The cleavage among our digital warriors, who spend hours debating the dysfunctionalities of government, is hard to disguise. Right versus left, and the alluring part in between, is passé. What is current is the sharp divide between democracy-wallahs and the governance-pujaris.
The case of each side of the divide is well known. The governance protagonists are believers of the end result - social justice, rule of law, prosperity and well-being - and not the means to the end. The form of government you have -democratic, autocratic or technocratic - doesn't matter. What matters is which form is most likely to produce results, and they find democratic to be the least efficient. In their view, Western style democracy has been given enough of a chance and it has, without exception, from Bhuttos to Sharifs, failed to deliver.
They stop short of echoing Ayub Khan - Western style democracy is alien to our psyche and temperament - but are quick to read out the charge sheet. Politicians are by nature venal and self-serving, lack commitment and competence, and mislead the voters by promising what they know they won't or cannot deliver. Their accountability (through awam ki adalat) is a contradiction in terms as they have a stranglehold on the system.
The democracy protagonists also claim to pursue the same end results. If these results have eluded democratic dispensations it is not because of any structural weaknesses in the system but because democracy has never been given a fair chance. It has always been 'controlled' by namaloom afraad, who have usurped most of the policy space, and have arrogated to themselves the exclusive right to define 'national interest'.
The political set up, they contend, has developed a bunker mentality, ever mindful of the threat of 'overt action' at the first suspicion of stepping out of line. It sees the hidden hand behind every dharna, every defection from party ranks, and every marriage of convenience among political enemies.
What the democracy-gang pleads for is for democracy to take root; not defoliated each time it begins to grow. To them 'answer to bad democracy is more democracy'. Only when democracy is allowed to flourish will we see change in political leadership that has left us disappointed and disillusioned. You cannot expect bright and committed young people to choose politics as a vocation if its future is so uncertain. When ZAB held out the hope that democracy is here to stay we saw several young people opting for politics as a profession of choice. Ask Aitzaz Ahsan or Raza Rabbani. Once that happens, hereditary politics will be rooted out, along with many of the flaws of the prevalent political system. We will have a new crop of leaders, more responsive to legitimate needs and wants of the people and better equipped to reform and deliver.
Both camps have merit in their pleadings; or as Mulla Nasruddin famously said "you are right too"! Except, both schools - democratic and technocratic -have been tried more than once and each proved adept at dropping the ball.
Getting jostled between the two mounds of the cleavage, occupied by a few hundred elite, are the people, some 200 million of them. The great debate is always in the name of the people, but they are never a part of it. They are the hapless victims of policies designed by the elite (whether democratic or technocratic) for the elite - the latest example being the amnesty scheme.
The masses have learnt to accept their sufferings with extraordinary equanimity, making the world rank us as the happiest country in the region.
The underlying problem with the great debate is that it is all about elitist interests. Pursuit of development, for instance, is a vision that both sides share, but what is lost in translation is the question 'whose development'. You cut through the jargon and you discover that the discourse is being driven by self-interest. Yes, they admit inclusiveness is important but the debate goes silent when it becomes apparent that the privileged will necessarily have to give up some of their privileges to make inclusivity work. Their dream of another Dubai (perhaps a cheaper version) is not disturbed by the plight of immigrant labour.
Most of the issues so vigorously debated are pathetically irrelevant to the bottom of the pile. Does it matter to the excluded how fast the economy is growing? "Ah, but consistent and high growth alone will create all those jobs needed to gainfully absorb the millions entering the job market each year", say both sides of the cleavage. Really? Produce the evidence, Sirs. Link each increment of growth to the jobs created, and by all means incorporate the time-lag factor, and by all means ignore the salary differential between the lowest and the highest.
Look at the automobile industry, for instance. For years there has been an enviable growth in this sector but has there also been a corresponding increase in the number of people employed? Look at the sugar industry; look at the steel sector, look at the food and beverages business, look at all those companies that dominate the stock exchange.
Development economics took its time to spot the dark side of growth without inclusiveness. Over time, sufficient empirical evidence became available to rubbish the 'trickle down' effect. It is now emphatically about inclusive growth - except that the tools to manage it are still being forged.
Inclusive development is not possible without inclusive politics. Except the religious parties, we do not see the aam aadmi represented in the political leadership. We have the same problem with the higher echelons of our premier institutions -you get 'insulated' by the time you get to the top. You may be sympathetic to the issues of the common man but you don't 'experience' them.
Your worldview and your policies are shaped by your environment. It will be unrealistic to expect the foreign trained professional belonging to the governance school, or the 'robber-baron-electable' belonging to the democracy school, to make policies that do not protect vested interests. For the poor they can only design 'safety nets'. Policies by the privileged will always favour the privileged.
The governance debate is secondary. The first order issue is giving voice to the less privileged. Until we can do that good governance will not be possible, nor will democracy flourish.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.