POPULAR Pakistani discourse focuses on economic progress.

One
rarely sees politicians, analysts or the public prioritise political
progress towards democratic rule. Many even say that political
progress inhibits economic progress and that autocracy delivers it
faster than democracy due to its quick decision-making.

The role models for such ideas are East Asian Tigers that ignored political
progress to achieve rapid economic progress. But elsewhere, autocracies
perform in line with common-sense logic. Economics is about the best use of
societal resources for public welfare while politics is about the use of power in
society. If power use is inequitable due to lack of political progress, so too will
be resource use, leading to conflict. So, durable economic progress requires
political progress first.

The Tigers did well even under autocracy given their relative internal
horizontal (ethnic, racial and religious) and vertical (class and caste)
homogeneity which minimised political conflicts. Elsewhere, as in South Asia,
where most states exhibit high vertical and horizontal divisions, autocracy not
only fails to replicate the Tigers’ successes but also delivers huge conflicts as it
produces uneven results for different groups.

Procedural democracy came easiest to the four larger Saarc states (India, Sri
Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh) which were ruled directly by the British,
who laid the trappings of democracy near the end of their rule. But among the
four, Pakistan and later Bangladesh had to set up governance structures from
scratch, thus giving chance for autocracy to overpower democracy frequently.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Durable economic progress requires political progress
first.
The smaller Saarc states (Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives and Afghanistan) that
didn’t have direct British rule struggled longer to see even procedural
democracy. Yet, recently, all have moved towards it. Bhutan now has free polls
though the king retains influence. After long civil war, Nepal has adopted a
constitution and has an elected regime. The Maldives recently had fair polls.
Even Afghanistan has had elections of sorts.

Saarc’s history reveals clear results. The three ethnically divided states with
least democracy (Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nepal) have seen most political
conflict and violence and are economically most backward. Less divided
Bhutan and Bangladesh have escaped major violence despite not having
continuous democracy. Continuous democracy has helped India become a
cohesive state despite divisions. But even continuous though ethnically diverse
democracies like India and Sri Lanka have seen regional violence where
certain groups have lacked equal rights.

Thus, autocracy in divided societies produces serious violence and economic

malaise. This is a crucial lesson for South Asia, for just as its four smaller
states are taking baby steps forward towards democracy, the four older
democracies are taking giant steps backward towards autocracy. Yet, the
extent of the backslide is in line with their earlier march towards democracy,
being less in Sri Lanka and India and more in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

In Sri Lanka, presidents Rajapaksa and Sirisena both made power grabs by
weakening opponents but failed. Yet prospects remains fluid, with the
autocratic Rajapaksa winning Saturday’s presidential polls. In India, it is not
so much opposition but minorities that are being harmed badly. But
Bangladesh and Pakistan have backtracked more with attempts to create one-
party states by weakening the opposition. In fact, given the dubious nature of
their last polls, it is unclear whether they can even be called democracies.

In Bangladesh, power at least still lies with civilians. Pakistan is now seen by
many as a covert autocracy, like Myanmar, Thailand and Egypt, where
unelected forces hog power behind thin civilian façades.

The pillars of such a covert autocracy include dubious polls and alleged
outside meddling in parliamentary numbers; one-sided accountability against
political opponents; crackdown on media and judiciary; governance via
ordinances and administrative steps; and excessive role of non-civilians in
civilian matters. This system is already showing strong signs of strain.

But instead of demanding the prime minister’s resignation on the streets, the
opposition must use parliament to demand an empowered parliamentary
commission on poll rigging by agencies; an end to one-sided accountability
and release of political prisoners; an end to the alleged role of agencies in
propping up unnatural majorities and an end to the crackdown on media and
judiciary. Otherwise, this civilian autocracy could have grave results for
Pakistani political and economic progress and peace.

The writer is a Senior Fellow with UC Berkeley and heads INSPIRING

Pakistan, a progressive policy unit.