DEMOCRACY: NOT A UTOPIAN IDEA I must suggest that democracy has at times been over rated. It has proven successful but not perfect. It eventually depends upon the few (the so called elected) to be responsible and answerable. No doubt prima feci the option to choose for one self seems to be a very good one, however democracy in a state where people don’t know what is “best” for them doesn’t hold much ground. Let me explain. For example recent success of Hammas in local elections in Palestine. Or consider a population where there are lets say 70 % population under 18. (North West African countries do have such population ratio) Thus a huge portion of the society is underrepresented I think that also answers the failure of democracy and success of dictatorship in those countries. Let’s consider another scenario where well over half the population is illiterate. You can not expect an uneducated person to understand political ideologies, philosophy he would be too busy making his own ends meet, improving his own life or both, taking care of his family than to worry about politics and understand the importance of his voting rite . So under such circumstances e.g. emotional public speakers successfully mislead public.
It is suggested that Rule of Law is more important then the form of government. It could be argued that a responsible government be it authoritarian would be more helpful for the people of the land. One could clearly see that then interest of the West in particular the USA's policy to impose democracy to the Muslim world is entirely motivated by self interest. Further more the policy of USA can (will) have serious repercussion as the democracy might lead to exact opposite results (then to what USA and the West want) namely a conservative and for that matter anti- west government. One could give the exmple of Palestine with its anti Israel policies.
Ok, then lets consider a model, “let those who have shown by their success to be superior minded decide what’s best for others until the population comes to a position where it can truly understand the importance of democracy and its position”.(This is what happened in UK, until early 20th century only 3% of the society were eligible to vote( the higher class ??), society was moving UK had been a great power they had tremendous economic growth and the political system was developing and gradually with the increase in public awareness and education this percentage increased and now generally every citizen above 18 is entitled to vote.) Now it might not be an Ideal solution. Nothing in reality can be perfect but these observations lead me to the fact that democracy though a “beautiful thing” is not entirely flawless. Success of political system does not depend upon the perfection in its ideology but manner in which it is implemented and the way it is run. A political system be it democracy, depends on the people which it will govern and how they adapt to it and accept it.

When I see this forum I see a young, energetic, exuberant and irascible (short tempered) youth willing to do something, to make a change though I fear mostly astray...Any way I want put a discussion on the table: I can say this with the support of Facts that Pakistan inherited “Army” and “Feudalism” where as India inherited a “Bourgeoisie” (upper middle class) which wanted development and a democratic country.What do you all think?

Here is what I have to say When the British came to the shores of the region now called India they came across a majority of people wanting businesses to flourish and economic growth that’s why at the time of partition almost all the industry was in India where as ninety percent of the army of British Empire from sub-continent was from the areas later associated to be Pakistan.

What we came to call democracy was (and is) not democracy, It is an eye wash and reality is that feudalism has been there all along. In Pakistan people have been and are elected for what they are , where they are , what their cast is as rather then to what they have done and what they promise to do for the people who elect them. If you think, a person elected but not answerable to the people would be least keen to do welfare acts for his/her people and one who knows that he has a “vote bank” who will vote him in any event would be interested in only accumulating wealth and doing what interests him. Any way I am not a pessimist and I believe that with the increase in public awareness (e.g. through education) this will change. One could argue that Parliament thus never fulfilled its role but I guess there are improvements as well. For the first time our Prime Minister is a technocrat. These are small changes and hopefully we will have more humanism (a society (a place) where people are known for what they do and not what they are) When we didn’t have 'democracy' we had military dictatorship. What else can I say, words speak volumes, what ever that goes to the government most of it is either remunerated to the army or the debt. I think we made an enemy out of a bad neighbor. Instead of getting into negotiations our first instinct was to fight for our rights. Not arguing that it was the right thing to do or not it didn’t work out did it? On the other hand India. They had democracy through out, though I do not proclaim that it was the best infect it had flaws it had corruption but it was and is a democracy what ever “the elected” did there was and always is the ultimate check of electorate which was proven by the defeat of BJP in the last election.

I hope that what I wrote was informative for some but I sincerely hope that there is disagreement so that I get to learn from the disagreement.ABOUT MEI am a student of Law (University of London) and also doing my graduation in Political Science and Journalism