Democracy and the third world
Since the rise of liberal democracy, it had different impacts on the different societies. When it was introduced to western societies, it abolished the monarchies and established civil rights, such as freedom of speech, equality and justice.
There have been many prominent critiques of democracy from time to time. Some arguing that as a human we are not smart enough to vote for someone who is our true representative. Others had different opinions about democracy.
Greeks were the first, who was introduced to this governance system. Socrates one of the prominent philosophers in human history spoke against democracy. He argued that as most of the common mass consists of laymen, they can be easily fooled. He inferred that we are not ready for the democratic system yet.
In a democratic system, the majority rules the minority. The majority takes care of their rights. What about the minority, do they have their voice in the democratic system?
All the negative aspects of democracy aside, it had hugely positive impacts on western societies, for examples monarchies were abolished, and rule of law became prevalent in the west. The power which was concentrated in a few hand transferred to the representatives of the people. After all, as humans, we have not invented a perfect governance system yet.
When the same western democracy was enforced in the third world it had completely different results.
In the west, it ended the widespread corruption in the society, whilst in the developing corruption went up to a new level with the inception of a democratic institution. Where in monarchies a single-family would commit corrupt practices, in democracy thousands of the member get involved in the practice. One can observe corruption in every institution. Can we blame democracy for that? I guess to a large extent, democratic institution in third fails to serve according to their true essence.
In the west, every member of society enjoys civil rights, which is the fruit of democracy. The same system does the opposite in the third world. Civil rights are limited to a few. The rich in society enjoys full rights such as justice and freedom of speech. On the other hand, there is a different standard for the poor. They don’t have even [roper access to their rights. Did democracy bring any significant change in their lives? Not really, their lives are the same irrespective of the governance system.
The next big dilemma is the corrupt practices in the election process. Whichever party splurges more on their election campaign, they have more chance of winning the election. Once they win the election, they get all their money back through corrupt practices.
The establishment or the deep state in those countries has a big role in the election process. They can make or destroy the image of a particular party. No party participating in the election process can think of winning the poll without the support of the [state. They are the maker and breaker of governance. Wait, can we even call this process a democratic process, where elections are held before the election? This is the plight of democracy in such a state.
We have many examples in the present day where without the support of the establishment, no party has a chance of winning the elections. Myanmar, a country in south-east Asia, where the election was held recently. Unfortunately, the establishment-backed candidate did not win the election. What happened after that most of us know that?
Ms Su Kyi, the winning candidate was accused of rigging the elections and many other charges were laid against her, ultimately she ended up in the prison.
Pakistan a young country has gone through many upheavals in the democratic process. Elections in Pakistan are held after every five years. The election results are finalized before the election. The king in the process knows who is going to be the winner of the election. Pakistan has gone through, three martial laws in such a limited span (70 years). Every time a democratic goes against the will of its masters, it has to face martial law. In the west where ‘democracy is government by the people and government for the people. The same definition of democracy becomes, ‘government by the masters, government for the masters’.
The other big hurdle in the process of democracy is the election process itself. Each time a candidate wins the elections the other candidate alleges him of farads. This is a new normal in the young democracies. Take the example of Afghanistan, wherein in the recent elections, President Ghani won the election, his counter candidate, Dr Abdullah accused him of committing rigging in the electoral process. There were widespread protests in the country. Dr Abdullah threatened the government with a halt in the process of governance. The deadlock was so serious that the US had to step in. Finally, the dispute was resolved over the power-sharing formula.
Is liberal democracy possible in electoral democracies? The tribal societies who transitioned recently from autocracy to democracy have not seen the benefits of democracy. Feudal lords dominate the election process. Once they win the election, they forget about who they are representing. They just become their representatives instead of the whole society. That is the fate of electoral democracy, where people to some extent exercise their political rights, but their civil right is forgotten. Whilst in the west where democratic institutions are strong, the people exercise both civil and political rights.
How long it will take for us to see liberal democracy in the third world? Perhaps that is an intriguing question. There is no clear answer to that, because of the structure of those societies. The basic structure of those societies is quite complex. Religion plays kits own role in governance and the tribal culture has its dynamics. If one wants to see the true liberal democracy in such societies, he has to solve this puzzle first. I guess it is a long journey until we see the true essence of democracy in the third world.
Comments
Post a Comment