In the name of democracy

The recent elections in Azad Kashmir provided yet another example of 'democracy - Pakistan brand'. As with the 2008 general elections in Pakistan that heralded 'true' democracy (Musharraf-era democracy not being its true version), the common feature was the controversial electoral lists and consequent irregularities.
Azad Kashmir's Chief Election Commissioner has admitted that a vast number (without quoting a figure) of the entries in the electoral rolls were fake. On top thereof, MQM claims that it was forced to withdraw from these elections at the last minute, and PML-N alleges gross dishonesty in the entire voting process.
The sitting Azad Kashmir Prime Minister confirmed these irregularities and admitted the incapacity of his regime to ensure that they were eliminated or at least minimised to prevent the elections from being condemned as wholly suspicious because there was too much 'external' interference.
In these elections, what hurt Pakistan's image badly was the fact that, all along, it had blamed India for these very electoral irregularities that empowered Indian proxies to rule the part of Kashmir that India continues to occupy. But then who in the present regime bothers about such sensitivities.
Azad Kashmir's elections - not just their results - have also become controversial because of the law suits filed against the entire electoral process and widespread demands for declaring void the results of these elections. This is happening not just in Karachi, Lahore or Rawalpindi but in the whole of Azad Kashmir.
It is also questionable whether Pakistan's political parties should be contesting elections to Azad Kashmir's parliament while Pakistan keeps insisting on an independent status for Kashmir to rebut Indian claims about Kashmir being an "atoot ang" of India. Together, Pakistan's political parties compromised this stand.
That's not all; Pakistan's politicians are blind to a host of other ground realities; their sole aim is to get elected to settle personal enmities with their adversaries. That's why polling stations turn into battle grounds and the facade of democracy is used to gain power by any means, fair or foul. For a national election to herald true democracy, the guarantee is provided by correct electoral lists, unhindered casting of votes, and transparent counting of ballot papers. In Pakistan's history, the electoral process never tested wholly positive on these counts. No wonder democracy that elevated rogues to the top failed to deliver.
About the 2008 general election Pakistan's Election Commission admitted that 45 percent of the entries in the electoral rolls were doubtful. Given the fact that roughly only a third of the listed voters cast their votes in the 2008 elections, the parliament was elected by only about 18 percent of the genuine electorate.
In this backdrop, how 'thumping' was the 'majority' that elected the present regime isn't hard to judge. You wonder how a regime that had a share in this fraction (18 percent) of the total electoral population can claim the "majority's mandate" and take highly sensitive decisions that will impact the country's future.
How the regime governed Pakistan in the past three and a quarter years was witnessed by every Pakistani who now suffers in every conceivable way courtesy the gross mismanagement of the country's polity and the economy. To the Pakistanis, democracy now means almost total lawlessness.
It is a dispensation that encourages 'free for all', with accountability locked in a cupboard. The regime takes decisions on the basis of how populist will be their appeal, not their long-term consequences. Politicians act like the 'fly-by-night' corporate executives that perpetrated the ongoing crippling recession.
One of the many such visionless decisions of the regime was devolution of federal ministries. On June 30, the regime notified the transfer of seven more federal ministries viz. Environment, Food & Agriculture, Health, Labour & Manpower, Minorities Affairs, Sports, and Women Development, to the provinces.
After this instalment, the number of devolved federal ministries has risen to seventeen. It is visible that the ministries devolved, thus far, have plunged into chaos because of the incapacity of the provinces to handle the gigantic task bestowed upon them overnight - a reality admitted by several apprehensive cabinet members.
Yet, Raza Rabbani, chairman of the devolution implementation commission and an ardent supporter of swift devolution, reluctantly admitted the need for a cabinet 'committee' to resolve the post-devolution issues. Ironically, the 'implementation' commission didn't take this responsibility, and ceased to exist on June 30.
Rabbani's attitude portrays a lack of vision that can render even a good act bad because it is poorly executed. But, in spite of an array of unanswered questions about making the devolution process smooth and non- controversial, the cabinet decided to observe July 1 as 'Provincial Autonomy Day'.
This shows the place of sloganeering in our democracy. Whether a significant administrative change delivers the promised results is unimportant. Impliedly, rosy promises should be made without bothering about their being fulfilled - a view the politicians can subscribe to only if they treat the electorate as nuts.
A big controversy in the devolution process has been the reluctance of the provinces to accept as provincial employees the existing staff of the devolved ministries. Reportedly, some federal ministers expressed the fear that the affected federal employees might lose jobs after transfer of their ministries to the provinces.
Reason: provinces view this shift as an opportunity to hire their cronies; retaining trained staff employed in the federal ministries isn't their priority. If key ministries such as Ministry of Health lose professional staff, will they go on delivering what they were delivering? Isn't this the prelude to a huge chaos that is about to spread?
This populist but highly dangerous initiative could add to the existing chaos and provide the regime's critics with more venom in condemning its already mired record of governance. You can't doubt Raza Rabbani's loyalty to the PPP, but is he the kind of populist decision-maker that the party needs?
Given PPP's record thus far, its bound-to-fail populist decisions will damage its position even more instead of strengthening it to contest the next general elections with any hope of success. What is needed is a series of corrective steps to contain the prevailing chaos, not initiatives that will worsen it. But in a setting where populism overrides rationality in the name of democracy, nothing better is likely.