Third World Democracy
By Nayyer Ali, MD

Much has been made about the benefits of democracy as a governing system. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” Democracy has been very successful in Britain and its offshoots such as America, Canada, and Australia. In addition, almost all of Europe lives in prosperous, stable democracies. But democracy, although tried frequently in one way or another, has never been successful in the third world. Pakistan’s chronic military coups should be seen in this context.

We need to be clear about what democracy actually is. In all democratic societies, power is not held by the people but rather is turned over to a small body of elected representatives who are then given tremendous power over the life of the country. In parliamentary systems, the political group that dominates parliament has little constitutional check on its desires. The American system of carefully separated powers with a directly elected President is more suitable to handle the weaknesses of democracy, but it is a system that few other democracies have tried.

The basic function of any government, whether it is a democracy or not, is to “divide the pie” between all the various groups in society. These include labor and industry, various regions, male and female, educated and illiterate, competing businesses, military and civilian, etc. In a functioning democratic system, the legislative bodies listen to all the various groups in society and then carefully decide between them in formulating laws and policies. These groups are all organized into civil entities that can effectively lobby the government, while a free press acts as a watchdog to sniff out corrupt dealings. In this way, the interests of society as a whole are advanced while the rights of particular groups are not trampled on. At least that’s how it works in the ideal world. In reality, even in advanced democracies, certain groups have better access and more influence with the government than others. But in the big picture the system does work pretty well in the United States and Western Europe.

When this system works well, the politicians run campaigns based on ideas, with competing parties vying for votes on the basis of a political philosophy and an agenda of policies they want to enact. The American Presidential race is keying on two major issues, the future of social security, and what should be done with the excess tax dollars pouring into the treasury. Democrats and Republicans have competing ideas based on their respective philosophy of government.

In the Third World, the poverty and ignorance of the vast majority keep them from being able to defend their rights. The political system is easily manipulated by the rich and powerful for their own benefit. What kind of democracy do you have when the landlords are able to tell their peasants whom to vote for (often the landlord’s son)? Since very few groups in society have the wealth or numbers to effectively organize, they are unable to counterbalance those groups that are. The result is that the political system fails to act like it would in a more developed democracy. Third world democracies rarely create stable, idea based political parties. They usually feature charismatic leaders whose parties are merely an extension of themselves. What would PPP be without Bhutto or PML without Sharif?

In Third World countries, democracy then degenerates into a spoils system, where the politics features a contest between two groups of thieves, with both in the game simply to take their turn at the trough. The government exists to hand out patronage, and elections decide which group gets to control the patronage. This is democracy in name only, but well describes Pakistan’s last decade. When the political system is this dysfunctional, many successful countries have turned to another form of government: authoritarian or military capitalism. In this form, democracy either doesn’t exist (South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970’s) or exists as a show (Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan). The government is run by strong patriotic rulers who want to develop the country as rapidly as possible. Although corruption occurs, in general the political system is primarily about development, not patronage and corruption.

As the country becomes richer and more developed, a vibrant middle class becomes politically aware. The new middle class wants to run the country, and is educated and wealthy enough to do so. At this point, the authoritarian system gives way and real democracy is created. This happened ten years ago in South Korea and Taiwan, and is happening now in Mexico and possibly Turkey. Pakistan is probably 15 years away from that point at a minimum.

The absolute worst system is when democracy fails in a Third World country and is replaced by a military government that is just as corrupt if not more so. In that country there is essentially no hope of progress. This is the sad fate of many African countries where the government is essentially a military kleptocracy that squashes its critics. Nigeria’s last 20 years have been under this misrule.

An advanced American-style democracy is in my view the preferred government, but if the choice is between Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz on the one hand, and the patronage struggles of Bhutto and Sharif on the other, I’ll reluctantly take Musharraf.