Democracy is dead long live democracy

There was widespread, almost universal rejoicing when Imran Khan's PTI won the 2018 election. Hope was in the air. Finally, an honest incorruptible leader promised change and a new beginning. He held out a better future for the nation's poor and oppressed. He promised jobs for the millions of unemployed youth. He vowed to deliver better health care and put every child in school. Pakistan was finally going to fulfil the promise of its potential.

Alas, now almost one year into his rule, there is nothing but disappointment, despair and desperation. All his promises have vanished into thin air. Worse, there is no sign that his administration is even trying to put things right. Instead there is lack of leadership and direction. There is no vision or strategy. The government appears paralysed. If there is movement it is only to hand out critical government positions to those singularly unqualified to hold them.    

For a long time we have been told: Give democracy a chance. It will work. But it hasn't. Three peaceful uninterrupted transfers of power have taken place. But the lot of the benighted Pakistani people does not get better. There seems to be no breaking the relentless spiral of descent into chaos and oblivion. So, is democracy not the answer for Pakistan? Well, maybe not the version that we have.

When engineers design a building they need to know something about where it will be built and who will use it. The nature of the soil, climate, and the surrounding environment, all factor into what it will look like. The basic principle is that the building must fit with its environment. To do otherwise would be to build at best, a dysfunctional, and at worst, a dangerous structure. 

The design of governance structures has a similar imperative. It would be foolish, for instance, to build a replica of the UK houses of parliament in Islamabad. Thankfully we have not done this. But what we have done is even more egregious: We have lifted the Whitehall model of democracy as is and made it our own. Remember this is a system that evolved over several hundred years in the United Kingdom in response to that country's particular history, culture, geography and circumstances. What on earth made us believe that we could simply transplant this system to Pakistan and expect it to work? 

It is increasingly obvious now, that it has not only not worked, it has failed catastrophically. There should be no surprise about this. Since it was not designed with Pakistan and our particular, culture, history, geography, and circumstances in mind it had to fail. It was only a matter of time. And now that time has come.

Does this mean that democracy will not work in Pakistan? Well, the Whitehall type, as we've seen, will certainly not work. But a democratic system can be designed that would suit our particular circumstances and context. And here is what it would look like:

It would be a presidential system with a directly elected president who will be the chief executive of the country. There will be two chambers, as we have now. Election to the lower chamber - the parliament - would be by proportional representation instead of the as now 'first past the post' system. Senators in the upper house would be directly elected rather than selected by the lower house.

There will be no prime minister. The president will be free to appoint his cabinet from anywhere. The sole criterion will be competence to do the job. Ministers would be selected from university professors, corporate managers, lawyers or other professionals. The president will not be allowed to appoint ministers from elected representatives in either of the two houses of parliament. All appointed ministerial candidates would have to be approved by both houses. Elected representatives would not be given any development funds. These funds will be channeled through local bodies or concerned provincial or federal departments.

Here is how this system will protect the interests of the Pakistani people and provide a path to development and progress: The direct election of the president will mean that never in the future will we have a president, as we had in the recent past, who is universally accepted as corrupt and universally despised. The people will elect whomever they deem worthy of the position. And the collective wisdom of the people will never settle for an unworthy, corrupt or incompetent candidate. We will get a president who can do the job.

Next, the right of the president to appoint anyone he deems competent to the cabinet will open the door to the best people in the country to head up government ministries. And this in turn will bring much needed reform and a culture of service, efficiency and professionalism to these critical public service agencies.

Most of the people who now seek to become members of parliament do so for the spoils: A ministership or development funds. In the new system they will get neither. So there will be little incentive for the usual culprits - the waderas and gaddi nashins - to spend their ill gotten wealth in a venture that promises no return. 

The salutary result will be that eventually only those will seek election who have a genuine interest in legislation and public service. Our assemblies will become places of merit and excellence rather than the boorish talk shops that they now are.

The direct election of Senators to the upper house will mean that the unsavoury horse trading that takes place for lower house votes will end.

The system of proportional representation in elections to the lower house will ensure more inclusivity. The present 'first past the post' system is in some sense undemocratic by design. In a close contest - let's say the winner has 51 percent of the vote and the loser 49 percent - forty nine percent of the people end up without representation. Proportional representation will fix this defect by giving them a voice in parliament.

The same pattern will apply in the provinces: Governors will be directly elected. Their cabinets will consist of professionals.They will not be able to appoint ministers from the assemblies. Assembly members will not receive any development funds. Again the same salutary benefits that accrue at the national level will trickle down to the provincial level.

So far so good. But there remains the issue of how to implement this proposed system. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional way to effect this change. So some extra constitutional authority has to disband the existing system, replace it with a temporary governance structure, and develop a new constitution based on the proposed presidential system. Then hold free, fair and transparent elections under the new constitution before handing over power to the nation's newly elected representatives. 

This seems like asking for the Moon. But sometimes, even the Moon, may not be as far as it seems.This is a quote from a speech that former US President John F Kennedy made when he announced in 1962 America's goal to put men on the moon: "We choose to go to the Moon [..] and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, [..] because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ..."

The question for us in Pakistan, here, today is: Are we willing to accept the challenge to save our future and to win?

This article has been published in The Daily Times