A lot of news coverage these days is about the upcoming Pakistan elections and its fairness. The Hindu says that the Americans expect some level of fraud in the elections and the European Union is going to send observers to monitor the elections. With so much of attention being paid to the holding of elections and they being held on time and fairly, it would appear that all it takes for a country to convert itself from a dictatorship to a democracy is the holding of free and fair elections.
Is that really the case? Are elections all it takes for democracy to happen? According to a report released by Global Integrity,
“besides regular elections, other crucial safeguards like free media, vibrant civil society, multiple institutional checks and balances and key internal anti-corruption mechanisms must be in place to ensure a government’s accountability.”
Of course, we in India do not need to know this. We are aware already having had elections more or less regularly during our post-Independence history. But I guess the primary issue is not as much as to whether elections are an adequate enough indicator of democracy as to
A lot of news coverage these days is about the upcoming Pakistan elections and its fairness. The Hindu says that the Americans expect some level of fraud in the elections and the European Union is going to send observers to monitor the elections. With so much of attention being paid to the holding of elections and they being held on time and fairly, it would appear that all it takes for a country to convert itself from a dictatorship to a democracy is the holding of free and fair elections.
Is that really the case? Are elections all it takes for democracy to happen? According to a report released by Global Integrity,
“besides regular elections, other crucial safeguards like free media, vibrant civil society, multiple institutional checks and balances and key internal anti-corruption mechanisms must be in place to ensure a government’s accountability.”
Of course, we in India do not need to know this. We are aware already having had elections more or less regularly during our post independence history. But I guess the primary issue is not as much as to whether elections are an adequate enough indicator of democracy as to ask the question as what is more important – democracy or good governance.
What about a country like say Singapore which is essentially a one party democracy – and we know all about one party states. Authoritarianism can be orderly and democracy can be chaotic. You want a comparison check out Sri Lanka or may be even India with Singapore or may be even China. Democracies have to carry along so many people and interests that decisions never get made or get so diluted that they have little effect on the ground. As The Hindu puts it,
“In China, they simply hang the corrupt after a fast-track court proceeding, while in India they walk about freely after obtaining a bail. Some even stand for elections.”
Perhaps what the world, or rather what the West is ultimately looking for (whether it be medicine or governance, we have grown used to learning from the West, what is best!) is political stability of a particular kind that will further political and business interests. Indonesia’s General Suharto, who came to power on an anti communist platform and provided political stability through six rounds of being “elected democratically”, proves the point. If the Generals of Myanmar are shunned today and little concern expressed about democracy there, it is because the xenophobic generals had cut the business cables to the West a long while ago.
So while the whole world peeps and glances at the kind of elections that Pakistan holds, let us be clear that democracy is a useful window dressing for what is really desired- a friendly stable government with whom a convergence of interests is possible. As for the East, it is still open to debate as to what a developing community of nations really needs- democracy or governance. Fareed Zakaria way back in 1994 had described Singapore as “the country whose per capita GNP was then higher than that of its erstwhile colonizer, Great Britain and the country with the world’s busiest port, a major center of global manufacturing and service industries”.
This move from poverty to plenty had taken place within one generation under the leadership of a man by the name of Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled the country from 1959 to 1990 and whose regime is charitably described as “soft authoritarian” at best. Was he a democrat? No. Was he successful? Unquestionably yes. So is democracy the best way out as the US and the European Union say it is? Well, the jury I guess is out on that one.
What about a country like say Singapore which is essentially a one party democracy – and we know all about one party states. Authoritarianism can be orderly and democracy can be chaotic. You want a comparison check out Sri Lanka or may be even India with Singapore or may be even China. Democracies have to carry along so many people and interests that decisions never get made or get so diluted that they have little effect on the ground. As “ The Hindu” puts it, “In China, they simply hang the corrupt after a fast-track court proceeding, while in India they walk about freely after obtaining a bail. Some even stand for elections.”
Perhaps what the world, or rather what the West is ultimately looking for (whether it be medicine or governance, we have grown used to learning from the West, what is best!) is political stability of a particular kind that will further political and business interests. Indonesia’s General Suharto, who came to power on an anti communist platform and provided political stability through six rounds of being “elected democratically”, proves the point. If the Generals of Myanmar are shunned today and little concern expressed about democracy there, it is because the xenophobic generals had cut the business cables to the West a long while ago.
So while the whole world peeps and glances at the kind of elections that Pakistan holds, let us be clear that democracy is a useful window dressing for what is really desired- a friendly stable government with whom a convergence of interests is possible. As for the East, it is still open to debate as to what a developing community of nations really needs- democracy or governance. Fareed Zakaria way back in 1994 had described Singapore as “the country whose per capita GNP was then higher than that of its erstwhile colonizer, Great Britain and the country with the world’s busiest port, a major center of global manufacturing and service industries”.
Besides, this move from poverty to plenty had taken place within one generation under the leadership of a man by the name of Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled the country from 1959 to 1990 and whose regime is charitably described as “soft authoritarian” at best. Was he a democrat? No. Was he successful? Unquestionably yes. So is democracy the best way out as the US and the European Union say it is? Well, the jury I guess is out on that one.
Leave Your Comments