| news |
Posted
on 05-May-02 11:49 PM
What Is Democracy Anyway?
May 3, 2002
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
If there was a form of government that produced autocrats
who sponsored terrorism, stole millions of dollars while
impoverishing their citizens, shredded public education and
health, permitted child bondage, tortured dissidents and
tolerated pogroms against minorities, then we would all
condemn it. Except that in South Asia such a system is
called democracy.
That's what makes this week's election in Pakistan so
fascinating.
President Bush has winked as Gen. Pervez Musharraf
steamrolled over a democratic system so as to maintain the
army's hold on power. Mr. Bush's stance is hypocritical and
threatens to undermine everything we stand for - except
that, frankly, General Musharraf has done better in
governing Pakistan than his democratic predecessors have.
The Pakistan election has an importance beyond that
country. That rigged referendum - and our complicity in it
- raise questions about what constitutes democracy.
Without much of a sense of gritty realities in the
developing world, we in the West tend to regard "democracy"
as simply elections. When trouble erupts - in Cambodia,
Somalia, East Timor, Afghanistan, Angola - we prescribe
elections, bless the result as democracy, and hurry off.
"We place an inordinate emphasis on elections alone," noted
Sumit Ganguly, an expert on the region at the University of
Texas at Austin. He notes that elections are only one
element of a democracy; others include a free press, an
independent judiciary and respect for minorities.
Without these checks, countries can end up with elections
that (as in Pakistan) are used by drug lords as a
convenient way to install their pals in important offices.
Once in place, they can use their power to steal money and
murder critics.
"When we followed the democratic path, we got only
disappointment," said Arif Ali Khan Abbasi, the former
chief executive of Pakistan International Airways. "At
least there is a semblance of order when you get a
benevolent dictator."
That's how Washington feels as well; as a quasi-democracy,
Pakistan was pretty close to a terrorist state. Then
General Musharraf seized power in 1999, installed himself
as president in 2001 and (after 9/11, with an American gun
to his head) began to turn the country away from terror and
extremism.
It's quite a task; a poll last fall found that 82 percent
of urban Pakistanis regard Osama bin Laden as a freedom
fighter. Pakistan's intelligence agency is responsible for
more terrorist killings than Al Qaeda. The country has been
on the edge of bankruptcy, 55 percent of adults are
illiterate, 10 percent of children die by the age of 5, and
there are more drug addicts than college graduates.
"Prior to 9/11, all of us considered Pakistan a failing
state, 5, 10 or 15 years away from collapse in one way or
another," said Marshall Bouton, an expert on the region and
president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
More broadly, South Asia as a whole is both impressive in
the way it has sustained democracies and depressing in how
poorly the democracies have often served their citizens.
Indeed, in Sri Lanka elections led to the rise of
demagogues who competed for votes among the majority
Sinhalese population by pledging to discriminate against
the minority Tamils. They got the votes, and Sri Lanka got
civil war.
None of this is to argue against democracy, though, because
(aside from General Musharraf) military rulers in the area
have been even worse. As Najam Sethi, a prominent Pakistani
newspaper editor, puts it: "Yes, the experiments with
democracy have not been successful, but the experiments
with military dictatorship have been disastrous."
For that reason, Mr. Sethi and many others with whom I
spoke are horrified by General Musharraf's fraudulent
referendum to stay in power. But I can't help thinking that
Pakistan may be better off under him - if only he will use
his power to build credible democratic institutions,
starting with the parliamentary elections in October. One
hopeful sign is that he is instituting local councils whose
members must be one-third women - a remarkable step in a
country where women often are doormats.
If we are to wink at General Musharraf's charade, we must
at least press him to promote not just the army but also an
independent judiciary, press, Parliament and other pillars
of a free society.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/opinion/03KRIS.html?ex=1021509687&ei=1&en=747538f1a18002df
|
