Democracy, Inclusion and Governance - The Inseparable Links

Democracy, Inclusion and Governance: The Inseparable Links
1 of 20
about:reader?url=http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/democracy-inclusio...
criterion-quarterly.com
Democracy, Inclusion and Governance:

The Inseparable Links
By
JAMIL NASIR[1]
Abstract
(Pakistan has oscillated between military rule and some form of
democracy throughout its chequered political history. Several
factors, widely discussed in political literature, are responsible for
the shallow roots of democracy in Pakistan. The root causes,
however, are exclusionary policies of the state, politico-economic
arrangements benefitting the elite, and outmoded governance
structures from colonial times. Empirics suggest that democracy
per se has no effect on economic growth, corruption, and
inequality. Its benefits accrue to the citizenry through good
governance, cost-effective public service delivery, and rule of law.
There is a clear nexus between inclusion, good governance and
democracy. Reforms of fundamental nature are needed to
disperse the economic and political power in society to sustain
democracy. The main areas of reform identified in this regard are
the civil service, local governance, taxation and education. Author)
What ails the political system of Pakistan? What explains the
fragility of its democracy? These questions are far from trivial.
Pakistan has experimented with various forms of political systems:
presidential, parliamentary, guided democracy, etc. It has oscillated
between military rule and democratically elected regimes since
itsinception. It is estimated thatout of total 24,488days, Pakistan had
democratic regimes for 8,781 days while for 8,503 days military
ruled the country[1]. A consistent pattern is visible in the political
history of Pakistan. Oncethe military takes over, struggle for a rocky
and uncertain transition back towards democracy starts. Why
political institutions are so sclerotic in Pakistan and why these
institutions have failed to nourish democracy is a big question.
Some generalized and partial explanations discussed in literature on
the issueare as follows:[2]
1) Mr. Jinnah did not live long after the birth of Pakistan. Due to his
demise, soon after the independence, he did not have time and
opportunity to impose his vision on Pakistan unlike his Indian
counterpart, Mr. Nehru, who had enough time to put India on the
trajectory of democracy. It is argued that Mr. Jinnah was a modern,
secular and liberal leader who wanted to lay the foundations of the
country on the modern principles of democracy and secularism but
his early demise did not let him translate his vision into reality. The
death of Jinnah in the states infancy created confusion over whether
Pakistan should remain secular or should follow the momentum for
Islamization generated during the independence struggle. The lack
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
2 of 20
of strong leadership with well-defined vision deepened the

confusion, and to this day the country struggles to achieve a clear
vision of its future.[3]
2) It is also argued that the majority of the elite who played an active
part in the Pakistan Movement had migrated from the minority
provinces of India. These elite did not have indigenous political and
economic roots and were, therefore, reluctant to initiate a democratic
process.
3) The political leaders of the Western part of the country were
fearful of the domination by the politicians of East Pakistan in the
legislature due to their supremacy in numbers. Had democracy
been the choice, it was very likely that the politicians from the
Eastern part would form governments and run the state affairs by
virtue of their majority.
4) Low level of capitalist development and industrialization is also
held responsible for the shallow roots of democracy. History of
evolution of modern democracy in countries like the UK bears
testimony to this argument. Industrialization became a big driving
force for liberal democracy in the Western World. There is a strong
thesis by political economists that in UK extension of franchise to the
labour and middle classes was a strategic decision on the part of the
elite, who were fearful of revolution due to changed socioeconomic
conditions unleashed by the Industrial revolution[4]. In case of
Pakistan, power shifts did not take place between various classes
and segments of society due to a low level of industrialization.
Political and economic power remained concentrated in the land
owning elite who already had access topower, privilege and
authority. They did not need democracy to get their rights. Rather
democracy could be a threat to their power due to the voice
democracy gives to the common people who could challenge the
existing power structures and demand their share of the pie. A
majority of the population lived in the rural hinterland and elections
were decided (and still so) by rural Pakistan. Even if there was an
urge among the rural people for their political and economic rights,
which only a real democracy could bestow upon them, theywere
faced with what the economists call a collective action problem.
[5]
Most of the people were dependent on the landed elite for their
livelihood and access to public services from local institutions.

5) Civilian bureaucracy and military were comparatively two
well-organized and powerful institutions immediately after the
independence of Pakistan. They thought that they could take
Pakistan forward towards economic progress as the politicians
lacked the necessary vision and will to put the country on the
trajectory of development. These reasons for fragility of democracy
in Pakistan are true to a large extent but do not complete the
story.The roots of fragility run much deeper than generally
understood.
Democracy is more than Elections
Before delving into the causes of the fragility of our political system,
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
3 of 20
let me briefly state as to what makes democracy a superior form of

governance or what are the advantages of democracy. Professor
Jared Diamond, in one of his recent articleson American democracy,
has emphasized the following virtuesof democracy:1) Democracy
encourages debate and even seemingly unpalatable ideas can be
discussed in democracy; 2) Citizens have a voice in democracy.
They are heard. Democracy acts as a safety valve against violence
and frustration; 3) Democracy acts as a shield against tyranny and
oppression. A spirit of compromise and accommodation is its
hallmark; 4) In democracy all citizens can vote, so governments are
motivated to invest in the people at large rather than the few elite.[6]
So democracy empowers people. It gives them voice. It does not
safeguard the interests of the elite alone. But the questions here are:
Is democracy just a political concept? Has it nothing to do with the
economic and social lives of the people? Is the principle of one man
one vote sufficient for the sustainability of democracy?
DrB.R.Ambedkarsaid, On the 26th of January, 1950, we are going
to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will be recognizing
the principle of one man one vote, and one vote one value. In our
social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and
economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one
value. How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and
economic life? If we continue it for long, we will do so only by putting
our political democracy in peril. We must remove the contradiction at
the earliest possible moment, or else those who suffer from
inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy.[7]
Democracy is more than elections even if they are held on the
principle of one man, one vote. Real and sustainable democracy is
not possible without appreciating its economic and social
aspects.One of the prime reasons for the failure of democracies is
that too much emphasis is put on elections and too little on other
essential features of democracy[8].Meritocracy, rule of law, good
governance, and accountability, which should be the defining
features of a democracy, are often lacking in developing countries
like Pakistan. That is why democracy stumbles again and
again.Professor DaniRodrik of Harvard University says, When
democracy fails to deliver economically and politically, perhaps it is
to be expected that some people will look for authoritarian solutions.
As long as the military remains the ultimate arbiter, these groups
(political) focus their strategies on military rather than on one
another.[9]
Sustainability of democracy mainly depends on its capacity to
incorporate more societal sectors and distribute public goods among
the citizenry. The extent to which the system makes itself inclusive
with the passage of time is the real test of democracy in a country.
History of the evolution of democracy testifies this assertion. For
example, the evolution of democracy in the UK not only gave the
disenfranchised sections voting rights,but also initiated broad based
reforms in the 19th century by Prime Ministers Disraeli and
Gladstone (though belonging to different political parties) in the
spheres of education, public health and social security.
Pakistans situation is quite paradoxical. Rather than making the
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
4 of 20
people stakeholders in the democratic system,we have tried to keep

the base of the democracy narrow throughexclusionary policies and
perpetuation of the status quo. For example, local governments that
could disperse political power in society have not been established.
Similarly, no effective land reforms were introduced to disperse
economic power. Concentration of land in the hands of a small
landed elite has had long-term implications for the growth of political
institutions and democracy in the country. Institutions generally
evolve and become stronger in comparatively egalitarian societal
arrangements. India made effective land reforms soon after
independence. Land reforms were also vital in the initial stages of
development of South East Asian countries, now called Asian
Tigers, at least from three angles[10]. First, land reforms enhanced
rural productivity and income of the rural people. Consequently,
domestic savings increased. Second, higher incomes resulted in
higher domestic demand for goods. Third, redistribution of income
contributed to political stability, an important factor for creating an
environment for domestic and foreign investment.
The distribution of assets and income was thus highly skewed from
the very beginning in case of Pakistan.No serious efforts were
undertaken by the state to smoothen the inequitable distribution of
assets through redistribution. The literature on redistribution under
democracy gives some very useful insights which may explain,
though partially, the fragility of democracy in Pakistan.Empirics
suggest that if redistribution is insufficient for the poor or excessive
for the rich, people may turn against democracy. A threshold of
capital stock is required for democracy to survive. Perhaps we have
not yet achieved this threshold of capital stock and perhaps it
partially explains our low level of patience with democracy.
Democracy, what is it good for?Some empirics
(a) What is the linkage between democracy and
income?Empirics suggest a direct relationship between per capita
GDP and democracy, meaning rich countries have more probability
to be democratic than poor countries: The probability that a
democracy would survive rises steeply in per capita income.
Between 1950 and 1999,the probability that a democracy would die
during any year in countries with per capita income under $1000
(1985 PPP dollars) was 0.0845 so that one in twelve diedand no
democracy ever fell in a country with per capita income higher than
that of Argentina in 1975, $6055.This is a startling fact,given that
throughout history about seventy democracies collapsed in poorer
countries, while thirty-seven democracies spent over 1000 years in
more developed countries and not one died.[11]
Several other economists have also suggested a strong link
between income and democracy. According to Professor Robert J.
Barro an increase in living standards is certainly associated with
gradual rise in democracy, and the democracies without economic
development fail to sustain. Economic development, argues Samuel
Huntington,[12] has a positive impact on the process of
democratization. He further argues that when a nation reaches a
given threshold of development, it is likely to become a democracy.
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
5 of 20
Slow development means slow transition to democracy whereas

rapid development creates tensions in the society which eventually
lead to broader political participation.
Some have, however, questioned this thesis. Professor Acemoglu et
al[13] have suggested that although a relationship exists between
income and democracy but as to whether income contributes
towards democracy is questionable. Peculiar history and
development paths and not income explain the adoption and
sustainability of democracy in a country. If the thesis of Professor
Daron Acemoglu et al is accepted, then it means that we have little
space and leverage to sustain democracy due to historical
determinism.Interestingly, democracy-development tradeoffdoes
not hold in the case of Pakistan.The economic growth rate during
military rule was above 6% while in democratic regimes it hovered
around 4%. Economic growth has been successfully achieved
during the authoritarian regimes but this growth neither enhanced
democracy nor reflected itself in the lives of the people.
(b)Does democracy reduce inequality? Ideally democracy should
take care of inequality as democracy means rule of the majority and
if everybody has got the right to vote, then it makes sense that
people will vote for redistribution of resources from the rich to the
poor. If it happens, social and income inequalities of extreme nature
should eventually go. But contrary to this, democracy does not
necessarily reduce inequality. Extreme economic and social
inequities persist even in long-established democracies. USA and
India are cases in point. In USA, inequality has emerged as a big
issue despite a well-established democracy.[14]According to an
Oxfam report,Income inequality has also deepened in India, in the
last three decades.[15]
Why democracy does not necessarily reduce inequality? Daron
Acemoglu et al have identified several channels for the limited
impact of democracy on inequality.[16]First, democracy may be
captured or constrained. Though democracy reallocates de jure
power to the poorer segments of the society by giving power of vote
on the basis of universal franchise but de jure power does not
necessarily mean de facto power as well. The political system does
not work for the majority due to the control the elite have over
political parties, lobbying, provision of funds for electioneering, local
law enforcement agencies, etc. In a developed country, like the USA,
the political system may be influenced by corporate interests and
lobbies, whereas, in a developing country like Pakistan, the
democratic system may be hijacked by the feudal or ethnic interests.
Second, democracy does not necessarily transfer power to the poor.
Rather it may transfer political power only to the middle class.
Inequality can only be reduced if the middle class is in favour of
redistribution. In a real democracy, the taxation system is supposed
to be highly progressive with a major component of the total
composition of taxes being direct taxes. A substantial amount of
revenue also has to be allocated for primary health, basic education,
transfer payments, etc. instead of big health projects and tertiary
education. This, however, is usually not the case, especially with
democracy in Pakistan.
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
6 of 20
(c) Does democracy contribute towards economic growth? Not

necessarily. The empirics exploring the impact of democracy on
economic growth indicate that either democracy is detrimental to
economic growth or at best it is neutral. In this regard, the first
forceful paper that explored the relationship between economic
growth and democracy was that of Professor Robert Barro.[17]
Based on an analysis of about 100 countries, he found that
democracy reduces economic growth. Professor Paul collier has
even argued that authoritarianism can be good for economic growth.
The debate that economic growth is related to regime-type is
gaining lot of attention even in developed democracies. Chinas
impressive growth rate in the last couple of decades has ignited this
debate in the academic and policy circles of the West. Is it a
coincidence that some of the best growth experiences of the world
have been either under dictatorships or in less-than-democratic
regimes? Post-Mao China, Lee Kwan Yews Singapore, or General
Park Chung Hees South Korea may be cited as some examples.
Why economic growth may be compromised in a democratic
dispensation? The argument isthat in a democratic dispensation the
government is under persistent pressure from the electorate for
immediate consumption at the cost of long-term investment. The
political parties have to have recourse to the people for elections and
to stay in power. If the government prefers long-term investment
over immediate consumption, it may not have sellable projects for
elections, and has every likelihood to be voted out.This argument
can also be constructed as follows: poor have high propensity to
consume. If they are organized then they demand high wages and
immediate relief through transfers and subsidies. Consequently,
profits and investment are reduced and in turn economic growth
slows down. The flipside of this argument is that if a government is
a true representative of the people and reflects the preferences of
the majority in the real sense, then it will take measures for more
progressive taxation and redistribution which in turn will increase the
spending capacity of the poor. Resultantly, aggregate demand will
increase and hence economic growth. Even otherwise, economic
literature says that democracy per se has no effect on growth.
Accountability, good governance and reduction in corruption will
impact growth. A fragile and weak democracy, however, does not
necessarily guarantee good governance and accountability.
(d) Does democracy reduce corruption? Not necessarily at least
in the short-run. Economists say that the relationship between
democracy and corruption is somewhat complex. The relationship
between democracy and corruption can at best be described as an
inverted U relationship. In the beginning the corruption level in a
democratic regime goes up, then stabilizes and eventually falls
when the norms of democratic accountability and rule of law are
established. It happened in the case of UK where dismantling of
what was called old corruption took several decades but as the
franchise expanded and democratic norms evolved, misuse of
public office for personal gains became less likely. Democracy in
developing countries, however, has not clearly proven more
successful at tackling corruption. India is a case in point where
corruption is rampant despite a well- established democratic system
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
7 of 20
of governance since almost seven decades.The track record of

democracy in controlling corruption in poor and developing
countries is not better than that of an authoritarian development
state.[18]These empirics about democracy are mind-boggling.
The people can get disillusioned if they do not consider themselves
stakeholders in the system.The problem with democracy is that it
may be of many stripes. FareedZakaria writes, It appears that many
countries are setting into a form of government that mixes a
substantial degree of democracy with substantial degree of
illiberalism. Just as nations across the world have become
comfortable with many variations of capitalism, they could well adopt
and sustain varied forms of democracy.[19] Mr. Zakaria may be
right. All democracies may not strictly be called liberal democracies
as those of the West but there can be the worst forms of democracy
thatmay not have even a semblance of democratic virtues in society
from social and economic perspectives. Competitive authoritative
regimes are such examples.[20]We can have a democracy but a
dysfunctional one, captured by the elite and vested interests. Such
democracies may not be inclusive at all and may not be much
different from dictatorial regimes. Safeguarding the interests of few
groups or families cannot be a democracy in the true sense.
Exclusion: The root of fragility
People need to feel that they have a stake in the democracy. It can
be done through policies of inclusion and incorporation but in case
of Pakistan the state has followed exclusionary policies and the
result is that people have become disillusioned with the political
system. Sit-ins and agitations are the very manifestations of such
disillusionment. Political, economic and social exclusions are deeply
entrenched in Pakistan. A small segment of society has monopoly
over power, profit and patronage. Huge gaps exist between theory
(constitutional rights as enshrined in the Constitution) and their
implementation in real life. Plutocracy,as it existed in colonial times
when the British relied on very few families to perpetuate their
colonial rules, is still a reality of political life where very few families
perpetuate their hegemony over political and economic power.
The state apparatus- bureaucracy, judiciary, police, etc. has not
adapted to the needs of a modern democratic dispensation that is
supposed to be working on the principle of equality. At least four
forms of exclusion can be identified very easily i.e. regional
exclusion, exclusion from access to land, exclusions based on
religion, and exclusion of youth and women. While Pakistan is a
federation, exclusion of some regions from political power and
economic development is a big source of conflict and fragility.
Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)and Sindh have
persistently complained against Punjabs domination indecision
making at the central level. Then there are further divides among the
provinces themselves.
In Punjab, the divide between its Northern and Southern parts due
to uneven development is apparent. In Sindh, it is evident in the
shape of rural-urban disparities. In KPK, there is a clear divide in
development indicators and priorities for the settled districts such as
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
8 of 20
Mardan, Charsada, and Nowshera andthe tribal area starting from

Peshawar to the Afghan border at Torkham. The grievances of the
Baluchis and Pashtuns are not only limited to exclusion from
national power and resources buttheir traditional governance
structures there are also highly exclusionary in nature. The tribal
areas stretch from Chitral in the northeast to Baluchistans
Mountains southwest end and the Pakistan-Afghanistan 2430 km
Durand line frontier. It seems as if the Pakistani State is totally out of
touch with the tribal dimension and has hardly made any serious
effort to incorporate these areas in the national mainstream.
The governance structures have not changed from what they were
prior to independence. For example, in the FATA, the federal
governments representative (the political agent) uses tribal leaders
(maliks) to maintain control over the local population and channel
development resources. Maliks were widely resented by the people
and this resentment helpedthe Taliban attract support through a
narrative of struggle against the corrupt Political agent-malik nexus.
The case of Baluchistan is similar where hereditary leaders called
sardars wield power and act as intermediaries between the state
and the populace. They are the main beneficiariesof natural
resources, hold political offices and control the allocation of
development budgets in their interest. So the point here is that no
serious efforts were ever taken by the state to make the political
system inclusive by incorporating these geographical areas through
adoption of modern governance structures. The seventh 2009
National Finance Commission award and 18th Amendment are
some steps forward but the results of the same yet remain to be
seen as these steps have not yet fundamentally done away
withexclusions, even at a theoretical level.
Another source of exclusion is the highly skewed distribution of land
in Pakistan. Traditionally, the big landlords have remained the
custodians of economic and political power. If poverty is endemic
and no light is visible at the end of the tunnel, then democracy will
remain in peril. We have seen that democracy and income are
directly linked. Empirics suggest that land reforms have a significant
and positive impact on income growth and accumulation of human
and physical capital. Land reforms introduced in India are a case in
point.[21] Unequal distribution of land in rural areas is a major cause
for the skewed political and economic power in Pakistan. Highly
skewed power structures explain the fragility of institutions in
Pakistan as institutions evolve and become strong in comparatively
egalitarian societal arrangements.
According to estimates about 67 % of households own no land.
About 18.25% of households own 5 acres of land and 9.66 % own 5
to 12.5 acres of land. A very small portion of households, 0.37%,
own large farms above 55 acres of land. High level of unequal land
distribution is thus the main reason and manifestation of poverty in
rural areas.[22] With the passage of time things have worsened and
poverty has deepened. The impact of the industrial revolution and
mechanization of farming is now very much visible in rural areas.
Added to this, the policies forrural development were tailored on the
assumption that agricultural development is synonymous with rural
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
9 of 20
development. Such is not the case. Small percentage of

households own land in the rural areas. The landless majority did
not benefit from the agricultural policies. The fallacious approach to
rural development has further strengthened the grip of the land
owners on the political and economic landscape while the landless
have become poorer and poorer with the passage of time. No
concrete policy has ever been tailored for the rural non-farm
economy[23] andsurplus labour with the result that even the
so-called democracies have failed to disperse power among the
rural landless class.
Due to the concentration of power in a few hands, institutions have
not become inclusive with the result that a majority of the people
now do not consider themselves stakeholders in the affairs of the
state. The nexus between land ownership and political power is a
big stumbling block in the political empowerment of the landless.
They can neither exercise their political power nor hold the leaders
accountable. They are just mobilized to provide support to their
patrons at the time of elections. Theycannot form horizontal
networks and are helpless in face of the corrupt and elite-controlled
system of governance. Persistence of power of the landed elite,
especially in the province of Punjab,is a result of the reinforcement
overtime of an institutional framework of politics where the landed
elite has provided services in exchange of patronage. The
dependence trajectory path which started with the advent of the rule
of the British in the subcontinent could not be altered even after
hundreds of years. Several critical moments came in the history of
Pakistan but all the critical junctures were wasted due to the deeply
entrenched power of the landed elite.[24]
The third category of exclusion relates to minorities. They have been
formally as well as informally discriminated against by the state and
the society. Social, economic and political space has shrunk for
them with each passing day. Our society has slowly but steadily
grown intolerant towards the minorities. The last couple of years
have registered sharp deteriorating trends in this regard. An
alarming trend of persecution of those advocating minorities causes
and raising their voice for a more inclusive, harmonious and tolerant
polity has become more pronounced. Now it seems as if our society
has internalized this culture of intolerance towards the minorities.
Against this backdrop, it is important to go back to Pakistans
founding fathers to see as to what kind of polity they wanted and
what place they reserved for non-Muslim communities in the body
politic of the newly created state.
Pakistan is lucky enough to have what is called a youth bulge,
when developed countries like Japan are worried about the future
economic growth due to their aging population. There are, however,
apprehensions that the youth bulge may not necessarily turn out into
a youth dividend mainly due to their non-integration into the
economy. The economic growth rate is not sufficient to provide the
youth decent employment. Pakistan is faced with twin challenges
with regard to the youth. First, how to increase economic growth to
at least above 7% and then sustain it to absorb the burgeoning
population of the youth in the labour market and second how to
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
10 of 20
provide the skillset to the youth required by the labour market.

Pakistans economic growth rate is hovering around 4% which is not
sufficient at all to provide employment to the youth entering the
labour market. The determinants of long-term economic growth are
nowwidely known and discussed in economic literature. It is now
well recognized that institutions and human resources are the main
determinants of long-term economic growth and by tinkering at the
margins, you cannot sustain economic growth. Liberal investments
are required for human resource development.
Unfortunately, Pakistan has invested very little in education and
health, even when compared to countries with similar economic
development and per capita income. Unemployment among the
youth is the most serious area of concern for Pakistan. This has a
direct link with political stability. If urgent policy steps for creating
decent employment are not taken, things may get worse in the
coming years simply due to heightened awareness and expectations
of the youth. When people become more educated, their relations
with the state change. They become more demanding. According to
the UNDP report, 2014 Pakistan is ranked 146in the Human
Development Index, at the same position it was last year, among a
total of 187 countries. Pakistan has been bracketed with low
development countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Mali,
Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Liberia.
Pakistan is the worst scorer, even in South Asia, as India,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, and Nepal respectively sit
at 135,142, 73, 136, 103, and145. Further, Pakistan has the lowest
female HDI in the South Asian region. In terms of GDI Pakistan is
ranked 145 while India, Sri lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, and
Bhutan are respectively placed at 132, 66, 90, 102, 107, and 136.
Pakistan is ranked 127 out of 187 countries in terms of gender
inequality. Pakistan is bracketed with Afghanistan, Niger, and Yemen
where gender gaps are 30-40% higher and business as usual
approach may take decades to narrow down these gaps[25].
Pakistans educational system has been a main contributor towards
exclusion and fragility of democracy. It is highly exclusionary with
three streams running parallel to one another. The first stream
relates to Urdu medium schools which mostly operate in the public
sector. Students in Urdu medium public schools come from
low-income groups of society. Madressahs are the second stream of
education in Pakistan. These religious seminaries cater to the needs
of the poorest of the poor. The third category of schools is of the
privately run schools. They cater to the needs of the upper and
upper middle class. Schools established by the Army also fall under
this category. The point here is that different streams of education
adopted in Pakistan have accentuated schisms in the society with
different outlooks towards democracy and worldviews which are at
loggerheads with one another. The educational system has
contributed towards alienation and polarization in society. Education
in Pakistan is stratified according to the socio-economic status of
people. It also provides different earning opportunities with different
income levels. Education is considered a great social and economic
leveler. Contrary to this,the education system in Pakistan has helped
create haves and have-nots through sustained focus on elite
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
11 of 20
education to the detriment of the common man[26].

Here arises an interesting question: why did the state patronize elite
education and neglect the poor and the downtrodden? In Pakistan,
education has historically received little priority both in terms of
resource allocation and policy focus. The reasons are quite
obvious.The political system, democratic or otherwise, was never
broad-based in character as well as orientation. As the decisionmaking power was dominated by the rich elite, the poor never
figured in political priorities. If the political arrangements are not
broad-based, politicians are not responsive to the needs of the
families using public schools[27]. It implies that neglect of public
education for the poor will continue unless political arrangements
are broad-based and reflect the preferences of the people.
It may be added here that sustainability of democracy is also closely
linked to education. The idea that higher education leads to more
democracy has received a great deal of empirical support. What are
the channels through which education promotes and sustains
democracy? First is the standard efficiency argument. It says that
democracy provides an effective mechanism to oust corrupt,
incompetent and inept politicians through elections. This would,
however, be possible only if the voters are capable to process
information to evaluate and monitor government actions and
policies. The uneducated and illiterate voters are certainly in a
disadvantageous position compared with the well-educated voters
as far as their ability to process information and take rational
decisions is concerned. Winston Churchill is reported to have once
said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter. The sustainability of democracy
thus depends on the quality of the average voter as well. Democratic
elections do not help and may possibly harm in the recruitment of a
competent and honest political elite in countries with largely
uneducated populations[28].
Good governance and inclusion.
Empirics on democracy suggest that it does not per se contribute
towards economic growth. It does not reduce corruption at least in
the short-run and its impact on inequality is also doubtful. The
salubrious impacts of democracy on development and growth come
via good governance. Governance is still an amorphous concept.
However, it essentially means rule of the law, institutions and not
persons,accountability, control of corruption, and transparency.
Governance and state capacity are also closely related. Capacity of
tax collection i.e. tax-to-GDP ratio is taken as a proxy variable in
empirical literature for the capacity of the state. Against this
yardstick, we have a weak state. Our tax-to-GDP ratio is the lowest
in South Asia. We cannot collect due taxes. We rely more on
indirect taxes and cannot bring the tax evaders to book.Public health
and education systems do not deliver. Dispensation of justice to the
poor and powerless has become a nightmare because the state
cannot enforce its laws and provide prompt and cost-free justice. It is
not possible to improve governance unless state capacity is
improved. How can the universal right to education be honored if the
teachers do not show up to teach? How can the basic health
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
12 of 20
delivery be ensured if the doctors are absent from the hospitals and
basic health units? How can the proper taxes and duties be
collected if those responsible to run the state machinery do not feel
obligated to pay taxes?
Poor governance is as big a source of instability as exclusionary
policies are. That governance in Pakistan is far from perfect is
evident in many ways. Relations between the state and the people in
Pakistan are weak. Service delivery to people is poor, if they exist at
all, institutions are weak and law and order precarious. Various parts
of the state cannot seem to work with one another. Poor governance
increases frustration and reduces state legitimacy in the eyes of the
people. It creates space for alternative ideologies. Many instances
can be cited in Pakistan where weak governance result in
frustration. There is some evidence to show that lack of governance
is also a factor in the spread of extremism[29].
Pakistan has persistently scored low on various indices of
governance. Forexample, in the World Banks World Governance
Indicators [30] (WGI) index which measures the performance of a
country against six indicators i.e. voice and accountability, political
stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government
effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of
corruption, Pakistans score is persistentlyin thenegative as is
evident from the following tabulated data.
Table 1: Pakistans governance score on WGI
Indicator
No. of
Governance
Percentile
sources
score(-2.5
rank
to+2.5)
(0-100)
-1.22
14.42
accountability 2007
14
-0.97
20.19
2012
15
-0.87
23.70
Political
2002
-1.70
5.77
stability and
2007
-2.43
0.96
2012
-2.68
0.95
Government 2002
-0.39
41.46
effectiveness 2007
10
-0.46
39.32
2012
10
-0.79
23.44
Regulatory
2002
-0.79
21.08
quality
2007
10
-0.50
32.04
2012
11
-0.73
24.88
Voice and
Year
2002
absence of
violence
Rule of law
2002
-0.75
28.23
2007
15
-0.88
21.05
2012
16
-0.91
18.96
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
13 of 20
Source: Interactive data accessworldbank.org/governance

/wgi/index.aspx
The Failed states index of the World Peace[31] is another important
index for judging the democratic capacity of a state and its
governance performance. This index is composed of twelve
indicators directly or indirectly having relevance with the state
capacity and governance. It ranks the states against the following:
(1) demographic pressuresconcerns related to food security,
population growth and mortality rates (2) refugees and
IDPspopulation displacement and refugees (3) group grievance
tensions and violence among groups within state (4) Human flight
and brain drain (5) uneven economic developmentin terms of
ethnicity and region etc.(6)poverty and economic declinepoverty
rates and economic performance (7) state legitimacycorruption
and other measures of democratic capacity such as government
performance and electoral process (8) public services (9) human
rights and rule of law (10)security apparatus internal conflict and
the proliferation of nonstate armed groups (11)fractionalized elites
conflict and competition among local and national leaders (12)
external interventionlevels of foreign assistance as well as
imposed interventions such as sanctions, etc. According to the
Failed states index, Pakistan is persistently at the tail of the
countries ranked,implying that both democratic capacity and
governance leave much to be desired.
Table-2:Pakistans score on failed states index
Rank
Demographic Refugees Group

pressure
Year
&IDPs
Human Uneven
grievances flight & economic
Total
brain
Poverty State
and
Public Human Se
legitimacy services rights ap
development economic
drain
and
decline
rule of
law
201010
102.58.1
8.9
9.4
7.9
8.4
6.2
8.9
7.3
8.9
9.7
2011 12
102.38.8
9.2
9.3
7.5
8.5
6.6
8.6
7.3
8.7
9.4
201213
101.68.5
9.0
9.6
7.2
8.2
7.2
8.3
7.0
8.6
9.3
201313
102.98.9
9.1
9.7
6.9
7.9
7.5
8.4
7.3
8.7
9.8
201410
103.08.8
8.8
10
6.9
7.6
7.5
8.5
7.6
8.6
9.9
Source: Annual reports of the last five years published by the

United States Think-tank Fund for Peace and the magazine
Foreign Policy
Pakistans ranking in other international reports like Transparency
International, Doing Business of the World Bank, the Global
Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum, and the
Human Development Report of the UNDP is also not enviable. A
declining trend in its ranking is visible. One point is clear and that is
that governance in Pakistan is poor and democratic capacity is
weak.
Poor governance and low state capacity are a result of eroding
legitimacy of the state due to exclusionary policies and the capture
of state institutions by the elite. A state cannot acquire legitimacy
without providing public goods like education, public health, law and
order and justice. Disillusionment of the common man with the state
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
14 of 20
and its institutions is the real problem. A corrupt, arbitrary and weak
state is more of a problem for the weak and the downtrodden. So
far, the state has served the interests of the rent-seekers, corrupt
mafias, landlords and the so called elite who have bent the laws in
their favour due to the concentration of political and economic power
in their hands. The provision of public services isselective and class
based. Institutions are hardly serving the poor, powerless,
disadvantaged and the marginalized sections of the society who
constitute a majority in the country. The rich can buy their way out
gated communities and private guards (security of life and property),
private schools and private hospitals. The poor cannot. They have to
suffer harassment and humiliation by the very state functionaries
who are tasked with their security and well-being[32].
There are multiple reasons for the weak capacity of the state. On the
top of the list is the lack of political legitimacy of the governments.
The governments in power have been seeking legitimacy from small
but influential groups of people through doling out favors. People at
large have been ignored through exclusionary policies of the state.
But with the changing socio-economic dynamics and rising
populism, the state and its institutions can perhaps no longer afford
to ignore the silent majority of Pakistan. Good governance and
inclusionary policies are the need of the day. The legitimacy of the
state should come from its public service delivery but in order to
improve service delivery and give voice to the people, governance
reforms of a fundamental nature are needed. Business as usual will
not deliver.
In the context of Pakistan, good governance is also important to
make democracy work here. If the democratic regimes do not
deliver, people will start looking towards the military and in a country
where military has ruled for a long time, civilian supremacy cannot
be ensured unless popular support exists among the masses for the
democratic regimes. It will be possible only though good
governance. But the point here is that good governance comes from
strong institutions. In countries where institutions are strong, actors
are more likely to participate in the political process through
institutionalized arenas, while where they are weak, protests and
other unconventional means of participation become more
appealing.[33]And it is also a fact that strong institutions emerge
from relatively egalitarian societal structures for which we will have
to say good-bye to elitism and exclusionary policies.
Reforms should aim at four prime objectives. First, they should do
away with exclusions as much as possible. Second, they should
give voice to the man on the street and disperse power among the
people at large. Third, they should improve public service delivery.
Fourth, they should promote social cohesion in society and reduce
instability. To meet these objectives, a set of reforms is urgently
required and the sooner we initiate such reforms, the better.What
should be the key areas for improving governance and
strengthening democratic capacity? The first area of reforms that
comes to mind is the civil service as civil servants are primarily
responsible to translate the policies of the government into action.
The civil service is the Achilles heel of the state capacity where little
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
15 of 20
effort has gone into seriously addressing it.

The reforms introduced in the civil service were generally
misdirected and meant only to abolish its impartiality and make it
dependent on patronage. Civil service reforms introduced in
Pakistan had a different set of objectives altogether. The basic
compact of the structure changed. Of note is the fact that the most
significant effect of civil service reforms was to make it dependent on
patronage. How this came about requires detailed review. Suffice it
to say, that, imperceptibly, the incentive structure changed. Propriety
brought with it punishment, or at the very least unimportant
positions, while delivery brought favors and promotion. Politicos
base the measure of civil servant performance on personal
judgment. In many cases, one sees that they reward bad behavior
and penalize good conduct[34].
A lot has been written on the need and nature of reforms in civil
service. The gist of such recommendations is that the civil service
reforms should aim at increasing the links between the civil servants
and the general public. They need to be made more responsive and
accountable to the public. Then there is a need for increasing
professionalism among the civil servants. A generalist civil servant
groomed in classics may be no longer relevant to specialized
needs[35].
Moreover, reforms are needed as regards their
recruitment, compensation, promotion and accountability. Insulating

the civilian bureaucracy from the vices like corruption and grip of
politicians should also become important ingredients of such a
reform process. Competence, integrity and public service delivery
should become the basis of their performance, promotion and
placement. Political connections, sycophancy or service group
should not become points of discrimination among the civil
servants.[36]
The second area which needs urgent reforms to improve
governance is the taxation system. Pakistans inability to raise
revenues to meet the essential needs of the state is a major reason
for its poor state of governance. Government would rather lose grip
on a state going adrift in terms of law and order and economic
well-being, than to annoy the elite that refuses to meet its essential
responsibility of paying taxes. The short-term trumps the long term
and everyone suffers. On the surface, the status quo benefits the
elite and they do not wish to change it. In the end though, their own
ability to govern weakens. Inability to raise taxes results in high fiscal
deficits as it is essential to meet state expenditure. The resultant
high inflation acts as a tax on everyone again with high incidence on
the poor[37].
Pakistans tax system is riddled with serious pitfalls. First, the tax
burden is not borne by the rich and elite mainly due to politicoeconomic reasons. Equity considerations require that the tax system
is designed in a way that there should be equal treatment of equals
and those who have the ability to pay more should pay more taxes
than those who do not. The taxation system is highly inequitable due
to its tilt towards indirect taxes and massive tax expenditures. Only
7% of tax revenues are collected through direct taxes.Indirect taxes
constitute the major component of the tax revenue. Indirect taxes are
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
16 of 20
generally regressive in nature and easy to collect. A major chunk of

direct taxes is collected through withholding tax and deductions at
source and for all purposes and effects, withholding taxes are
indirect taxes.
The tax-to-GDPratio is the lowest even in South Asia. Tax burden
has increased on the poor segments of the society in the last couple
of years. This is amply clear from the change in contribution of
various commodities to tax revenue. For example, share of revenue
from POL products has substantially risen in the last five years and
the bulk of revenue accrues from HSD oil that is mostly used in
public transportation. According to World Bank estimates tax
expenditure aggregates to more than four hundred billion rupees per
annum. But if both national and provincial tax expenditures are
taken into account, the total may exceed seven hundred billion
rupees[38].
The tax system is also linked with democracy and state building.
Modern-day principles of representative democracy owe their
genesis to taxation. States and Kings required money to fight war. In
return, people demanded more power and authority from the kings.
Taxes thus forged a social contract between the state and citizenry
and paved the way for democracy. No taxation without
representation was the slogan of the American Revolution and
explains the grievances of British colonists, who had no
representation in the British parliament, but were required to pay
taxes. Even in the UK, major concessions extracted from the Crown
were due to new taxes imposed by the King of England. Whenever
the Crown introduced new taxes, the elite of that time came up with
a new charter of demands aimed at clipping the powers of the
Crown. This tug of war between the Crown and the elite nurtured the
seeds of western democracy.[39] When a majority of the people pay
taxes, they exercise a check on the government. A wide tax base
thus promotes democracy and inclusive policies.
The third area that should become a focus of reforms is the local
bodies. An elected local bodies system is a tried and tested form of
local governance worldwide. After all, local public services like
healthcare, education, transfer of land title, sanitation, and police
protectionare the need of every individual which can be
cost-effectively rendered at the local level. The irony is that
whenever a military regime is in power, local governments are
installed whereas democratic regimes are always averse to the very
idea of local governments. The reason is that the democratic
regimes are not democratic in the true sense of the word. They can
at best be called competitive authoritarian regimes[40]. Local
government reforms were introduced in 2001 but the system was
discontinued as soon as a democratic government came to power.
Local governments are the real essence of democracy. It is only
through local bodies and village councils that we can make the
people masters of their destiny. It will not only empower the man on
the street but will also make the public functionaries more
accountable and responsive. Education is another area where
reforms are needed to make society inclusive. Reforms in education
should essentially aim at three objectives i.e. doing away with the
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
17 of 20
three-tier system, linking education with market realities, and honing

cognitive skills.
According to Amartya Sen, democracy is a social instrument of
bettering the society and removing injustices and social
inequities[41]. To make democracy inclusive, we need to change
public discourse. Democracy should not be a luxury for the elite and
the middle class. If it is the will of the majority, it should have
something to offer to the poor and disadvantaged who constitute a
majority in the country. Inequality, poverty, corruption, and
rent-seeking are our own choices. These are products of our political
and economic policies and unless they are changed through
pro-poor discourse and policies, the faith of the common man in
democracy cannot be strengthened[42]. Democracy is going
through a difficult time. Even in established democracies, flaws in
the system have become worryingly visible and disillusion with
politics is rife. Yet just a few years ago, democracy looked as though
it would dominate the world.one reason why so many democratic
experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis
on elections and too little on the other essential features of
democracy[43].
Notes and References
[1] The author is a graduate of Columbia University. Email:

jamilnasir1969@gmail.com
[1] Herald exclusive, September 15,2014, Pakistans experience
with democracy
[2] S.Akbar zaidi State,Military and social transition Improbable
future of democracy in Pakistan, Economic and Political Weekly ,
December 3,2005
[3] Mahmood Monshipouri & Amjad Samuel Development and
democracy in Pakistan;tenuous or plausible nexus?, Asian Survey
,Vol 35,No.11 ( November,1995)
[4]Daron Acemoglu & James A.Robinson, Why did West extend
franchise? Democracy, inequality and growth in historical
perspective, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,November,2000
[5]Collective action problem simply means who will bell the cat.
Lack of coordination and networking are really at the heart of
collective action problem.
[6] Jared Diamond, Four Threats to American democracy,
Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and
Institutions (2014)
[7]Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is considered the principal architect of the
Indian Constitution and was first law Minister of independent India.
[8]The Economist , What has gone wrong with democracy,
March,2014
[9]Professor Dani Rodrik, Rethinking democracy, Project
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
18 of 20
syndicate, June 11,2014

[10] Joseph E. Stiglitz, Some lessons from the East Asian Miracle,
The World Bank research Observer (August,1996) ; also refer to
The Making of an Asian Tiger by Jamil Nasir, The News
International, July 27,2013
[11]J.Benhahib &A.Przeworski, The political economy of
redistribution under democracy, Economic Theory,Vol.29,No.2
(October,2006)
[12] Samuel Huntington ,The Third Wave : Democratization in the
Late Twentieth century University of Oklahoma press (1991)
[13]Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James Robinson & Pierre
Yared , Income and Democracy, American Economic Review
(2008)
[14]Joseph Stiglitzs The price of inequality has postulated that
inequality is growth reducing as it dampens aggregate demand.
Several papers have been issued on this line of argument. Inequality
is now being studied and discussed as an economic phenomenon
and not merely as a moral issue.
[15]Oxfams Working for the few, briefing paper ,April
3,2014www.oxfam.org
[16]DaronAcemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascal Rest repo & James A.
Robinson, Democracy, redistribution and inequality, MIT
Department of Economics Working Paper series (Oct, 2013)
[17] Robert Barro, Democracy and growth,NBER working paper
series, Oct,1994
[18] Yan Sun & Michael Johnston, Does democracy check
corruption? Insights from China and India, Comparative
Poliitcs,Vol.42 ( October,2009)
[19] Fareed Zakaria, The rise of illiberal democracy, Foreign
Affairs, Nov/Dec 1997 issue
[20]Steven Levitsky and Lucan A.Way, The rise of competitive
authoritarianism, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 13, April,2002
[21]Klaus Deininger, Songqing Jin & Hari K.Nagarjan, Land
reforms, poverty reduction, and economic growth: evidence from
India, The World Bank, December ,2007
[22] Talat Anwar,Sarfraz K.Qureshi,Hammad Ali & Munir Ahmad,
Landlessness and rural poverty in Pakistan, The Pakistan
Development Review , PIDE, Islamabad (Winter,2004)
[23] Please refer to following articles for details ,all by Jamil Nasir ,
Focus on rural non-farm economy ( Dawn Op-Ed, January 7,2008),
Need for inclusive rural development (Dawn Op-Ed, February
4,2008), Is it worth neglecting? ( The New, Op-Ed, May 9,2013)
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
19 of 20
and The Path is through the village, ( The News ,Op-Ed, August
26,2013)
[24] Hassan Javid, Class, power, and patronage: The landed Elite
and Politics in Pakistani Punjab, a thesis submitted to the
Department of sociology of the London School of Economics for
PhD degree, London, June 2012
[25] Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and
building resilience, UNDPs report ,2014
[26]Refer to Dr. Tariq Rehmans study titled Denizens of alien
worlds: A study of Education, Inequality and polarization in Pakistan
[27]David de la Croix & Mathias Deopke , To segregate or to
integrate: Education, Politics and Democracy, IZA Discussion paper
( August,2007)
[28]Piergiuseppe Fortunato& Ugo Panizza, Democracy, education
and the quality of government (Nov,2012)
[29] Strategy not Tactics: Better Governance for social stability in
Pakistan, Institute for Policy Reforms (IPR), Lahore,
September,2014
[30]WGI are produced by Daniel Kaufmann of Brookings
Institution, Aart Krayy of World Bank Development Research
Group, and Massimo Mastruzzi of WBI
[31] Nomenclature changed in 2014 from Failed states Index to
Fragile states index
[32] Refer to To make the state strong, Jamil Nasir ( The News,
Op-Ed, May 27,2014)
[33] Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Political institutions
and street protests in Latin America ,IDB Working paper series, Nov
2009
[34]IPRs report ibid
[35] IPRs report ibid
[36] Refer to Invigorating the civil service, Jamil Nasir ( The
News, Op-Ed, June 22,2013)
[37] IPRs report ibid
[38] Dr. Hafiz A. Pasha , Report on real, relevant and owned tax
strategy for FBR, Federal Board of Revenue, 2014
[39] Refer to Taxation for democracy, Jamil Nasir ( Daily Times,
Op-Ed, January 29,2011)
[40] Competitive authoritarian regimes are neither democracies nor
authoritarian regimes; For example, in such regimes elections may
7/18/2015 10:05 AM
20 of 20
be fought bitterly but electoral process may not be fair.

[41]Jean Dreze & Amartya Sen, An uncertain glory: India and its
contradictions( page 244), Published by Penguin Books, London,
2013
[42] Refer to The puzzle of democracy, Jamil Nasir ( The News,
Op-Ed, February 27,2014)
[43]The Economist ibid
7/18/2015 10:05 AM

Democracy, Inclusion and Governance - The Inseparable Links

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Democracy, Inclusion and Governance - The Inseparable Links

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Democracy, Inclusion and Governance: The Inseparable Links