on the 5th of July, 1977, and ended Bhutto’s
rule.
Zia-ul-Haq’s oppressive rule continues to haunt Pakistan’s political
and social fabric. Zia abrogated the 1973 constitution, and added the
infamous Eighth amendment that would debilitate Pakistan’s
democracy for the next twenty years. Zia’s rule also blended a myopic
view of Islam with authoritarian rule, which gave birth to many
radical movements that plague Pakistan today.
Zia also took the momentous decision to place Pakistan at the
vanguard of America’s war against the Soviet invasion in
Afghanistan. CIA and Pakistani funded ‘mujahideen’ took on Soviet
forces in an operation that radicalised Pakistani society, and gave
birth to the present blend of conservatism that has gripped Pakistan.

4: 1988-1999: Controlled democracy and the decade of

presidential high-handedness

Pakistan’s 1990s oscillated between rule by Nawaz Sharif and

Benazir Bhutto. The ‘Daughter of the East’, Benazir made a
remarkable return from obscurity in 1988 when her PPP surged to
power in that year’s elections. However, General Zia’s legacy
continued to stifle democracy in Pakistan, with Benazir coming in
direct conflict with the now far more powerful position of President,
and the army. Indeed, it was the eighth amendment that paved the
way for President Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s dismissal of Benazir’s
government in 1990.
The 1990 elections saw Nawaz Sharif’s Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI)
come to power, but his tenure too was marked by conflict with the
military and the President. Nawaz made the wise decision to keep
Pakistan out of the First Gulf War, and laid the grounds for what
would become Nawaz’s brainchild–the motorways in his tenure, but
his time in office too was cut short when the military forced both him
and Ghulam Khan to resign in 1993 after Nawaz and Khan could not
agree on key policy measures.
1993 and 1996 were the next election cycles which saw Benazir
emerge victorious in the former, with Nawaz coming to power again
in 1996. It was his heavy mandate in 1996 that allowed Nawaz to pass
the Thirteenth amendment that limited the President’s powers and
finally gave breathing space to civilian rule. Nawaz, however,
triggered inter-institutional conflict when his supporters first led a
raid on the Supreme Court in 1997 and later when he tried to remove
army chief Pervez Musharraf. The latter action, sadly, proved to be
too much for the army to digest, with the military triggering a military
coup, and once again pushing Pakistan into the grips of military rule.

5: 1999-2008: ‘Enlightened Moderation’ and a period of seismic

changes

Pervez Musharraf’s rule was another defining period in Pakistan’s

history. These nine years once again witnessed near unprecedented
economic growth–much of it owing to economic rewards from
Pakistan’s participation in the War on Terror–to the impact the WoT
had on Pakistan’s security and peace.
It was also under Musharraf’s rule that digital media gained immense
traction and growth, a phenomenon that would ironically lead to his
downfall. Musharraf also promulgated the 17th amendment that undid
a lot of the democratic gains Pakistan achieved in the thirteenth
amendment.

Pakistan’s exposure to democracy and to globalisation through a

vibrant digital media, and the societal changes that emerged out of a
rising middle class, however, eventually proved too much for
Musharraf’s stranglehold on the political landscape, and led to the
lawyer’s movement and the opposition to the emergency of 3rd
November, 2007 which culminated in Musharraf giving up power.
The rise of a religious middle class also served as the impetus behind
Nawaz Sharif’s return, and it was his presence and the return of
Benazir Bhutto that toppled Pakistan’s third military regime

6: 2008-Present: Democracy gaining a foothold in the country?

2018 will mark a decade since Pakistan has had uninterrupted

democratic rule. This period has seen tremendous democratic gains
such as the passing of the 18th amendment, the passage of the seventh
National Finance Commission (NFC) award, and more recently, the
Thirty First Amendment Bill that paves the way for FATA’s merger
with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
This decade, however, has not been bereft of civil-military conflict. In
fact, events such as the Dawn Leaks, the multiple military operations
during the PPP and the incumbent government’s tenures, the 2011
American operation against Osama Bin Laden and the Memogate
Scandal that emerged in the aftermath of this operation all damaged
the already precarious civil-military paradigm, and led to calls that the
country might return to direct military rule.
With the end of the incumbent Parliament’s tenure on the 31st of
May, however, it seems that democracy is finally entrenching itself in
Pakistan. All parties seem united on holding elections on the 25th of
July, and other state institutions such as the judiciary too seem to be
on board with this idea.
As we cast our votes, however, it is important to realise the
significance of this moment and the history that bears down on us as
we head to the polls. We must also be cognisant of the fact that it is
only through democracy that Pakistan can truly set itself on the path
to prosperity.
Pillars of democracy

There are a minimal number of pillars needed to support the

infrastructure of democracy. If you wish to build a bridge, there are
principles of engineering that must be followed. Similarly, there are
seven main pillars of the architecture of democracy: elections,
political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression,
accountability and transparency, decentralisation, and civil society.
But democracy, unlike bridge building, isn’t just science; it is also the
art of the possible.

1: Elections
Free and fair elections lend legitimacy to democracy by preventing
one person or a small group in a society from imposing certain vested
interests on the general population. No one person or group should
exercise a monopoly of power over the election process.
Political parties constitute a major instrument of constitutional
democracy in which fundamental norms govern the political
community and determine relations between the legislature and the
people, as well as the interactions among centers of power. In a
democracy, political parties can be formed and can campaign without
intimidation. Some countries require political parties to have a
minimum level of popular support before they can participate in
elections. All political parties must also have access to free media and
other means to broadcast their election platforms. The electoral
process should be supervised, monitored, and carried out by a neutral
body, often an election commission.
Unfortunately, elections may be rigged and votes bought. Politicians
who only appear among their constituencies to enhance their
patronage power, to be photographed and filmed distributing largesse,
are sadly a familiar phenomenon in many countries.
A political establishment that ceases to reflect the aspirations of a
given country’s citizens loses its political legitimacy. Once that
happens, the political establishment could call for new elections.
However, it may instead resort to the use of force, fear and
intimidation to cling to power, and elections may be suspended or
subverted. Although elections are necessary and may be the most
visible aspect of a democracy, there are many examples of
manipulating election processes to aid and abet autocracy and
tyranny. In themselves, elections do not suffice to ensure democracy.

2: Political Tolerance
The second pillar is political tolerance. Free and fair elections do not
give a mandate to oppress or sideline those who have voted against
the government. It also does not mean that the majority have the right
to rob the minority of its civil liberties, rights, property, or life.
Tolerance is required for sustainable democracy. If minority groups
do not benefit equitably from the election process, there can be no
peace. That absence of peace would make a mockery of efforts to be
democratic.
In many countries, there are examples of rewards given only to
supporters of the ruling party, with neglect or punishment for those
who voted for the opposition. The distribution of food, water supplies,
and development resources has been used as a weapon of control to
win elections. Post-election politics can also be punitive on the losers.
The elected government may view the minority’s participation in
government as an obstacle, rather than finding a way to include them
in reasoned debate and, where appropriate, incorporate opposition
ideas into government policy.

Tolerance has to do with acceptance of diversity in society. It begins

with the way children and young people are brought up. If we teach
the young to believe in the principle of “winner takes all,” we impede
the development of democracy. Instead, young people must learn that
what the winner earns in an election is an on-going duty to strike a
balanced consensus in society. Striking that balance is an art.

3: Rule of Law
The third pillar of democracy is rule of law. There has been much
debate on the meaning of this idea. What is clear, though, is the close
connection between the rule of law and democracy. When the
political process is subject to laws and takes place within a sound
regulatory framework, it enables citizens to judge the lawfulness of
the government. Citizens can answer some key questions:
• Does the government govern according to the law or does it take the
position that it is exempt from some inconvenient rules?
• Are procedures of the government stable and within the law or does
government act in an arbitrary fashion, arresting people who
challenge its policies and depriving them of their liberty without
due process?

Returning to the importance of the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus is

one of the most cherished concepts it contains. Habeas Corpus
prevents arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, and execution by requiring
such government actions to be justified under law and ensuring the
detainee’s right to due process. A political class, which accepts that
official actions must comply with the law, is more likely to embrace
democracy. Proper application of the rule of law puts a brake on any
attempt to destroy liberty, seize property, or violate human rights. It
also means that such rules apply across the board to all citizens.
When application of the rule of law is weak, corruption flourishes.
Bribery, kickbacks, bid rigging, and policy favors for family and
cronies are well known in many countries. In these situations, those
who seek enforcement of the law may face intimidation or reprisal.
Democracy becomes dysfunctional when the bureaucracy, the
judiciary, the legislature, the private sector, the police, and the
military all use their power to enrich themselves and advance their
own interests at the expense of society at large. Laws
notwithstanding, corruption undermines the rule of law. Judicial
neutrality is a key premise of the rule of law. If judges apply one set
of rules for those with wealth and influence and another set of rules
for those without, the entire political and judicial system falls into
disrepute, eroding public trust in government institutions to deliver
justice.
The rule of law is rooted in a system of moral values. In South Africa,
for decades, the rule of law existed within an apartheid system. The
law was based on the color of one’s skin. In a properly balanced
political and legal system that protects the rights of citizens, those
with a particular skin color cannot use it to obstruct justice. Justice
and equality are directly linked with the sustainability of democracy.
Generally, once the rule of law is compromised, a regime, despite
what it may otherwise profess, slips on its democratic credentials and
loses legitimacy.

In a constitutional democracy like Thailand, the constitution defines

the institutional arrangements that govern in a democracy. Democracy
works best when its institutions and officials operate in a system with
checks and balances. The rule of law defines the limits to political
interference in decision-making processes. With the rule of law, the
system is held in common by all citizens, who are subject to the same
laws; those governing do not “own” the system. To ensure the
functioning of the rule of law, it is vital that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary and the entire justice system are not
subject to undue influence and illegal intervention.

4: Freedom of Expression
The fourth pillar sustaining democracy is freedom of expression.
What people in civil society are allowed to say, print, distribute, and
discuss is indicative of the democratic nature of a political system. A
free press is one measure of freedom of expression in a society.
Internet untrammeled by state control is another.
Few governments, democratic or otherwise, have a genuinely easy
relationship with free press; yet, despite all its shortcomings, a free
press, supported by open Internet access, is indispensable to keeping
the public well informed as part of a functioning democracy. Even in
an established democracy, government may seek to manipulate free
press into serving its own ends. Governments often conduct spin
campaigns to advance their agenda and dilute the power of
independent media.
New technology is unleashing powerful new forces through quantum
expansion of information dissemination and space for public
discourse. The Internet has revolutionized participation in political
debate and action, and fostered the formation of e-communities.
Mobile phones serve as crucial means of facilitating rapid
communication. In countries with authoritarian practices, freedom of
information is high on the government’s danger list. Such freedom, as
represented by the new media, is a few clicks away on websites such
as YouTube and on numerous subject-specific blogs. These new
forces have made it much harder for governments to control the flow
of information.

The fact remains that even democratically elected governments will

go to great lengths to manipulate public opinion, whether on TV, in
the print media, or on the Internet. State influence and control over
the flow of information should give us pause. The trappings of
democracy may appear healthy, but if freedom of information and
press freedom are hollowed out, democracy is compromised. Constant
public vigilance remains instrumental in performing a watchdog role.
This is not always easy, as the law in many developing democracies is
neither supportive of freedom of information nor does it favor the
press in case of conflict with the government.

Freedom of expression was thought important enough to place in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the declaration
provides, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media regardless of frontiers.” Although no democracy
has absolute freedom of speech, unless citizens have the right to
express themselves in the political process, no government can be
made accountable for its actions.
The key is to balance national and societal interests to create and
maintain the level of discussion required for participation in
democracy to be meaningful, while drawing lines that take into
account a country’s history and cultural milieu. Each country places
its own limitations on freedom of expression. What matters is that
those limitations are not misused by political forces to limit public
scrutiny of policies and actions that have an impact on the integrity of
governance. For example, if criminal libel laws effectively thwart
whistle blowing on irregularities or corruption, democracy is
diminished.

Democracy is about multiple voices. These may be contradictory;

some may be more informed than others, while others may be
personal opinion, gossip or speculation. That is a marketplace of
ideas. As in all marketplaces, not everything is of equal value. So as
long as our institutions enable people to understand how to assess
ideas in this marketplace, selecting the rigorous and rejecting the
shoddy, democracy is not only sustained – it thrives. With the
Internet, globalization, and mass communications, the marketplace of
ideas draws from far beyond the borders of any single democracy.
Such a marketplace can no longer be easily crafted and controlled by
government and no single government can feel quite comfortable in
invoking the means to silence dissent or whistle-blowers.

5: Accountability and Transparency

The fifth pillar of democracy is accountability and transparency.
Institutions of government and individuals in those institutions must
be held accountable for their actions. A government must be
accountable to the people who elected it into power. It must be
accountable to an independent judiciary or other impartial institutions
established to check government action. Be it agricultural policy, fuel
pricing, or health care services, decisions must not advance the
agendas of vested interest groups over the public interest.
Accountability and transparency essentially have the same purpose:
protecting citizens against misguided policies or decisions that enrich
a few at the expense of the many. When these two “guardian angels”
are compromised, it is an alarm that good governance is at risk, and
that the democratic process has stalled.

6: Decentralization
The sixth pillar rests on local or provincial political empowerment.
The closer the government is to the people governed, the more
responsive the government is likely to be. At the same time, for
decentralized democracy to work, funding must also be decentralized,
material and human resources, and institutional capability.
Decentralization of the political process is another way to curb the
concentration of power and influence exercised by political forces.
Citizens become more aware, interested, and willing to participate in
democracy when they see their officials as neighbors and what is at
stake as something close to home.

It is at the local level that we see the best example of how democracy
is connected with the daily lives of citizens. The physical proximity of
the neighborhood has the same benefits as the online community in a
knowledge economy: people with common interests and shared
values express and exchange views and insights, influencing one
another. Citizens’ right of assembly and participation at the local level
nurture the longevity of democracy in a society. The creation of
political parties at the local level also facilitates building of a
representative democracy. Local participation by voters and
candidates drawn from the same district or province gives credibility
and legitimacy to the democratic process. The local administration
becomes a training ground for future national leaders.

7: Civil Society
Civil society is the vital seventh pillar. An active civil society begins
its engagement at the grassroots. Community forums, clubs, issue-
focused activist groups, charities, cooperatives, unions, think tanks,
and associations fit under the broad umbrella of civil society. These
groups are the participatory vehicles for sustaining grassroots
democracy. There is a strong degree of volunteerism, shared interest
and common values around which information is gathered and
analyzed, views are formed, and advocacy pursued.
The health of a democracy may be measured by the vitality of its civil
society and the extent of citizen participation in public policymaking.
Civil society provides an important source of information for
intelligent debate on matters of public interest. Civil society provides
a mechanism whereby the collective views of citizens can shape and
influence government policy. By bringing arguments and information
to the public as a context for examining policy, civil society forces
democratic government to present counterarguments or to modify its
position. Such exchange is healthy for democracy.

Problems of Democracy // Challenges

The major features of the Pakistani polity show serious problems of
democracy. At times, democracy and participatory governance are
either totally non-existent or their quality is poor.

1: Institutional Imbalance:

Pakistan inherited institutional imbalance at the time of independence

in August 1947. The state apparatus, i.e. the bureaucracy, the military
and the intelligence services, was more organized and developed than
the political and democratic institutions. Further, the first Interim
Constitution, 1947, also strengthened bureaucracy and authoritarian
governance. This imbalance was reinforced by two inter-related
trends in the political domain.
First, the process of political decay and degeneration was set in
motion soon after independence. The Muslim League that led the
independence movement, lacked sufficient organization and capacity
for state and nation building. A good number of Muslim League
leaders had feudal or semi-feudal background, and were motivated by
personal or power ambition rather than building the party as a viable
organization capable of standing on its own feet. Other political
parties also suffered from similar problems of internal disharmony
and conflict, indiscipline and a lack of direction. As a consequence,
they were unable to offer a viable alternative to the Muslim League
and failed to articulate and aggregate interests within a participatory
national political framework. They also failed to create viable
political institutions or processes capable of pursuing meaningful
socio-economic policies.
Second, the bureaucracy and the military maintained their
professional disposition marked by hierarchy, discipline, and esprit de
corps. The serious administrative problems in the early years of
independence led the civilian government to seek the support of the
military and the bureaucracy. Pakistan’s security problems with India,
especially the first Kashmir war, also helped to strengthen the
military’s position in the polity. All Pakistani civilian governments
supported a strong defence posture and allocated a substantial portion
of the national budget to defence and security. The military’s position
in the polity received additional boost with Pakistan’s participation in
the U.S. sponsored military alliances in the mid- 1950s. This
facilitated weapon transfers to Pakistan and its military obtained
training by Americans in Pakistan and the U.S. which increased the
military’s efficiency and strike power. Thus, the degeneration of the
political machinery was in sharp contrast to the increasing efficiency,
discipline, and confidence of the military.
These developments accentuated institutional imbalance and worked
to the disadvantage of the civilian leaders. The weak and fragmented
political forces found it difficult to sustain themselves without the
support and cooperation of the bureaucracy and the military. This
enabled the bureaucracy and the military to enhance their role in
policy making and management and they began to dominate politics.
In October 1958, the military swept aside the fragile political
institutions and established its direct rule, with the bureaucracy as the
junior partner.
The role of various civilian and military intelligence agencies
expanded in the political domain during the military rule of General
Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1985) when the military regime used the
intelligence agencies to divide and fragment the political forces. The
war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan (1980-1989) and the
linkages between Pakistani intelligence agencies and their U.S.
counterparts in the context of the Afghan war helped to put more
material resources at the disposal of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.
Some of these agencies have been playing active political role since
1988, helping some political parties and groups while building
pressure on others keeping in view the military’s political agenda.
They have interfered in the national and provincial elections which
has raised doubts about the credibility of the electoral process. Some
of these agencies were active in politics during after the 2002 general
elections. These were also instrumental to creating the ruling coalition
at the federal level and in Sindh and Balochistan after the October
2002 elections. The active political role of the intelligence agencies
weakens the autonomous growth of civilian political institutions and
processes.

2: Political Consensus-building:
The democratic process cannot become functional without a
minimum consensus on the operational norms of the polity. The
minimum consensus is the beginning point. As the political process
functions over time and it offers opportunities for sharing power and
political advancement, it evokes more support from among different
sections of the society and the polity. The scope of consensus widens
when more groups and individuals enter the political mainstream
through the democratic norms as set out in the constitution and law.
This makes the political institutions and processes viable.

The Pakistani polity has been unable to fully develop a consensus on

the operational political norms. Whatever understanding developed
among the competing interests at one point of time was allowed to
fitter away with the passage of time because of the non-
accommodating disposition of the competing interests and an open
defiance of constitutionalism and norms of democracy. Therefore, all
constitutions turned controversial with the passage of time because
they were violated by the power wielders.
Pakistan functioned without a constitution for years under martial law
imposed by the Army Chief which made him the repository of all
authority and power in the country. If constitution can be easily set
aside or subordinated to the will of the military ruler, the tradition of
constitutionalism and participatory governance cannot develop. The
civilian rulers also amended the constitution in a partisan manner by
employing parliamentary majority, and disregarded the need of
building consensus.
A low level of tolerance of dissent and a poor tradition of open debate
on important national issues has hindered the growth of a broadly
shared consensus on the framework for political action. The dominant
elite often endeavoured to develop selective consensus by excluding
those disagreeing with them. It is not merely the dominant elite who
suppress dissent, several civil society groups manifest intolerance and
use violence against those who question their views.
The steady growth of Islamic extremism and militancy and Islamic-
sectarian movements since the early 1980s has stifled the free flow of
ideas on the issues of national importance. It gave rise to religious and
cultural intolerance and increased the level of civic violence. The rival
extremist religious groups did not hesitate to use violence against
each other. The major victims of these trends were social and cultural
pluralism, political tolerance and accommodation of dissent. The
participatory processes also suffered as the religious extremists gained
strength in Pakistan. Such a political and cultural environment is not
conducive to growth of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of
law.

3: Political Parties and Leadership:

Political harmony and democratic evolution is facilitated primarily by
political parties and leaders. These are important instruments of
interest articulation and aggregation and serve as vehicles of political
mobilization. In Pakistan, political parties have traditionally been
weak and unable to perform their main function in an effective and
meaningful manner.
The role of the political parties has suffered due to, inter alia, periodic
restrictions on political activities under military rule, infrequent
elections, weak organizational structure and poor discipline among
the members, absence of attractive socio-economic pogrammes, and a
paucity of financial resources. Political parties also suffer from
factionalism based on personality, region and ideology.
The Muslim League that led the independence movement failed to
transform itself from a national movement to a national party. It
suffered from organizational incoherence, ideological confusion and a
crisis of leadership. The parties that emerged in the post-
independence period could not present a better alternative. They
suffered from the weaknesses that ailed the Muslim League.
Consequently, the political parties could not work for political
consensus building and political stability and continuity.
Most Pakistani political parties lack resources and trained human-
power to undertake dispassionate and scientific study of the socio-
political and economic problems. The emphasis is on rhetoric and
sloganeering which may be useful for mobilization purposes but it
cannot be a substitute to serious, scientific and analytical study of the
societal problems. The level of debate in the two houses of the
parliament and provincial assemblies is low and these elected bodies
often face the shortage of quorum which shows the non-seriousness of
the political parties and their members in the elected houses in dealing
with the national issues and problems. Quite often the ministers and
parliamentary secretaries are not available in the house to respond to
the issues raised by the members.
The political parties or their coalitions that exercised power since the
mid-1950s were either floated by the establishment (the military and
top bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies) or these enjoyed its
blessings. The coalition building at the national level in pre-1958
period and especially the setting up of the Republican Party in 1956,
provides ample evidence of the role of the establishment in party
politics. Generals Ayub Khan patronized a faction of the Muslim
League which was turned into the ruling party in 1962-63. General
Zia-ul-Haq pursued a similar strategy. He co-opted a faction of the
Muslim League which ruled with his blessings after he restored
civilian and constitutional rule in 1985. General Pervez Musharraf has
done the same by co-opting a faction of the Muslim League and
installed governments under its leadership at the federal level and in
Sindh, Balochistan and the Punjab in November-December 2002.
The only exception to this rule of state sponsorship of the ruling
parties is the Awami League (pre-1971) and the Pakistan People’s
Party (PPP) which did not owe their origin and rise to political
eminence to the establishment. The Awami League won the 1970
general elections despite the strong opposition of the military
government. So did the Pakistan People Party (PPP) which won
majorities in the 1970s in the Punjab and Sindh. In 1971, the Awami
League was pushed out of Pakistan. The military transferred power to
the PPP after it lost the war to India in December 1971. The PPP
continues to face the distrust of the establishment.
The political parties formed electoral alliances and political
coalitions. These have generally been ephemeral in nature because of
differences in their political orientations and limited experience of
working together. Furthermore, each party suffers from internal
incoherence which undermines its role in a coalition. Political parties
have been relatively more successful as a movement for pursuing a
limited agenda like the overthrow of a sitting government, than as a
political party because this requires a viable organization and a
broadly shared long term political agenda.

4: Islam and Politics:

A predominant majority of Pakistanis agree that the Pakistani political
system must have some relationship with Islam. However, there are
strong differences on the precise nature of relationship between Islam
and the polity. There is a lack consensus on the institutions and
processes to be set up under the rubric of Islamic state. Most
conservative and orthodox elements want to establish a puritanical
Islamic state with an emphasis on the punitive, regulative and
extractive role of the Islamic state. Others emphasize the egalitarian
norms of Islam and underline the principles of equality, socio-
economic justice and the modern notions of the state, civil and
political rights and participatory governance. To them, Islam is a
source of guidance and provides the ethical foundations of the polity
rather than offering a specific political structure or a legal code for the
modern times. Another debate pertains to the political disposition of
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan: Did he advocate an
ideological Islamic state or a secular system with no links with Islam
or a modern democratic state that viewed Islam as one of the sources
of law and ethics? Still another issue is how far the Two-nation theory
is relevant to the post-independence period for shaping political
choices? Was Pakistan created as a Muslim state or an Islamic state?

General Zia-ul-Haq tilted the political balance in favour of the

orthodox and conservative interpretation of the Islamic polity in order
to win over the conservative and orthodox religious groups. He made
several administrative and legal changes reflecting the puritanical
Islamic principles as advocated by the orthodox and conservative
groups. This increased religious and cultural intolerance and religious
extremism in Pakistan. The official circles and the religious groups
engaged in massive propaganda against the notion of participatory
governance, constitutionalism, and the rule of law, equal citizenship
and civil and political rights as western implants in Pakistan.
The post-Zia civilian governments were too weak to undo the Islamic
laws made by the military regime of Zia-ul-Haq. General Musharraf
talks of enlightened moderation as the organizing principle for the
Pakistani political system but he too did not revise the Islamic laws
and punishments introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq. He is constrained
by the need of the support of the Muttahida-i-Majlis-i-Amal (MMA),
a conglomerate of 6 Islamic conservative parties, for staying in
power. The rise of Islamic orthodoxy has also increased Islamic-
sectarian violence which poses a major threat to the fabric of the
Pakistani society.
The inconclusive debate on Islam’s relationship with the Pakistani
state and the political system adversely affects the prospects of
democracy. Most conservative and orthodox Islamic groups reject
democracy as a western system or support it to the extent of using the
electoral process to attain power and then implement their notion of
Islamic system. As long as there is a lack of consensus on the precise
relationship between Islam and the Pakistan’s constitutional, legal and
political system, democratic institutions and processes would not fully
develop and become sustainable.

5: Military Rule: Constitutional and Political Engineering

The repeated assumption of power by the military and its desire to
shape the Pakistani polity in accordance with its political preferences
has also undermined the steady growth and sustainability of
democratic institutions and processes. The military rulers either
abolished the constitution or suspended it to acquire supreme
legislative and administrative powers. This disrupted the development
of civilian institutions and processes and made it impossible for them
to develop strong roots in the polity. After every ten years or so, the
military returned the country to square one, promising to introduce a
system designed to respond to the needs and aspiration of the people
and reflected the operational political realities of the country.
While establishing the post military rule political order the military
regimes did not pursue a non-partisan approach. The overriding
consideration with the military rulers was to ensure their stay in
power and the continuity of the policies introduced during the period
of direct military rule. They engaged in constitutional engineering
either by introducing a new constitution (Ayub Khan in 1962)) or by
making drastic changes in the existing constitutional system to protect
the interests of the military regime. Zia-ul- Haq and Pervez Musharraf
introduced far reaching changes in the 1973 constitution in 1985 and
2002 respectively to sustain their centrality to the political process
and to ensure that no political party could unilaterally alter the policy
measures adopted by the military regime.

Constitutional engineering was coupled with the co-option of the

political elite that was willing to play politics in accordance with the
rules determined by the military rulers and supported their continued
stay in power. Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf resorted
to co-option of a section of the political elite. Their co-option strategy
focused on some faction of the Muslim League. The strategy of co-
option pre-supposed the exclusion of those who openly challenged the
military-initiated political arrangements. This strategy was adopted by
the above named military rulers for replacing direct military rule with
new political arrangements based on sharing of power between the
top brass of the military and the co-opted political leadership. Another
strategy adopted by the Pakistani military rulers was the holding of
carefully managed general elections to ensure that the co-opted
leaders performed better than their adversaries.
The political institutions and processes created by the military regime
reflected the military ethos of hierarchy, discipline and management
and were often based on a narrow and selective consensus. These
institutions and processes could not develop an autonomous political
profile and remained closely associated with the generals. That was
the major reason that they often faltered in responding to the demands
for political participation and socio-economic justice. The quality of
democracy was poor in the post-military rule political arrangements.
Present scenario:
• Positive Aspects
• A decade of uninterrupted democratic rule 2007-2018
strengthened democracy
• Emergency of new political party in Pakistan
• After many bumps, civilian and military leadership are on the
same page
• Negative Aspects
• Struggling civil society
• According to CIVCUS, which is a global alliance for
strengthening civil actions and civil society, Pakistan is a
“repressed” state which means that civic space is
significantly constrained. Active individuals and civil society
members who criticise power holders risk surveillance,
harassment, intimidation, imprisonment, injury and death.
Although some civil society organisations exist, their
advocacy work is regularly impeded and they face threats
of de-registration and closure by the authorities. People who
organise or take part in peaceful protests are likely to be
targeted by the authorities through the use of excessive
force, including the use of live ammunition, and risk mass
arrests and detention. The media typically reflects the
position of the state, and any independent voices are
routinely targeted through raids, physical attacks or
protracted legal harassment. Websites and social media
platforms are blocked and internet activism is heavily
monitored.
• Deteriorating Rule of Law
• According to a report published by World Justice Programme
in 2019 after analysing 126 countries, score of Pakistan is
0.39 out of 1. Moreover, Pakistan stands at 117 rank. Also,
Pakistan has observed a decrease in the ranking from
previous year.
• Deteriorating freedom of expression
• According to World Press freedom index 2019, out of 180
countries, Pakistan stands at 142 rank. Pakistan’s ranking has
fallen. In 2018, Pakistan stood at 139 rank.
• Deteriorating Transparency
• According to Transparency International, of the total 180
countries, Pakistan stands at 117th rank with score 33 on a
scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).

Efforts made to strengthen the democracy:

• Incorporation of fundamental rights in the constitution.

• Incorporation of Article-6 in constitution to prevent suspension of
constitution.
• The 20th Amendment: Independent Election Commission.

DISCUSS IN DETAIL THE BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE PAKISTAN.
Introduction:
The total major countries of the world are 182 out of which only 34
are developed and remaining 148 are under developed. Developing
Country (DC) is a nation which, compare to developed nations,
lacks industrialization, infrastructure, developed agriculture
developed natural resources, and suffers from a low per capita
income as a result. Developing countries and developed countries
are differentiating on the bases of self-esteem, freedom of choice
and influence of externals. A country where the average income of
the people is much lower than that of developed countries, the
economy depends upon a few export crops and where farming is
conducted by primary methods is called developing country. Rapid
population growth is causing the shortage of food in many developing
countries.

Developing Country:
Developing countries are also called under-developed nations (UDN)
or the South. Most of them are in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
According to Prof. R. Nurkse:
“Under developed countries are those which when compared with the
advanced countries, are under-equipped with capital in relation to
their population and natural resources.”
Developed Country:
A group of industrialized nations including Australia, Austria,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States.
In some contexts such countries are collectively called the North.
According to Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the UN:
"A developed country is one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a free
and healthy life in a safe environment."

Definitions of Developing Nations:

• According to United Nations Experts:
“A developing country is that in which per capita income is low when
compared to the per capita incomes of U.S.A., Canada, Australia and
Western Europe.”
• According to Prof. R. Nurkse:
“Under developed countries are those which when compared with the
advanced countries, are under-equipped with capital in relation to
their population and natural resources.”

• According to Michal P. Tadaro:

“The under developed country, is that which has low levels of living
(absolute poverty, poor health, poor education and other social
services), low self esteem (low respect, honour, dignity) and limited
freedom (freedom from external influence and dominance, freedom of
choice etc.).”
Criteria to an Under-developed Nation:
Ø Potential to become economically developed.
Ø Low or no rising trend of per capita income.
Ø Countries very poor in resources.
Prof. Harvey Leibenstein, in his “Economic Backwardness and
Economic Growth” divides these characteristics into four categories:
A. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Following are the economic characteristics of UDC’s:
1- General Poverty and Low Living Standard
Poverty cannot be described, it can only be felt. The most of the less
developed countries (LDC) are facing the major problem of general as
well as absolute poverty and low standard of living. Most of the people
in developing nations are ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-clothed and ill-literate. In
LDCs almost 1/3 population is much poor. But in Pakistan, 21.0 %
population is living below poverty.
2- Burden of Internal and External Debts
Under developed countries (UDC) are loans and grants
receiving nations. Most of the developing countries of the world are
depending on foreign economic loans. An amount of foreign loans is
increasing as the years pass. Their foreign trade and political
structure is also dependent on the guidance of foreigners. The
outstanding total public debts are Rs. 10020 billion (55.5 % of GDP)
and the value of external debts and liabilities is $ 59.5 billion and its
services charges are $ 7.8 billion in 2010-11 in Pakistan.
3- Low Per Capita Income
Due to low national income and huge population growth rate,
per capita income in developing countries is very low. At constant prices
(Base Year 1959-60) per capita income of Pakistan was Rs. 985 and
according to the Economic Survey of Pakistan 2010-11 per capita
income of Pakistan is $ 1254.
4- Over Dependence on Agriculture
61% Population of Pakistan is living in more than 50,000
villages. Backward agriculture is the major occupation of the
population. Agriculture sector is backward due to old and traditional
methods of cultivation, in-efficient farmers, lack of credit facilities; un-
organized agriculture market etc. 66.7% population is directly or
indirectly depending on agriculture sector in Pakistan. It contributes to
GDP 20.9 % while in advanced nations it is less than 10 %. It
employed 45.0 % of labour force while it is less than 5 % in developed
countries.

5- Backward Industrial Sector

Backward industrial sector is an additional feature of under
developed countries. Industrial sector of Pakistani economy is
backward since independence. Pakistan got only 34 (3.7 % of total
industrial units) industrial units out of 921 units in sub-continent in
1947. Small and backward industrial sector is based on low level of
capital formation, technology, training and education and over
dependence on agriculture sector. 13.2 % labour force is attached
with industrial sector in Pakistan. Its share to GDP is 25.8 % and to
exports is about 60 %.
6- Unemployment
An outstanding problem of developing countries is their high
rate of un-employment, under-employment and disguised-
unemployment. More than 3.05 million people are unemployed in
Pakistan. There is 16 % underemployed and 20 % disguised
unemployed of total labour force. Unemployment rate is 5.6 %; it is
mainly due to high population growth rate, which is 2.1 %.
7- Low level of Productivity
The productivity level is very low in under developed countries
as compared to developed countries. Low level of productivity is due
to economic backwardness of people, lack of skill, illiteracy and ill-
training. Value of annual productivity of labour is about $ 100 while it
is more than $ 2500 in advanced nations in Pakistan.
8- Deficit Balance of Payment
Third world countries have to import some finished and capital
goods to make economic development, on the other hand they have
no products to export but raw material. During July-March, its exports
were $ 24 billion and imports were $ 32.3 billion In case of Pakistan.
So, its deficit balance of payment was $ 8.3 billion in 2010-11.
9- Dualistic Economy
Dualistic economy refers to the existence of advanced &
modern sectors with traditional & backward sectors. Pakistani
economy is also a dualistic economy as other developing countries on
the following grounds: Co-existence of modern and traditional
methods of production in urban and rural areas, Co-existence of
wealthy, highly educated class with a large number of illiterate poor
classes and Co-existence of very high living standard with very low
living standard.
10- Deficiency of Capital
Shortage of capital is another serious problem of poor nations.
Lack of capital leads to low per capita income, less saving and short
investment. Domestic saving is 9.5% of GDP and total investment is
13.4% of GDP in Pakistan. Rate of capital accumulation is very low as
5%. On the other hand, capital output ratio (COR) is very high which
is not desirable for economic development.

11- In-appropriate Use of Natural Resources

Mostly there is shortage of natural resources in developing
nations and this is also a cause of their economic backwardness.
Natural resources are available in various poor countries but they
remain un-utilized, under-utilized or mis-utilized due to capital
shortage, less efficiency of labour, lack of skill and knowledge,
backward state of technology, improper government actions and
limited home market. Natural resources contribute to the GDP about
1%.
12- Market Imperfection
Market is imperfect in accordance with market conditions,
rules and regulations in the most of developing nations. There exist
monopolies, mis-leading information, immobility of factors; hoarding
and smuggling etc. that cause the market to remain imperfect.
13- Limited Foreign Trade
Due to backwardness, developing countries have to export
raw material because the quality of their products is not according to
international standard ISO etc. Lower developing nations have to
import finished and capital goods. Imports of Pakistan are $ 32.3
billion and exports are $ 24 billion that cause into unfavourable
balance of payment.
14- Vicious Circle of Poverty
According to vicious circle of poverty, less developed nations
are trapped by their own poverty. Vicious circle of poverty is also
applied in case of Pakistani economy. Due to poverty, national income
of Pakistan is low which causes low saving and low investment. So,
rate of capital formation is very low results in “a country is poor because
she is poor”.
15- Inflation
 High rate of inflation causes economic backwardness in poor
nations. Due to high level of price, purchasing power, value of money
and saving of the consumers tend to decrease. Rate of inflation (CPI)
is 14.1% in 2010-11 in Pakistan.
B. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Following are the demographic characteristics:
16- Backward Population Explosion
Another common feature of lower developing nations is
population pressure due to high growth rate and reduction in death
rate. Population of the Pakistan is 177.1 million with the rapid growth
rate of 2.1 % and death rate 0.73 % in 2010-11. Pakistan is at 6 th

number in the list of the most populous nations. Basic needs like food,
clothing, housing, education, sanitations and health facilities are not
available for the huge portion of population in these countries.
17- Poor Health and Diseases
M. P. Todaro in his “Economic Development” states, “Many
people in developing countries fight a constant battle against
malnutrition, diseases and ill health”. Average life expectancy in
Pakistan is 66.04 year against 78 years in developed countries. One
Doctor is for 1222 persons and one Nurse is for 2369 persons,
number of hospitals is 972 and one hospital bed is available for 1701
persons. The total expenditure on health sector is just 0.23 % of the
GDP.
18- Pollution
There is too much pollution in poor countries. On the one side
huge existing population is not provided basic facilities of life, like
sanitation, clean water, infrastructure etc. but on the other side due to
rapid population growth, industrialization and transportation air, water
and earth pollution is increasing. Industries are causing pollution
because of non-installation of treatment plants. Number of continuous
air pollution monitoring stations is only 7 in Pakistan. Pakistan is at
number 29 at the chart of the most polluted nations and at number 6
th th

in Asian countries.
19- Brain Drain
An outflow of the best, brightest and talented student from poor
nations to rich nations is called brain drain. There is less reward for the
talent, which causes an outflow of best brain in the backward countries.
Reward is not paid in accordance with the capability, skill and efficiency
in less developed countries.
20- Inadequate Infrastructure
 Adequate infrastructure is needed which is not available in poor
economies to enhance the process of economic development. Roads,
transport, telecommunications, sanitation, health and education
facilities are not at their best level in these nations;. Government has
reserved an amount of Rs. 133 billion to develop the infrastructure.
C. CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Following are the cultural and political characteristics of LDC’s:
21- High Degree of Illiteracy
Illiteracy rate is very high in poor countries while it is almost
zero in rich countries. There is lack of technical education and training
centers, which is necessary for economic growth and development.
Literacy rate in Pakistan is 57.7 % during 2010-11. Expenditure on
education sector is just 1.8 % of GDP.
22- Low Level of Organization
There is absence of developed minded leadership in economic
activities in third world nations. Decision making power of
entrepreneur is very low due to illiteracy, less training and backward
techniques. Most of educational institutions are producing employees
rather than employers.
23- Low Self-esteem
There is less respect, honour and dignity of people in the
lower developed countries. People are honoured due to their powers,
relations and castes instead of capabilities. There is poverty, poor
health, poor education and shortage of other social services.
Government and population of poor countries are under the external
influence.
24- Un-productive Expenditures
Population mostly copies the styles of population of developed
nations due to demonstration action in poor economies. Their
consumption activities not only move around their income but also
depend upon the relatives, friends and locality. They spend more on
birth, death, marriages and various other ceremonies etc. which
reduces their savings and investment.
25- Political Instability
There is political instability in the most of the developing
countries. There are a lot of clashes between government and the
opposition that is a cause to reduction in domestic as well as foreign
investment. Political instability keeps low the level of economic
development.
26- Influence of Feudal Lords
 The poor class is under the influence of feudal lords and tribal
heads in lower developed nations,. The feudal lords want to keep the
people backward and do not appreciate the development of the poor.
About 50.8% poor borrow from landlords and 57.4 % poor are working
for feudal lords without wages in Pakistan.
27- Unproductive Use of Funds
The unproductive expenditures are rising day by day in
developing countries like Pakistan due to socio-economic and
administrative reasons. During the year 2009-10, Rs. 343 billion were
spent for defence. About 75 % of the budget is spent on defence,
administration, repayments of loan and interest charges in Pakistan.
28- Govt. Control by Wealthy Persons
Wealthy persons, landlords and elite class not only control the
government but also they have full control over all the major sectors of
the economy in poor countries. This rich class is not interested to solve
the problems of the poor for their welfare but they make government
policies for their own improvement.
29- Frequent Changes in Fiscal Policy
Revenues and expenditures policy of government is not stable
in developing countries. Government has to change the fiscal policy
according to the will of its own people. Industrialists are the main
controller of the government and they adjust the fiscal policy in
accordance with their own benefits.
30- Violation of Law and Order
Law and order conditions are at their poor stage in Pakistan like other
developing countries. A huge portion of saving of people is wasted in
costly and lengthy legal process. As in case of Iftikhar Muhammad
Chohdery (CJP), he himself has to wait for justices for a long period.

D. TECHNOLOGICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

CHARACTERISTICS
Following are the technological and miscellaneous characteristics of
developing countries:
31- Backward State of Technology
Use of modern techniques of production is not adopted in
developing countries. It may cause further unemployment. Use of
advanced technology is impossible due to shortage of capital, lack of
skill and training, high cost of production and lack of foreign exchange
reserves. Backward state of technology is results in low production,
high cost and wastage of time.
32- Social Aspects
 Under developed countries have also some factors such as joint
family system, caste system, cultural and religious views, beliefs and
values that badly affect their economic development. 32.17 %
population is working population and remaining 67.83 % population is
depending on them in Pakistan.
33- Un-fair Wealth and Income Distribution
There are not only regional inequalities in developing countries
but also wealth and income inequalities. There is unfair wealth and
income distribution in less developed nation. 20 % extremely rich
population has 50.02 % of national resources, while 20 % poorest
population has just 6.37 % of national resources in Pakistan. The
difference between rich and poor is increasing day by day.
34- Lack of Experts and Skilled Persons
People have to move abroad for advanced study due to illiteracy
and lack of training institutes. They adjust them in foreign countries due
to low remuneration and less self-esteem. So, there is scarcity of
experts, skilled and trained staff that causes the poor nation to remain
backward.
35- Dependence on External Resources
The international trade, political activities and other economic
activities are under the influence of other advanced countries in less
developing countries. Their development plans are financed by the loan
giving countries; these plans are made to serve the interests of foreign
countries. So, poor nations are loans and grants receiving nations.
Conclusion:
We conclude that all above characteristics are unfavourable
for the developing economies. These features are obstacles in way of
economic development. All these features are cause of low rate of
capital formation, poverty and creation of vicious circle of poverty.

Democracy as representation of the collective

will of people cannot simply be functional by
merely pushing a button, rather it is a process
which the people initiate by conscious decisions
and sustain it by subscribing to its principles in
theory and practice.