DEMOCRACY – IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR POST-COLONIAL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES? A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies By Anushe A. Khan, BBA Georgetown University Washington, D.C. November 17, 2009 Copyright 2009 by Anushe A. Khan All Rights Reserved ii DEMOCRACY – IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR POST-COLONIAL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES? Anushe A. Khan, BBA. Mentor: William A. Douglas, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The thesis focuses on Pakistan and Bangladesh, as two case studies in the search for a probable answer to the problem of failing democracies in post colonial developing economies. Both nations have the same post colonial legacy and have been committed to democracy in different periods of their history, only to revert to periods which have been markedly non-democratic. Relevant literature has been reviewed for an understanding of the theories and the current status of democratization globally, and specifically for Pakistan and Bangladesh. For the analysis, I have applied a framework for quality assessment to evaluate how the “democracies” fare against quality standards and what dimensions are the most lacking. From the readings, it is evident that military and civilian rule in Pakistan, benefitted only a small percentage of the population, with limited trickledown effect. While in Bangladesh, under civilian rule economic liberalization did lead to marginally better economic growth, the problems of corruption and lack of visionary leadership continue to plague the country. iii Authoritarianism through military rule did not result in sustainable social and economic progress in both countries, and unlike in an electoral democracy, there is no embedded mechanism to change an authoritarian government. The failure of military rule at various times throughout the states’ interconnected histories, point towards liberal democracy based on rule of law and institutions of democracy, as an effective governance mechanism, that promises participation and access to all its citizens. However, there is weak bottom up pressure at the grassroots level and civil society, for government reforms, that are much-needed as pre-conditions for effective liberal democracy to take hold. A top down approach through international pressure from donor governments, multilateral development institutions and aid agencies that tie development aid and for Pakistan, military assistance, to progress made on reforms that strengthen institutions of democracy and democratic processes, maybe the most viable option. This approach will be much less palatable to Pakistan, than to Bangladesh, and results initially will be incremental and barely visible; however the international community should persevere, while it still wields enough influence, as it continues to hold the purse strings. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iii CHAPTER 1.KEY PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY…………………………………...1 CHAPTER 2.A HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF PAKISTAN – FROM GENESIS TO PARTITION…………...…………………………………………19 CHAPTER 3.THE AYUB YEARS – THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF AUTHORITARIANISM…………………………....…………………………………...36 CHAPTER 4.A CHANCE AT DEMOCRACY…....…………………………………....59 CHAPTER 5.A POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF BANGLADESH…………………………………………………………........................89 CHAPTER 6.ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………106 CHAPTER 7.RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………...140 ENDNOTES…………………………………………………………………………….160 APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………………….173 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………174 v CHAPTER 1 KEY PRINCIPILES OF DEMOCRACY Democracy is an idea which has very different interpretations throughout the developing world. Although considered a universal value, the far from consistent application of democratic values and processes has left widely mixed experiences of democracy in different regions. This holds especially true for post-colonial developing countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh that have large populations who are extremely poor, pre-dominantly Muslim and in the case of Pakistan, prone to ethnic tensions and ongoing conflict with its economically superior and more secular neighbor, India. To lay the foundation for a deeper analysis of the condition of democracy in Pakistan and Bangladesh, this chapter will focus on some of the key principles that define democracy, the conditions that favor democracy, the factors that are important in determining the quality of democracy and finally a brief picture of the state of democracy in India which is the largest country in the region and is pivotal to any analysis of Pakistan and to a lesser degree to Bangladesh. The Concept of Democracy Diamond, Lindz and Lipset defined democracy as “a system of government that meets three essential conditions: Meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties) for all effective positions of government power through regular, free and fair elections that exclude the use of force 1 A highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, such that no major (adult) social group is prevented from exercising the rights of citizenship A level of civil and political liberties – freedom of thought and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and demonstration, freedom to form and join organizations, freedom from terror and unjustified imprisonment – secured through political equality under a rule of law, sufficient to ensure that citizens (acting individually and through various associations) can develop and advocate their views and interests and contest policies and offices vigorously and autonomously.” 1 This definition, the authors note describes a political system that is distinct from the associated social and economic systems. The definition strongly implies that the electorate will hold leaders and their representatives accountable for their actions and “that multiple channels exist for representation of citizen interests beyond the formal political frameworks of parties, parliaments and elections.” 2 Given the broad definition of democracy, even established democracies satisfy these conditions to only varying degrees. There always exists a gray area between what is considered democratic and what is not and within this spectrum lie a range of governance systems that have very different legal and political structures as well as different levels of expectations between the leader of a country and its citizens. Diamond in his recent book “The Spirit of Democracy” further refined the definition of democracy by distinguishing between the “thin” and the “thick” aspects of the concept. Diamond describes the “thin” side as a system defined by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter “for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for people’s vote.” 3 2 This refers to the electoral process of having a “free and fair” election. On the “thick” side, Diamond outlines a number of attributes for a system to be termed as a democracy: Substantial individual freedom of belief, opinion, discussion, speech, publication, broadcast, assembly, demonstration, petition and internet Freedom of ethnic, religious, racial, and other minority groups (as well as historically excluded majorities) to practice their religion and culture and to participate equally in political and social life The right of all adult citizens to vote and to run for office (if they meet certain minimum age and competency requirements) Genuine openness and competition in the electoral arena, enabling any group that adheres to constitutional principles to form a party and contest for office Legal equality of all citizens under a rule of law, in which the laws are “clear, publicly known, universal, stable and non-retroactive” An independent judiciary to neutrally and consistently apply the law and protect individual and group rights Thus, due process of law and freedom of individuals from torture, terror and unjustified detention, exile, or interference in their personal lives – by the state or nonstate actors Institutional checks on the power of elected officials, by an independent legislature, court system, and other autonomous agencies Real pluralism in sources of information and forms of organization independent of the state; and thus, a vibrant “civil society” Control over the military and state security apparatus by civilians who are ultimately accountable to the people through elections.4 3 Given the expectations of what a democracy should entail, it is a challenge for most developing countries to attain to a system that is truly democratic. These attributes require a country to achieve a level of development that indicates that at minimum the citizenry is educated, aware of their rights, economically empowered and has had enlightened leaders. There is a wide difference in the degree of political, social and economic development across the developing economies which in turn lead to widely varying types of “democratic” systems. Diamond contends that at minimum for a system to be termed “democratic” there has to be “electoral democracy” where free, fair and regular elections is the mechanism through which leaders are chosen and replaced by the people. According to Diamond, a true democracy would aspire to the achievement of the ten “thick” dimensions. Based on the degree of achievement of