Why Imran’s comeback would be a triumph for democracy and a disaster for Pakistan

Imran’s popularity has risen to a level not seen in Pakistan before. But all nations, especially democracies, need institutions that can stand up to majoritarianism of any kind.

Illustration by Soham Sen | ThePrint

Are you with Imran Khan or against him? We can ask this question in two different ways. One, if a fair election is held today, will Imran win or not? And second, will his win be good for Pakistan or a disaster?

The answer to the first question is, of course, Imran will win. He has the street with him as no Pakistani leader has had in a long time, not even Nawaz Sharif at his peak when he could win big majorities by himself. His loyalists were also noisy and boisterous, but they would never take on the might of the army. Or, he would not have been removed from power summarily and unfairly thrice.

Imran’s popularity has risen to a level not seen in Pakistan before. It is because his rivals, enemies and critics, including the army brass, are so convinced that he will easily win an election that they aren’t about to hold one now. Or even, given a choice, on the due date in October unless they can disqualify him constitutionally and prevent him from contesting.

The answer to the second question is even simpler. For sure, if he wins a big mandate, it will be a disaster for Pakistan.

Because everything he stands for — extreme populism, angry, retributive governance, Islamism, anti-Westernism (important from Pakistan’s perspective), extreme views on India and impatience with modern economics — will push Pakistan deeper into the hole.

Which leaves us again with two questions. One, can you stop him without denying Pakistan democracy? And can Pakistan afford an Imran win?

Anybody who is still not convinced after the Arab Spring disaster that a shortcut to democratisation without preparation is perilous should take a close look at Pakistan now.

Democracy is among the greatest virtues that humankind has developed over these millennia, a blessing with all its many imperfections. But it cannot work in a vacuum of ideas, institutions and a larger popular acceptance of what it entails to govern within a democratic but constitutional system.

A successful democracy needs deep-set patience with its imperfections. As also with what is unique to a constitutional democracy: the limitations of majorities, for example. Nawaz Sharif kept on losing power because he failed to appreciate it. Imran won’t even make any effort to do so.

That’s why, in a situation where Pakistan’s institutions are melting or vaporising, an elected Imran Khan may just be the fatal blow the hapless — but powerful — nation doesn’t need.

On this, the so-called democratic and liberal forces in Pakistan are on the same page as the leadership of their army. Which is the key point we need to debate.

It is clear to all at this point that the ruling coalition commands neither the credibility nor the power to govern a country of 23 crore-plus with a broken polity and economy.

Until the other day, Pakistan had a parachute for such crises. That parachute, I regret to say, was the institution of the army. It’s a far from perfect idea, especially for those like us who must instinctively support democratisation.

But all nations, especially the democracies, need an institutional bedrock. For Pakistan, it’s always been its army. Its judiciary, the Election Commission, the so-called corruption watchdog and the ever-so-scandalous National Accountability Bureau (NAB) have all proven inadequate to the task of protecting its democracy or the national interest.

The army was so far the one institution that guaranteed stability. Under this Imran onslaught, it isn’t even a parody of its omnipotent past in Pakistan. Paradoxically, the country’s biggest problem right now is that its army is at its weakest.

Why should we care, you might ask. Let the Pakistanis be hoist with their own petard, they sowed this wind, this awful army of theirs and the pain it has given us, and so on. Good arguments. Schadenfreude is always a tempting idea. Whether or not it is such a wise one today is a debate we can leave for another day. This week, we are talking about this counterintuitive and unfortunate idea of the perils of democracy in a country as large as Pakistan.

Why and how did the Arab Spring fail? In one Arab country after another, once the headiness of the multiple Tahrir Squares was over, elections followed. What was confused for a democratic upsurge was essentially a popular rebellion against decades of militaristic, populist but near-secular dictators. Instinctively, the response was Islamic, not democratic and definitely not liberal. Religion was the fuel driving these protests.

There was no surprise then, when in one country after another, the Islamists won. It was invariably some version of the Muslim Brotherhood, except to some extent in Tunisia. All unravelled. It began with Egypt, where the army returned and restored the status quo ante. And when it did that, it had much popular support. Because Egyptians had not bargained for the kind of Islamisation their elected government had launched.

Tunisia, long seen as the one success story of the Arab Spring, has come apart now. Its ultra-popular “common man” leader, widely hailed as a true democrat in the Western world, has now morphed into a cynical dictator. How bad and dramatic that transformation has been, you can see in this episode of my show CutTheClutter.

In the Arab world, democratisation has meant Islamisation. So far, the militarised dictatorships had kept the religion and the clergy in control, if not under brutal suppression. Armed with the legitimacy of elections, Islamists began to spread. This encouraged the new supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who pushed his own mostly secular and modern democracy into rapid Islamisation and an elected dictatorship. Chastened, Pakistan’s army wouldn’t want their own Mohamed Morsi in Imran as their new elected leader.

You cannot democratise on the run. You need the patience learnt over many decades of tough work on the ground, mass movements, development of ideas and ideologies, understanding and building of institutions, and finally, the maturity to accept the limitations of an elected majority.

No democracy is perfect, not India’s for sure. But, much of this homework was done during the freedom movement. Subsequently, there has been a mass movement of some kind or the other each decade in some part of the country. Or the big, history-changing events like the Emergency and the fight against it. None of these Arab countries had made this preparation. That’s why they didn’t have leaders who would know what to do with democracy.

Pakistan isn’t quite so bad or inadequate on this count. It has had its popular movements, and developed a bunch of leaders, but it has much distance still to travel. Most of all, it still has to acquire the patience you need in a democracy. The patience to accept that even if I do not like my government, I must wait till the next election to change it.

For that patience to develop and sustain, however, you need institutions that are credible and strong. Not ridiculous caricatures like Pakistan’s Supreme Court has become. The same court had disqualified and thrown out an elected prime minister with a healthy majority, Nawaz Sharif, not because he was guilty of corruption. But because he was found not sadiq (one who’s never told a lie) and ameen (one who’s never betrayed anyone), and was thereby unfit to rule. Who will take it seriously? Especially now when Pakistan’s ‘system’ is so broken.

I don’t know who in Lutyens’s team (the original Lutyens) had the sense to put this inscription at the entrance of our North Block: ‘Liberty will not descend to a people: a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a blessing which must be earned before it can be enjoyed.’ Decades ago, when I read it, I nursed a secret fantasy of taking the sand-blaster to it. There are moments, though, when I realise that the departing British, however rude, were telling us something vital. This would also be useful reading today for the well-meaning people and institutions in Pakistan as well.