A happy life must be to a great extent a quiet life, for it is only in an atmosphere of quiet that true joy dare

live. Bertrand Russell DEMOCRACY

Democracy will not come Today, this year Nor ever Through compromise and fear. I have as much right As the other fellow has To stand On my two feet And own the land. I tire so of hearing people say, Let things take their course. Tomorrow is another day. I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on tomorrow's bread. Freedom Is a strong seed Planted In a great need. I live here, too. I want freedom Just as you.

Langston Hughes
Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all the people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1] Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.[1] It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. The term comes from the word Greek: (dmokrata) "rule of the people",[2] which was coined from (dmos) "people" and (Kratos) "power", in the middle of the 5th4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[3]

According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system.[4] However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as "the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known."[5] This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees democracy as "not only a political system [but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be humanof what it is a human should be to be fully human."[6] While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[7] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.[8] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.[9][10] There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[11][12] However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[13][14][15] Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy are all major examples of attempts at a form of government that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of citizens. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well. Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or constitutional protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[16] and procedurally.[17] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[18][19] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[20] Democracy has its formal origins in Ancient Greece,[21][22] but democratic practices are evident in earlier societies including Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and India.[23] Other cultures since Greece have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome,[21] Europe,[21] and North and South America.[24] The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions.[25] Democracy has been called

the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe.[26] The right to vote has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), with New Zealand the first nation to grant universal suffrage for all its citizens in 1893. Democracy is often confused with the republic form of government.

History of Democracy
Ancient origins
The term Democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The Greek city state of Athens, led by Cleisthenes, established what is generally held as the first democracy in 507 BCE. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father of Athenian democracy".[27] The Athenian philosopher Plato contrasted democracy, the system of "rule by the governed", with the alternative systems of monarchy (rule by one individual), oligarchy (rule by a small lite class) and timocracy (ruling class of property owners). Today Classical Athenian democracy is considered by many to have been a direct democracy. Originally it had two distinguishing features: first the allotment (selection by lot) of ordinary citizens to the few government offices and the courts,[28] and secondarily the assembly of all the citizens.[29] All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city state. However, Athenian citizens were all-male, born from parents who were born in Athens, and excluded women, slaves, foreigners ( / metoikoi) and males under 20 years old. Of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 inhabitants there were between 60,000 to 30,000 citizens. The (elected) generals often held influence in the assembly. Pericles was, during his many years of de-facto political leadership, once elected general 15 years in a row. Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to certain aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system of Gerrymandering, so most high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families.[30] However, many notable exceptions did occur.

Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small amount of the population, the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, the Lgting in the Faroe Islands, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tirol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy. Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords. The Kouroukan Fouga or Kurukan Fuga is purported to be the constitution of the Mali Empire (mid-thirteenth century to c. 1645 CE), created after the Battle of Krina by an assembly of notables to create a government for the newly established empire. It was first alluded to in print in Djibril Tamsir Niane's book, Soundjata, ou la Epoupe Mandingue.[31] The Kouroukan Fouga divided the new empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called the Gbara. However, the charter made Mali more similar to a constitutional monarchy than a democratic republic.

A little closer to modern democracy were the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th17th centuries: Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich. The highest post the Hetman was elected by the representatives from the country's districts. Because these states were very militarised, the right to participate in Hetman's elections was largely restricted to those who served in the Cossack Army and over time was curtailed effectively limiting these rights to higher army ranks. The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta, explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered and implicitly supported what became English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population, (less than 3% as late as 1780[32]), and the power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). The power of Parliament increased in stages over the succeeding centuries. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was enacted, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of Parliament.[32] The franchise was slowly increased and Parliament gradually gained more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead.[33] As the franchise was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten boroughs, with a handful of voters electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832. Band societies, such as the Bushmen, which usually number 20-50 people in the band often do not have leaders and make decisions based on consensus among the majority. In Melanesia, farming village communities have traditionally been egalitarian and lacking in a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy. Although a "Big man" or "Big woman" could gain influence, that influence was conditional on a continued demonstration of leadership skills, and on the willingness of the community. Every person was expected to share in communal duties, and entitled to participate in communal decisions. However, strong social pressure encouraged conformity and discouraged individualism.[34]

18th and 19th centuries

Number of nations 18002003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy.

The first nation in modern history to adopt a democratic constitution was the short-lived Corsican Republic in 1755. This Corsican Constitution was the first based on Enlightenment principles and even allowed for female suffrage, something that was granted in other democracies only by the twentieth century. Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders also shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality. [35] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some. In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, often only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, most free black people and most women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality.[36][37] However, slavery was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, that a variety of organizations were established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality.[38] During the 1820s and 1830s the American Colonization Society (A.C.S.) was the primary vehicle for proposals to return black Americans to freedom in Africa, and in 1821 the A.C.S. established the colony of Liberia, assisting thousands of former African-American slaves and free black people to move there from the United States.[38] By the 1840s almost all property restrictions were ended and nearly all white adult male citizens could vote; and turnout averaged 6080% in frequent elections for local, state and national officials. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy to Jacksonian Democracy and beyond. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[39] and in Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights Movement (19551968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy. In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males in 1792.[40] Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[41] In 1848, several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.[42] The Australian colonies became democratic during the mid-19th century, with South Australia being the first government in the world to introduce women's suffrage in 1861. (It was argued that as women would vote the same as their husbands, this essentially gave married men two votes, which was not unreasonable.) New Zealand granted suffrage to (native) Mori men in 1867, white men in 1879, and women in 1893, thus becoming the first major nation to achieve universal suffrage. However, women were not eligible to stand for parliament until 1919. Liberal democracies were very few and often short-lived before the late 19th century, and various nations and territories have also claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.

20th and 21st centuries

20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, religious and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states from Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[43] World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[44]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[45] By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)

This graph shows Freedom House's evaluation of the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys, 19722005 A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union[citation needed] . Some researchers

consider that contemporary Russia is not a true democracy and instead resembles a form of dictatorship.[46] The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index as published in December 2010. The palest blue countries get a score above 9 out of 10 (with Norway being the most democratic country at 9.80), while the black countries score below 3 (with North Korea being the least democratic at 1.08). The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia. According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[47] According to World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population.[48] As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of History" controversial theory. These theories are criticized by those who fear an evolution of liberal democracies to post-democracy, and others who point out the high number of illiberal democracies.

Forms
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. The following kinds are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.

Political ratings of countries according to Freedom Houses Freedom in the World survey, 2009: Free Partly free Not free Countries highlighted in blue are designated "electoral democracies" in Freedom House's 2010 survey Freedom in the World

Representative
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[49] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so. Parliamentary Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal.[58] The Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses. Typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor with the public as to get re-elected. Presidential Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people.[58] Elections typically have a fixed date and arent easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.[58] The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature. While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office[citation needed]. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead. Semi-Presidential A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. This form of democracy is even less common than a presidential system. This system has both a prime minister with no fixed term and a president with a fixed term. Depending on the country, the separation of powers between the prime minister and

president varies. In one instance, the president can hold more power than the prime minister, with the prime minister accountable to both the legislature and president.[58] On the other hand, the prime minister can hold more power than the president. The president and prime minister share power, while the president holds powers separate from those of the legislature.[58] The president holds the role of commander in chief, controls foreign policy, and is the face of the people. The prime minister is expected to formulate the Presidents policies into legislature.[58] This type of government can also create issues over who holds what responsibilities. Liberal A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties). In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere.

Constitutional Direct
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to: Change constitutional laws, Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,

Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise.

Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Examples of this include the extensive use of referendums in California with more than 20 million voters, and (i.e., voting).[59] in Switzerland, where five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues. No direct democracy is in existence outside the framework of a different overarching form of government. Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. The world is yet to see a large, fundamental, working example of direct democracy as of yet, with most examples being small and weak forms.

Inclusive democracy
Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy,

democracy in the social realm, i.e.self-management in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature' and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of representatives in representative democracy.The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have specific mandates.

Participatory
A Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a Nested Council structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Local councils of 2550 people are completely autonomous on issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates to higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that affect only the population affected by that council. A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the tyranny of the majority, and rules on which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates can vote differently than their sending council might wish, but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any time via votes of the majority of lower level councils, however, not everything is a referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work in tandem with a participatory economy.

Socialist
"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians." Che Guevara, Marxist revolutionary[60] Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy. Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of

communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism)

Anarchist
Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[61] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[62] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.[63] Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.[64] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for "a better government"[65] and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent.

Iroquois
Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy.[66] Elizabeth Tooker, a Temple University professor of anthropology and an authority on the culture and history of the Northern Iroquois, has reviewed the claims that the Iroquois inspired the American Confederation and concluded they are myth rather than fact. The relationship between the Iroquois League and the Constitution is based on a portion of a letter written by Benjamin Franklin and a speech by the Iroquois chief Canasatego in 1744. Tooker concluded that the documents only indicate that some groups of Iroquois and white settlers realized the advantages of uniting against a common enemy, and that ultimately there is little evidence to support the idea that 18th century colonists were knowledgeable regarding the Iroquois system of governance. What little evidence there is regarding this system indicates chiefs of different tribes were permitted representation in the Iroquois League council, and this ability to represent the tribe was hereditary. The council itself did not practice representative government, and there were no elections; deceased chiefs' successors were selected by the most senior woman within the hereditary lineage, in consultation with other women in the clan. Decision making occurred through lengthy discussion and decisions were unanimous, with topics discussed being introduced by a single tribe. Tooker concludes that "...there is virtually no evidence that the framers [of the Constitution] borrowed from the Iroquois" and that the myth that this was the case is the result of exaggerations and misunderstandings of a claim made by Iroquois linguist and ethnographer J.N.B. Hewitt after his death in 1937.[67]

Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection.

Consensus

Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.

Supranational
Qualified majority voting (QMV) is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected. Some might consider the "individuals" being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many other international organizations. European Parliament members are democratically directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution.

Cosmopolitan
Democracy is not only a political system It is an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be humanof what it is a human should be to be fully human. Nikolas Kompridis[6] Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy or World Federalism, is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them.[68] According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international organizations, e.g. the United Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics. Cosmopolitan Democracy has been promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein,[69] writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist George Monbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi.[70] The creation of the International Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan democracy.

Non-governmental
Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations. Many non-governmental organizations decide policy and leadership by voting. Most trade unions choose their leadership through democratic elections.

Cooperatives are enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their customers or workers.

Theory
Aristotle
Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity).[71][72] For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases. Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is libertythat is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to egalitarian liberty.[8]

Conceptions
Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy. Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this: Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not rule because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.[73] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner. Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and

educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies. Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy.[74] Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.[75] Some[who?] see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some[who?] may see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds. Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their minds. Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes.

Republic
Main article: Republicanism In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[76] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[77] The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[78] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we gota republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republicif you can keep it."[79]

Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers

Initially after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an lite upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had lite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States).

Development of democracy
Several philosophers and researchers outlined historical and social factors supporting the evolution of democracy. Cultural factors like Protestantism influenced the development of democracy, rule of law, human rights and political liberty (the faithful elected priests, religious freedom and tolerance has been practiced). Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset, 1959). In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that the increase in living standards has convinced people that they can take their basic survival for granted, and led to increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is highly correlated to democracy.[80] Recently established theories stress the relevance of education and human capital and within them of cognitive abilityto increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information processing) and an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence (cognitive development being a prerequisite for moral development; Glaeser et al., 2007; Deary et al., 2008; Rindermann, 2008). [81] Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Recent statistical analyses have challenged modernization theory by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal (Albertus and Menaldo, Forthcoming).[82] Neither is there convincing evidence that increased reliance on oil revenues prevents democratization, despite a vast theoretical literature called "The Resource Curse" that asserts that oil revenues sever the link between citizen taxation and government accountability, the key to representative democracy (Haber and Menaldo, Forthcoming).[83] The lack of evidence for these conventional theories of democratization have led researchers to search for the "deep" determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or

demographic (Engerman and Sokoloff 1997; Acemoglu and Robinson 2008; Haber and Menaldo 2010).[84] In the 21st century, democracy has become such a popular method of reaching decisions that its application beyond politics to other areas such as entertainment, food and fashion, consumerism, urban planning, education, art, literature, science and theology has been criticized as "the reigning dogma of our time".[85] The argument is that applying a populist or market-driven approach to art and literature for example, means that innovative creative work goes unpublished or unproduced. In education, the argument is that essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken. Science, which is a truth-based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the idea that the correct conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote.

Election misconducts
In practice it may not pay the incumbents to conduct fair elections in countries that have no history of democracy. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2.5 times as long as those who permit fair elections.[86] Above $2,700 per capita democracies have been found to be less prone to violence, but below that threshold, more violence.[86] The same study shows that election misconduct is more likely in countries with low per capita incomes, small populations, rich in natural resources, and a lack of institutional checks and balances. SubSaharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category.[86] Governments that have frequent elections averaged over the political cycle have significantly better economic policies than those who don't. This does not apply to governments with fraudulent elections, however.[86]

Opposition to democracy
Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the existing government. The implementation of a democratic government within a non-democratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution. Monarchy had traditionally been opposed to democracy, and to this day remains opposed to its abolition, although often political compromise has been reached in the form of shared government.

Criticism of democracy
Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable.

Popular rule as a faade

The 20th Century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation.[87]

Mob rule
Plato's The Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."[88] In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men) is a just form of government.[89]

Political instability
More recently, democracy is criticised for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priority.[90] This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government.

Democracy in Pakistan
State of Democracy in South Asia
as part of the Qualitative Assessment of Democracy

Lokniti (Programme of Comparative Democracy) Centre for the Study of Developing Societies Delhi
Democracy and participatory governance are popular political notions in todays world. Fair and free elections are the key pre-requisite of democracy. However, democracy lacks substance unless the electoral process is coupled with the supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, and civil and political rights and freedoms for the people. The state must practice the principle of equal citizenship irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity and regional background. It must also ensure equality of opportunity to all for advancement in social, economic and political domains and guarantee security of life and property of its citizens. While it easy for the rulers, political leaders and parties, and others to pronounce their commitment to these principles, the real challenge lies in making them operational. The key question is how does one create and sustain institutions and processes that reflect the spirit of democracy and participatory governance? A large number of states are unable to fulfill these conditions. The commitment of many rulers, leaders, and organizations to democracy is merely rhetorical or they view democracy as an

instrument to achieve power and then implement a partisan non-democratic agenda. Others selectively employ some aspects of democracy to create a faade. Still others hold elections, establish elected legislative bodies and install elected governments but do not empower these institutions and the people holding key positions in them. Power is thus exercised by an elite group while a semblance of democracy is created to legitimize its rule. These operational realities create the problem of quality and substance of democracy. In Pakistan, the rulers, political parties and leaders and the civil society groups support democracy at the normative or conceptual level. The politically active circles demand representative governance and participatory decision making in the political and economic fields. They highlight fair and free electoral process, the rule of law, socio-economic justice and accountability of those exercising state power as the pre-requisites for a political system. However, there are serious problems with these principles at the operational level in Pakistan. Power structure and style of governance often negated these principles. Most rulers, civilian and military, pursued personalization of power and authoritarian style of governance, assigning a high premium to personal loyalty and uncritical acceptance of what the ruler or the party chief decides. .This was coupled with partisan use of state apparatus and resources, and an elitist and exploitative socio-economic system. A conflict between the professed democratic values and the operational realities of authoritarianism and non-sustainable civilian institutions and processes is the main feature of Pakistani political experience. The redeeming feature of this conflict is that despite the long spells of authoritarian and military rule, the theoretical commitment to democracy and participatory governance has persisted in Pakistan. None of the two political trends has been able to overwhelm each other. If democracy could not function on a continuous basis, the authoritarian and military rule did not get accepted as a normal or legitimate political system. This engenders the hope that the over all commitment to democracy would continue to persist as one of the most cherished norms in the polity and a governance system that falters on democracy would not be able to cultivate voluntary popular support. The failure to institutionalize participatory governance has caused much alienation at the popular level. A good number of people feel that they are irrelevant to power management at the federal and provincial levels. The rulers are so engrossed in their power game that they are not bothered about the interest and welfare of the common people. Such a perception of low political efficacy is reflected in the declining voting percentage in the general elections. A good number of voters maintain that their vote does not matter much in the selection of the rulers. Invariably they express negative views about the rulers as well as those opposing them. Despite all this, the people have not given up on democracy. While talking about their helplessness with reference to changing the rulers, they continue to subscribe to the norms of democracy and participatory governance and emphasize the accountability of the rulers. They are therefore vulnerable to mobilization for realization of these norms and values. The political system of Pakistan is characterized by intermittent breakdown of constitution and political

Professed Values and Operational Realities:

order, weak and non-viable political institutions and processes, rapid expansion of the role of the military3 bureaucratic elite, military rule and military dominated civilian governments, and authoritarian and narrow-based power management. Pakistans political history can be divided into different phases with reference to the dominant style of governance and political management: 1. Civilian political government: August 1947-October 1958 December 1971-July 1977 2. Direct Military Rule: October 1958-June 1962 March 1969-December1971 July 1977-December 1985 October 1999-November 2002 3. Selective use of Democracy by the Military (Post-military rule) June 1962-March 1969 March 1985-November 1988 4. Militarys influence from the sidelines on policy making under civilian governments December 1988-October 1999 5. Militarys direct involvement in power management after the end of military rule; constitutional and legal role for the military November 2002-till the writing of this article Pakistan, like India, adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 with some changes to meet the requirements of an independent state as the Interim Constitution, 1947. It provided for a parliamentary system of government, although the governor general enjoyed special powers and the federal government exercised some overriding powers over provinces. Pakistans early rulers did not pay much attention to democratization of the political system because their major concern was how to ensure the survival of the state in view of internal and external challenges. The fear of the collapse of the state reinforced authoritarian governance and political management. Pakistan faced serious administrative and management problems caused by the partition process These included the division of civil and military assets of the British Indian government between India and Pakistan, communal riots and the movement of population to and from Pakistan, and the troubled relations with India, including the first war on Kashmir, 1947-48. Pakistan had to set up a federal government in Karachi and a provincial government in Dhaka at a time when it lacked experienced civil servants and military officers. While Pakistan was coping with initial administrative and humanitarian problems, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the father of the nation, died in September 1948, thirteen months after the establishment of Pakistan. This set in motion the political trends that undermined the already weak political institutions and fragmented the political process. Most of post-Jinnah political leaders had regional and local stature and did not have a nationwide appeal which regionalized and localized politics. This made it difficult for the political parties and leaders to pursue a coherent approach towards the problems and issues of the early years. They were unable to develop consensus on the operational norms of the polity and took 8 years to frame a constitution which did not enjoy the unqualified support of all the major parties, leaders and regions. By the time the constitution was introduced (March 23, 1956) a strong tradition of violation of parliamentary norms was established, the political parties were divided and the assembly was unable to assert its primacy. The effective power had shifted to the Governor General/President.

Historical Overview:

The acute administrative problems, degeneration of the political parties and the inability of the political leaders to command widespread political support enabled the governor general to amass power. He manipulated the divided political forces and decided about the making or unmaking of governments. Given the bureaucratic background of Governor Generals (Ghulam Muhammad (1951-55) and a combined military and civilian-bureaucratic background of Governor General/President Iskander Mirza (19551958); they could rely on the top bureaucracy and the military for support. This contributed to the rise of the bureaucratic-military elite in Pakistani politics which further undermined the prospects of democracy. By 1954-55, the top brass of the military (mainly the Army) emerged as the key policy makers along with the bureaucracy. They made major input to policy making on foreign policy, security issues and domestic affairs. By October 1958, the Army Chief, General Muhammad Ayub Khan, overthrew the tottering civilian government with the full support of President Iskander Mirza. The latter was knocked out of power by the generals within 20 days of the military take-over. Since then the top brass of the military have either ruled the country directly or influenced governance and policy management from the background. The first military ruler, Ayub Khan, ruled the country under martial law from October 1958 to June 1962, when he introduced a presidential constitution. Though direct military rule came to an end but the 1962 Constitution attempted to give a legal and constitutional cover to Ayubs centralized and authoritarian rule which did not allow the growth of autonomous civilian institutions and processes, although the state media projected his rule as the beginning of a new era of participatory governance. His governments political management and economic policies accentuated economic disparities among the people and the regions and caused much political and social alienation in parts of Pakistan, especially in what was then East Pakistan. Ayub Khan was replaced by another general, Yahya Khan, in March 1969, who abrogated Ayubs 1962 Constitution and imposed martial law in the country. This was another troubled period in Pakistans politics. The military government was unable to cope with the demands from East Pakistan for socioeconomic equity and political participation. The military resorted to an extremely brutal military action in East Pakistan (March 25, 1971 onwards) and engaged in a war with India (November-December 1971). Pakistans military debacle at the hands of India led to the break up of the original Pakistan and the establishment of Bangladesh as an independent state. Such a major military and political setback forced General Yahya Khan to quit and handover power on December 20, 1971 to a civilian leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto whose Pakistan Peoples Party had the largest number of the National Assembly seats in what was left of Pakistan, i.e. the present Pakistan. Z.A. Bhutto asserted civilian primacy over the military during his rule (December 20, 1971 to July 5, 1977) against the backdrop of the serious damage to the militarys reputation in the wake of the military debacle of 1971. Initially, he retired several senior officers and changed the militarys command structure. However, his ability to assert his primacy over the military eroded when he began to cultivate the militarys support to pursue his strident policy towards India and employed authoritarian methods to deal

with the domestic opposition. When the opposition launched anti-Bhutto agitation on the pretext that the government had rigged the 1977 general elections, the military led General Zia-ul-Haq, Chief of the Army Staff, had no problem in dislodging Bhutto and assuming power on July 5, 1977. The opposition parties welcomed the military take over because it removed Bhutto from power. General Zia-ul-Haqs martial law from July 1977 to December 1985 was the longest period of direct military rule in Pakistan. He sought political support for his rule by vowing the orthodox and conservative Islamic groups and tilted the state policies heavily in their favour. His rule was helped by his governments partnership with the West, especially the United States, for reinforcing Afghan-Islamic resistance to the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. As a frontline state for the U.S. policy to dislodge the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, General Zias government obtained international financial and diplomatic support which contributed to sustaining his military rule. His policies promoted religious extremism and militancy, undermining the prospects of social and cultural pluralism and participatory institutions and processes. These trends continued after he civilianized his military rule in 1985 by introducing far reaching changes in the 1973 Constitution and co-opting a section of the political elite to ensure his continued centrality to governance and political management In the post Zia period (1988-99) the elected civilian governments functioned but the top commanders closely monitored the performance of these governments and made their views on political and security matters known to them. The generals were prepared to stay on the sidelines provided their professional and corporate interests were not threatened by the civilian leaders. Therefore, governance for Benazir Bhutto (December 1988-August 1990, October 1993-November 1996) and Nawaz Sharif (November 1990July 1993, February 1997-October 1999) was a delicate balancing act between the civilian government and the top brass of the military. The scope for autonomous political action by the civilian leaders depended on their ability to maintain cordial interaction with the top military commanders. The military returned to power on October 12, 1999 after dislodging the civilian government of Nawaz Sharif. There were two significant changes in the disposition of the senior military commanders during the fourth phase of direct military rule. First, the military was no longer willing to stay on the sidelines and viewed itself as critical to internal stability and continuity. It advocated a direct and constitutional role for the top brass. Second, the military expanded its nonprofessional role to such an extent that it could not give a free hand to the civilian political leaders. The military has spread out in government and semi-government institutions and pursues wide ranging commercial and business activities, especially in the fields of industry, transport, health care, education, and real estate development. It seeks assignments from the federal and provincial governments for civil construction projects. Given the militarys expanded interests and its involvement in governance, its role in Pakistan can be described as hegemonic.

The Musharraf Model:

General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army Staff since October 1998, assumed power after his top commanders dislodged the elected civilian government of Nawaz Sharif on October 12, 1999. He designated himself as the Chief Executive and suspended the constitution to impose military rule, avoiding the use of the term of martial law. General Pervez Musharraf carefully tailored the transition to constitutional and civilian rule in 2002. The underlying consideration was his staying on as an effective President in the post-military rule period and the continuation of the policy measures adopted by his military regime. The transition process was deigned to share power with a section of the political leaders rather than transfer power to civilian political leaders. He ensured his continuation in office before starting the transition process by holding a state managed uncontested referendum on April 30, 2002 to get him elected as President for five years. This was followed by the introduction of far reaching changes in the 1973 Constitution to enhance his powers and to give a constitutional cover to the role of the top brass in policy making through the issuance of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in August. Meanwhile a breakaway faction of the PML-Nawaz Sharif, labeled as the PML-Quaid-i-Azam, was co-opted for partnership. The PML-Q enjoyed state patronage which enabled it to emerge as the single largest party in the National Assembly and it obtained a clear majority in the Punjab Provincial Assembly. The military regimes major adversary, the PPP, came second in the National Assembly and obtained the largest number of seats (not an absolute majority) in the Sindh Provincial Assembly. The Presidency and the intelligence agencies played an active role in creating the PML-Q led coalitions at the federal level and in Sindh and Balochistan. In the Punjab, the PML-Q had a majority to form the government. Thus, the National Assembly began to function on November 16 and General Pervez Musharraf took the oath as the elected President for five years. The provincial governments were installed in November-December and the Senate, upper house of the parliament, was elected in the last week of February 2003 and resumed functioning on March 12, 2003, which marked the full restoration of the 1973 Constitution as amended by the LFO. Pakistan thus returned to constitutional rule with elected parliament and provincial assemblies as well as elected governments at the federal and provincial levels. However, the political arrangements were dominated by the Presidency. President Pervez Musharraf not only exercised the enhanced powers under the LFO but he also continued as the Army Chiefan unusual combination in a democratic polity-which gave him an overriding clout in the polity. The focal point of the post-2002 political order is President-Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf who functions as an effective ruler, overshadowing the Prime Minister and the Parliament. This political arrangement could be described as the Musharraf model of governance and political management. The effective powers are concentrated in President-Army Chief Pervez Musharraf and his army/intelligence affiliates who command the political system both at the federal and provincial levels. The establishment of the National Security Council in April 2004 which provides a legal cover to the expanded role of the top brass of the military further reinforces the position of the President and the brass of the military. The Musharraf model emphasizes the unity of command, centralization, management rather than

participation and the guardianship of the political process by the military. The elected government and the parliament have to function within the space made available to them by the top commanders. The political clout of the civilian leaders depends on their ability to work in harmony with the top generals. The parliament and the provincial assemblies have not been able to acquire an autonomous and assertive role in the polity. The effective power at both federal and provincial levels is located outside the parliament and the provincial assemblies. Consequently, the seekers of state power and resources focus on the presidency and its Army/intelligence and bureaucratic affiliates. The assemblies have done limited legislative work and their functioning has been marred by bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition, violation of parliamentary norms, the quorum problem and boycotts by the opposition parties. The members complain about the frequent absence of the ministers from the two houses of the parliament and the inadequacy of the answers by the government to their questions. The assemblies have to make a real effort to fulfill even the constitutional requirement of the minimum working days in a year. The prime ministerial changes in June 2004 (Zafarullah Jamali to Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein) and August (Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein to Shaukat Aziz) demonstrated the weakness of the National Assembly and the ruling coalition led by the PML. The decision for these changes was made in the presidency and the National Assembly and the PML simply endorsed it. Jamali got his budget passed from the parliament which amounted to a vote of confidence for his government. Two days later, he had to quit under pressure from the Presidency. The PML accepted the change and his entire cabinet was reappointed under the new prime minister. This system restricts the participatory opportunities for the mainstream political parties, i.e. the PPP and the PML-Nawaz, which are viewed as the major adversaries of the Musharraf dominated political order. The confrontation between the government and the opposition has increased over time. This means that the political process is not moving in the direction of consensus building and its support base continues to be narrow, limited to the co-opted section of the political elite. The strains in the federal-provincial relations have increased because the provinces complain about the domineering role of the military dominated federal government. The federal government has not resolved many federal-provincial issues which have created a strong impression in the smaller provinces that the federal government was deliberately doing this to keep political and financial pressures on the provinces. Some of the major issues are the determination of the National Finance Commission (NFC)Award on distribution of revenues between the federal and provincial governments,, the construction of dams for storing water and power generation, the Greater Thal Canal issue, the share of the NWFP in net profit of hydel power generated in that province, the gas royalty for Balochistan, and the federal government mega development projects in Balochistan and the construction of new army cantonments in that province. If confrontation and bitterness persist in the political system and the competing political interests do not adopt accommodating disposition the sustainability of the present political system may not be guaranteed.

Problems of Democracy

The major features of the Pakistani polity show serious problems of democracy. At times, democracy and participatory governance are either totally non-existent or their quality is poor.

7
in August 1947. The state apparatus, i.e. the bureaucracy, the military and the intelligence services, was more organized and developed than the political and democratic institutions. Further, the first Interim Constitution, 1947, also strengthened bureaucracy and authoritarian governance. This imbalance was reinforced by two inter-related trends in the political domain. First, the process of political decay and degeneration was set in motion soon after independence. The Muslim League that led the independence movement, lacked sufficient organization and capacity for state and nation building. A good number of Muslim League leaders had feudal or semi-feudal background, and were motivated by personal or power ambition rather than building the party as a viable organization capable of standing on its own feet. Other political parties also suffered from similar problems of internal disharmony and conflict, indiscipline and a lack of direction. As a consequence, they were unable to offer a viable alternative to the Muslim League and failed to articulate and aggregate interests within a participatory national political framework. They also failed to create viable political institutions or processes capable of pursuing meaningful socio-economic policies. Second, the bureaucracy and the military maintained their professional disposition marked by hierarchy, discipline, and esprit de corps. The serious administrative problems in the early years of independence led the civilian government to seek the support of the military and the bureaucracy. Pakistans security problems with India, especially the first Kashmir war, also helped to strengthen the militarys position in the polity. All Pakistani civilian governments supported a strong defence posture and allocated a substantial portion of the national budget to defence and security. The militarys position in the polity received additional boost with Pakistans participation in the U.S. sponsored military alliances in the mid1950s. This facilitated weapon transfers to Pakistan and its military obtained training by Americans in Pakistan and the U.S. which increased the militarys efficiency and strike power. Thus, the degeneration of the political machinery was in sharp contrast to the increasing efficiency, discipline, and confidence of the military. These developments accentuated institutional imbalance and worked to the disadvantage of the civilian leaders. The weak and fragmented political forces found it difficult to sustain themselves without the support and cooperation of the bureaucracy and the military. This enabled the bureaucracy and the military to enhance their role in policy making and management and they began to dominate politics. In October 1958, the military swept aside the fragile political institutions and established its direct rule, with the bureaucracy as the junior partner. The role of various civilian and military intelligence agencies expanded in the political domain during the military rule of General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1985) when the military regime used the intelligence agencies to divide and fragment the political forces. The war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan (1980-1989) and

Institutional Imbalance: Pakistan inherited institutional imbalance at the time of independence

the linkages between Pakistani intelligence agencies and their U.S. counterparts in the context of the Afghan war helped to put more material resources at the disposal of Pakistans intelligence agencies. Some of these agencies have been playing active political role since 1988, helping some political parties and groups while building pressure on others keeping in view the militarys political agenda. They have interfered in the national and provincial elections which has raised doubts about the credibility of the electoral process. Some of these agencies were active in politics during after the 2002 general elections. These were also instrumental to creating the ruling coalition at the federal level and in Sindh and Balochistan after the October 2002 elections. The active political role of the intelligence agencies weakens the autonomous growth of civilian political institutions and processes.

Political Consensus-building: The democratic process cannot become functional without a minimum consensus on the operational norms of the polity. The minimum consensus is the beginning point. As the political process functions over time and it offers opportunities for sharing power and political advancement, it evokes more support from among different sections of the society and the polity. The scope of consensus widens when more groups and individuals enter the political mainstream through the democratic norms as set out in the constitution and law. This makes the political institutions and processes viable.
The Pakistani polity has been unable to fully develop a consensus on the operational political norms. Whatever understanding developed among the competing interests at one point of time was allowed to fitter away with the passage of time because of the non-accommodating disposition of the competing interests and an open defiance of constitutionalism and norms of democracy. Therefore, all constitutions turned controversial with the passage of time because they were violated by the power wielders. Pakistan functioned without a constitution for years under martial law imposed by the Army Chief which made him the repository of all authority and power in the country. If constitution can be easily set aside or subordinated to the will of the military ruler, the tradition of constitutionalism and participatory governance cannot develop. The civilian rulers also amended the constitution in a partisan manner by employing parliamentary majority, and disregarded the need of building consensus. A low level of tolerance of dissent and a poor tradition of open debate on important national issues has hindered the growth of a broadly shared consensus on the framework for political action. The dominant elite often endeavoured to develop selective consensus by excluding those disagreeing with them. It is not merely the dominant elite who suppress dissent, several civil society groups manifest intolerance and use violence against those who question their views. The steady growth of Islamic extremism and militancy and Islamic-sectarian movements since the early 1980s has stifled the free flow of ideas on the issues of national importance. It gave rise to religious and cultural intolerance and increased the level of civic violence. The rival extremist religious groups did not hesitate to use violence against each other. The major victims of these trends were social and cultural pluralism, political tolerance and accommodation of dissent. The participatory processes also suffered as the religious extremists gained strength in Pakistan. Such a political and cultural environment is not conducive to growth of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Political Parties and Leadership: Political harmony and democratic evolution is facilitated primarily by political parties and leaders. These are important instruments of interest articulation and

aggregation and serve as vehicles of political mobilization. In Pakistan, political parties have traditionally been weak and unable to perform their main function in an effective and meaningful manner. The role of the political parties has suffered due to, inter alia, periodic restrictions on political activities under military rule, infrequent elections, weak organizational structure and poor discipline among the members, absence of attractive socio-economic pogrammes, and a paucity of financial resources. Political parties also suffer from factionalism based on personality, region and ideology. The Muslim League that led the independence movement failed to transform itself from a national movement to a national party. It suffered from organizational incoherence, ideological confusion and a crisis of leadership. The parties that emerged in the post-independence period could not present a better alternative. They suffered from the weaknesses that ailed the Muslim League. Consequently, the political parties could not work for political consensus building and political stability and continuity. Most Pakistani political parties lack resources and trained human-power to undertake dispassionate and scientific study of the socio-political and economic problems. The emphasis is on rhetoric and sloganeering which may be useful for mobilization purposes but it cannot be a substitute to serious, scientific and analytical study of the societal problems. The level of debate in the two houses of the parliament and provincial assemblies is low and these elected bodies often face the shortage of quorum which shows the non-seriousness of the political parties and their members in the elected houses in dealing with the national issues and problems. Quite often the ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not available in the house to respond to the issues raised by the members. The political parties or their coalitions that exercised power since the mid-1950s were either floated by the establishment (the military and top bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies) or these enjoyed its blessings. The coalition building at the national level in pre-1958 period and especially the setting up of the Republican Party in 1956, provides ample evidence of the role of the establishment in party politics. Generals Ayub Khan patronized a faction of the Muslim League which was turned into the ruling party in 1962-63. General Zia-ul-Haq pursued a similar strategy. He co-opted a faction of the Muslim League which ruled with his blessings after he restored civilian and constitutional rule in 1985. General Pervez Musharraf has done the same by co-opting a faction of the Muslim League and installed governments under its leadership at the federal level and in Sindh, Balochistan and the Punjab in November-December 2002. The only exception to this rule of state sponsorship of the ruling parties is the Awami League (pre1971) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) which did not owe their origin and rise to political eminence to the establishment. The Awami League won the 1970 general elections despite the strong opposition of the military government. So did the Pakistan People Party (PPP) which won majorities in the 1970s in the Punjab and Sindh. In 1971, the Awami League was pushed out of Pakistan. The military transferred power to the PPP after it lost the war to India in December 1971. The PPP continues to face the distrust of the establishment. The political parties formed electoral alliances and political coalitions. These have generally been ephemeral in nature because of differences in their political orientations and limited experience of

working together. Furthermore, each party suffers from internal incoherence which undermines its role in a coalition. Political parties have been relatively more successful as a movement for pursuing a limited agenda like the overthrow of a sitting government, than as a political party because this requires a viable organization and a broadly shared long term political agenda.

Islam and Politics: A predominant majority of Pakistanis agree that the Pakistani political system must have some relationship with Islam. However, there are strong differences on the precise nature of relationship between Islam and the polity. There is a lack consensus on the institutions and processes to be set up under the rubric of Islamic state. Most conservative and orthodox elements want to establish a puritanical Islamic state with an emphasis on the punitive, regulative and extractive role of the Islamic state. Others emphasize the egalitarian norms of Islam and underline the principles of equality, socioeconomic justice and the modern notions of the state, civil and political rights and participatory governance. To them, Islam is a source of guidance and provides the ethical foundations of the polity rather than offering a specific political structure or a legal code for the modern times. Another debate pertains to the political disposition of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan: Did he advocate an ideological Islamic state or a secular system with no links with Islam or a modern democratic state that viewed Islam as one of the sources of law and ethics? Still another issue is how far the Two-nation theory is relevant to the post-independence period for shaping political choices? Was Pakistan created as a Muslim state or an Islamic state? General Zia-ul-Haq tilted the political balance in favour of the orthodox and conservative interpretation of the Islamic polity in order to win over the conservative and orthodox religious groups. He made several administrative and legal changes reflecting the puritanical Islamic principles as advocated by the orthodox and conservative groups. This increased religious and cultural intolerance and religious extremism in Pakistan. The official circles and the religious groups engaged in massive propaganda against the notion of participatory governance, constitutionalism, and the rule of law, equal citizenship and civil and political rights as western implants in Pakistan. The post-Zia civilian governments were too weak to undo the Islamic laws made by the military regime of Zia-ul-Haq. General Musharraf talks of enlightened moderation as the organizing principle for the Pakistani political system but he too did not revise the Islamic laws and punishments introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq. He is constrained by the need of the support of the Muttahida-i-Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a conglomerate of 6 Islamic conservative parties, for staying in power. The rise of Islamic orthodoxy has also increased Islamic-sectarian violence which poses a major threat to the fabric of the Pakistani society. The inconclusive debate on Islams relationship with the Pakistani state and the political system adversely affects the prospects of democracy. Most conservative and orthodox Islamic groups reject democracy as a western system or support it to the extent of using the electoral process to attain power and then implement their notion of Islamic system. As long as there is a lack of consensus on the precise relationship between Islam and the Pakistans constitutional, legal and political system, democratic institutions and processes would not fully develop and become sustainable.
10

Military Rule and Constitutional and Political Engineering: The repeated assumption of power by the military and its desire to shape the Pakistani polity in accordance with its political preferences has also undermined the steady growth and sustainability of democratic institutions and processes. The military rulers either abolished the constitution or suspended it to acquire supreme legislative and administrative powers. This disrupted the development of civilian institutions and processes and made it impossible for them to develop strong roots in the polity. After every ten years or so, the military returned the country to square one, promising to introduce a system designed to respond to the needs and aspiration of the people and reflected the operational political realities of the country. While establishing the post military rule political order the military regimes did not pursue a nonpartisan approach. The overriding consideration with the military rulers was to ensure their stay in power and the continuity of the policies introduced during the period of direct military rule. They engaged in constitutional engineering either by introducing a new constitution (Ayub Khan in 1962)) or by making drastic changes in the existing constitutional system to protect the interests of the military regime. Zia-ulHaq and Pervez Musharraf introduced far reaching changes in the 1973 constitution in 1985 and 2002 respectively to sustain their centrality to the political process and to ensure that no political party could unilaterally alter the policy measures adopted by the military regime. Constitutional engineering was coupled with the co-option of the political elite that was willing to play politics in accordance with the rules determined by the military rulers and supported their continued stay in power. Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf resorted to co-option of a section of the political elite. Their co-option strategy focused on some faction of the Muslim League. The strategy of co-option pre-supposed the exclusion of those who openly challenged the military-initiated political arrangements. This strategy was adopted by the above named military rulers for replacing direct military rule with new political arrangements based on sharing of power between the top brass of the military and the coopted political leadership. Another strategy adopted by the Pakistani military rulers was the holding of carefully managed general elections to ensure that the co-opted leaders performed better than their adversaries. The political institutions and processes created by the military regime reflected the military ethos of hierarchy, discipline and management and were often based on a narrow and selective consensus. These institutions and processes could not develop an autonomous political profile and remained closely associated with the generals. That was the major reason that they often faltered in responding to the demands for political participation and socio-economic justice. The quality of democracy was poor in the post-military rule political arrangements.
Democracy in Pakistan faced a host of difficulties which did not let the democratic principles, institutions and processes develop firm roots in the polity. Pakistan started with the parliamentary system of governance but the legacy of institutional imbalance and authoritarianism, problems encountered in the setting up of the new state, the external security pressures and the fear of the collapse of the state adversely affected the prospects of democracy. Other factors that caused the problems for democracy

Concluding Observations:

included the crisis of leadership in the aftermath of the demise of Jinnah, failure of the Muslim League to transform itself from a nationalist movement to a national party, fragmentation and degeneration of the political forces and the rise of the bureaucratic-military elite. Long before the first military take over in October 1958 the dominant elite were talking about the unsuitability of liberal democracy for Pakistan. Intermittent constitutional and political breakdown, the ascendancy of the military to power and the efforts of the top brass of the military to introduce a political system that protected their professional and corporate interests made it difficult to create participatory political institutions and processes that could command the voluntary support of the diversified political interests. The military elite employed the democratic principles in a selective manner and their policy of co-option of a section of the political leaders and exclusion of others accentuated polarization and jeopardized the prospects of political accommodation and consensus-building. The experience suggests that democratic institutions and processes stabilize and mature if their natural evolution is not obstructed by partisan considerations. These must function in their true spirit over time, offering all citizens and groups an equal and fair opportunity to enter the political mainstream and compete for power and influence. This helps to build support for the political institutions and facilitates their sustainability. In Pakistan, periodic breakdown of the political order and repeated military takeover or attempts by the top brass to shape the political process to their political preferences did not ensure political continuity and the competing interest did not get equal opportunity to freely enter the political mainstream. . Democracy and the autonomy of civilian institutions and processes has been the major casualty of the expanded role of the military. Whenever Pakistan returned to civilian and constitutional rule, the quality of democracy remained poor. It is a case of democracy deficit. The long term endurance of the political institutions and the prospects of democracy faces four major challenges in Pakistan: the non-expansion of participatory opportunities for those viewed as adversaries by the military dominated regime, the poor performance of the elected assemblies, failure to build consensus on the operational norms of the political system, and a drift towards confrontation, religious and cultural intolerance and extremism. This does not mean that the people have given up on the primacy of the popular will, participatory governance, accountability of the rulers and governance for serving the people. The ideological commitment to these principles persists which will continue to question the legitimacy of nonparticipatory and authoritarian governance and political management.

11

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. Bertrand Russell The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell All movements go too far.

Bertrand Russell War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead. Bertrand Russell Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. Bertrand Russell To understand a name you must be acquainted with the particular of which it is a name. Bertrand Russell
A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it. Bertrand Russell A happy life must be to a great extent a quiet life, for it is only in an atmosphere of quiet that true joy dare live. Bertrand Russell A life without adventure is likely to be unsatisfying, but a life in which adventure is allowed to take whatever form it will is sure to be short. Bertrand Russell A process which led from the amoeba to man appeared to the philosophers to be obviously a progress though whether the amoeba would agree with this opinion is not known. Bertrand Russell A sense of duty is useful in work but offensive in personal relations. People wish to be liked, not to be endured with patient resignation. Bertrand Russell A truer image of the world, I think, is obtained by picturing things as entering into the stream of time from an eternal world outside, than from a view which regards time as the devouring tyrant of all that is. Bertrand Russell Admiration of the proletariat, like that of dams, power stations, and aeroplanes, is part of the ideology of the machine age. Bertrand Russell Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.

Bertrand Russell Against my will, in the course of my travels, the belief that everything worth knowing was known at Cambridge gradually wore off. In this respect my travels were very useful to me.