The Hypocrisy of Evangelizing Democracy

It has been said that nation states will always fail the test of morality and ethics if they are tested on the same parameters as individuals are. Devious behavior of an individual becomes statecraft in the context of a nation. But there has to be a limit to it and it becomes dangerous for world order when America pontificates ad nauseam about spreading democracy having destroyed the institution in most countries where it today claims to be working for the restoration of democracy. The American policy in Pakistan has certainly crossed these limits and has resulted in a dangerous situation for Pakistan, its neighbors and possibly, in a backfire of sorts, for America as well.

“And as the president said yesterday, the way to honor her memory is to continue the democratic process in Pakistan”, said Condoleezza Rice after signing the condolence book at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. As Shekhar Gupta, in his editorial in Indian Express on December 30th, points out, fledgling democratic institutions have been nipped in the bud three times by Americans – on each instance they have supported military dictators Ayub Khan, Zia-ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf. To make a statement with a straight face, like Ms. Rice did,, knowing that the audience is aware of the history, takes some gall. There is nothing personal about Ms. Rice in this who has been credited with some positive aspects of American diplomacy in the recent past.

The biggest mistake in America’s understanding of democracy is that a party of right wing economics, but with liberal social agenda, and above all willing to take dictation from them needs to be in power for success of democracy. Not recognizing Hamas’ election victory, and then going all-out with shameless intervention to bring Benazir-Musharraf axes into power in Pakistan underlines this – but the outcome in both cases also highlights inefficacy of this strategy in bring democracy. The religious right wing parties who America loathes always catch people’s fancy in times of chaos because they have a clearly defined agenda Their ideologically driven cadre isn’t as corrupt as the other parties, or not at least till it comes to power, and people feel that such parties of alliances will be a solution to chaos and corruption. Hamas in Palestine and Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in Pakistan got popular support, largely, due to these reasons.

Does this make the whole polity communal and extremist? Evidence would suggest otherwise. Once in power these parties have to deliver, and ideology is inconsequential to meeting the needs of ‘roti, kapdaa aur makaan’ (basic needs to food, clothing and shelter – common political slogan in India and Pakistan). The gloss wears away further when ‘power corrupts’, and these party functionaries don’t look like ascetics anymore (compare the lifestyle of most BJP leaders in 1980s to their current lifestyles). After having given the chance to such parties, people realize that there isn’t much that separates the political class and normal service resumes as in any other western democracy. This brings such religious parties more to right-of-center from the previous extremist fringes, as happened with the religious right-wing movement in India in the early 1990s as well. I am sure this would happen with MMA in the two states that it governs in Pakistan. It is already a divided house as far as current national elections are concerned, with Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the President of MMA, saying earlier in December that five parties of the six-party religious alliance were supporting the move to boycott the elections and MMA Secretary General Maulana Fazlur Rehman was free to leave the alliance if he wanted to contest the polls

Unfortunately America hasn’t shown the patience for democracy to take root and a complete cycle to play out. In a country where Osama Bin Laden has 48% approval rating as per a recent poll, and more than two-thirds express dislike for America, the easiest way to discredit a leader is for America to openly support him/her. This is what has happened with Musharraf.

Moreover, in spite of all impressions created to the contrary by western media, even Benazir’s party was only marginally ahead of other parties in opinion polls with just 30% votes (PML-Q and PML-N both were between 20-25%). Even Benazir, by bequeathing her party to her husband (who in turn has handed it over to his son) through her will, has demonstrated a far more feudal than a democratic streak – so much for America’s latest democratic hope in Pakistan.