Precious

A general consensus between democracy loving Pakistanis, in these uncertain times, is that precious is in danger again. Personally, I belong to a small minority who remain unconvinced that precious, democracy, is what it claims to be; a panacea for all evils that promises freedom and a better life for the masses. But who is right?
With the American political analysts still trying to figure out the reasons for Trump's ascent to the world throne, and the Brits realizing too late that the collective wisdom of their voters should not have been trusted with an issue as important as Brexit, continuing domestic obsession with saving democracy at all cost, even when everyone admits that what we have is not even the genuine version, is kind of admirable, but dubious at the same time. Admittedly, it can be argued that the American and British experiences, notwithstanding they are the oldest and expected to be the most mature and genuine democracies, are momentary aberrations, the exceptions to the rule, in an otherwise perfect system. Motivated by the noble objective of proving this hypothesis correct, I scanned the last few weeks' issues of the Economist, to highlight the great benefits being enjoyed by nations fortunate enough to have embraced democracy. For Brevity, the Economist is credited for news on all country examples hereunder.
Obviously, I excluded Russia, since as per western media it is controversial whether they can have a real democracy without an effective opposition. By the same token I had to exclude Egypt, Turkey and Bangladesh, Myanmar and Hong Kong, all being countries who claim to be democracies, but where either candidature for election is controlled or the opposition simply boycotts the election. Japan was excluded because its only party LDP, being very well funded, has not had serious opposition for as long as I can remember. At this point I stopped trying to figure out which other countries to exclude, fearing that I may end up concluding that genuine democracy was a myth, and continued with my search of the Economist.
Venezuela was the first to be ruled out as a happy democracy, because Venezuelans are anything but happy, economically or by any other standard; President Maduro, who technically was elected, is trying to hold a constituent assembly to strengthen his authoritarian regime. In Zambia, their parliament suspended 48 opposition MPs for failing to turn up to a speech by the President; just recently the President put the country in a state of emergency, perhaps to prove he is at least not a hypocrite.
In Singapore, which should actually have been in the list above, the Prime Minister is in a tussle with his siblings over the father's will; probably the courts will be needed to decide which child Lee Kaun Yew Left Singapore to in his will. In Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad at the age of 91 is returning to politics and just recently backed Anwar, his old foe, as prime minister; again perhaps the Malaysians really aren't good at voting too! In Australia, all political parties face questions about donations from businessmen, property developers, linked to China's government. Apparently, a parliamentary inquiry in March has called for a ban on political donations from foreigners. Controlling my urge, to make snappy comments on donations from Chinese developers in the domestic context, I move on.
I am sure everybody already knows that the last president of Brazil, Dilma Roussef was impeached for corruption. Apparently her successor Mr. Temer is clinging on despite evidence that his campaign received bribes; to quote from The Economist, "No wonder polls show that Brazilians have little respect for their politicians". No comment!
As regards Hungary, the Economist actually wants Europe to punish Prime Minister Orban for eroding democracy; another reason could be that he is a close friend of Putin. His list of negative reforms easily matches that of Erdogan in Turkey and Sisi in Egypt, both of these countries claim to be democracies. Apparently, as a side note, Mongolians also have a growing disillusionment with democracy, which was just welcomed in 1990; pretty short romance. In Nairobi, a Kenyan passionately felt, while discussing politics, "We are done with these thieves".
The classic is Netherlands, three months after the election, they still have no government. No one is in majority and none can negotiate a coalition; hilarious and pitiful at the same time. Actually, Papua New Guinea can't stitch a coalition together as well, but perhaps they can manage without a government for 3 months; how do the Dutch! In Romania, the ruling party wants to "yank" its own prime minister, because he has had a falling out with the party leader; absolutely amazing. As regards India, the Economist feels that the Indians elected a chauvinist and what he is doing in Kashmir can hardly be the actions of a democracy.
Having run out of space, I hastily in the end point out in a world where everybody is fighting somebody somewhere, the myth that two democracies have never fought each other is utter nonsense. In conclusion, I ask what it will take to throw "Precious" into the fires of Mount Doom!
And while everyone ponders that, a more pertinent question is that if democracy and capitalism go hand in hand, if one fails, then is not the other a failure too?
(The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. Email: [email protected])