1. Home
Politics
Interviews
Entertainment
Politics (in Urdu)
About
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Writers
Democracy versus Dictatorship
By Shaukat Masood Zafar • Nov 2nd, 2010 • Category: Politics, Worth A Second Look • 7 Comments
After revival of the ―democracy‖ in Pakistan we are constantly hearing from our political leadership a slogan
that‖Even the worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship,‖
I’m not sure exactly what they mean by dictatorship. I think it is possible to have one good ruler who cares about
his people and acts with their best interests and not his own. But it’s too easy for someone to become a dictator,
someone who uses oppressive and abusive ways to rule people and claims to be acting for Pakistan’s benefit but
only is interested in his own. But I don’t think a democracy is much different. It has still people who claim they are
acting for the greater good but for the most part are just after making life better for themselves. Irrespective of
other characteristics of the both, I think a good dictatorship and a bad democracy are almost the same thing in
the sense that bad democracy is just another form of dictatorship. In Pakistan, soon after revival of ―democracy‖
the people started demanding the rulers to keep such like democracy with them and return their ―dictatorship‖.
Why it is so? Because, after revival of democracy neither they have some money to pay the ever-rising utility bills
or inflated education fee of their children nor they have been left with the purchasing power to properly feed their
family. Then, is the slogan being raised by our political leadership is incorrect? Let’s analyze it!
A recent article in the online magazine ―American.com‖ measures economic performance against the degree of
political and civil freedom existing in various nations. The conclusion is that in the last 15 years, the economies of
nations ruled by despots have grown at an annual rate of 6.8 percent on average—two and a half times faster
than politically free countries. Those autocracies that have opened their markets in recent decades but continued
to restrict or prevent democracy—China, Russia, Malaysia, and Singapore, for example—have done better than
most of the developed or underdeveloped countries that enjoy a considerable measure of political and civil
freedom.
When the environment in which the economy breathes depends on institutions rather than on the commitment of
an autocrat or a party, stability and reliability generate the sort of long-term results that we call ―development.‖
We might lose some rights, but if we can find good leaders to run the country – even dictator can help a country
develop very well. There is no democracy in China, but if we look at its progress and even the people, the system
of government that they have can actually bring a lot of benefits. Malaysia is said to have been ruled by a dictator
for 22 years –The people of Malaysia enjoyed it as he took the country morally and economically at climax. Cuba,
in spite of a long dictatorship of more than half a century has made tremendous development in every sphere of
life.
Let us compare the financial achievements of dictatorship and democracy regimes in the light of official figures
available on record and are part of our history. The total external debt liability of Pakistan was merely $ 4.567
billions only up to the year 1973 when ―democracy‖ came in for the first time in Pakistan which has now piled up
to the unsustainable level of about 55 billions. Out of about $ 50.500 billions loan obtained after 1973, $ 9.501
billion was received during 11 years of Zia-ul-Haq regime, $ 8.336 was received during about four years (two
tenures) of PML (N), $ 6.847 billion was received during 9 years of Gen. Musharraf, and $ 26.500 billion was
received by PPP alone during its four tenures of about 9 years. The nominal debts received prior to 1973 during
the tenure of ―Dictator‖ Ayub Khan are very much visible in shape of Tarbela Dam, Mangla Dam, Steel Mills,
shifting of capital at Islamabad and such like other mega projects. Growth rate of 11 years (1959-70) was as high
as 6.25%. Real investment reached at the level of 21.5 per cent of GDP during 1960-65 being the highest.
Inflation remained in around 3 per cent during the 1960s.

2. The Ayub Khan era is regarded as one of the best periods of stability in Pakistan’s history. Pakistan was widely
hailed as a ―model‖ of economic, especially industrial, development during the 1960s. After 1973 era another
―dictator‖ made tremendous reforms, strengthened the institutions, reversed the extremely arbitrary action of
nationalization of industries taken by Mr. Bhutto after sustaining heavy costs, completed the atomic program by
deploying heavy amounts which is now one amongst the central points of our politics and thus justified the loans
taken during his tenure. The national savings rate rose to a peak of 16 per cent of GDP during his tenure.
Average growth rate reached as high as 6.6 percent per annum during 1977-88 periods. Manufacturing grew by
9.2 per cent, other sectors grew by 7.9 per cent, and moderate growth in agriculture sector was also realized.
Price level again remained well in-checked. General Zia period could be well matched by General Ayub Khan
period when the economy got into a healthy shape. Now come to another dictator. Mr. Musharraf did a lot of
political errors during his tenure and the people publicly criticized his political actions which were really
condemnable.
In spite of my other personal reservations and to be very honest, on economic front he did well. Poverty in
Pakistan was reduced by 50 percent on consumption-led growth of the economy during his tenure falling from
34.5% from start of his tenure to 17.2% to the end of his tenure. Real GDP constantly grew during his tenure at
more than 7 per cent a year with relative price stability. Over the forty years in aggregate, 1949-50-89-90, the
annual growth rate of GDP was 5.2 percent, excluding the first decade, it was 6 percent. Large-scale
manufacturing was the fastest growing sector: an annual rate of 10.3 percent over the four decades. The
economy most of the time remained almost flat during 1988-96. GDP growth rate during 1988-96 averaged 4.9
per cent per annum compared to 6.6 per cent of Zia period and 6.7 per cent of Ayub period respectively.
Large scale manufacturing growth moved in a narrow band during 1988-96. Although the present Government
criticizes the previous regime in public, yet in its official documents it has appreciated the economic policies of the
previous regime that became a strong base for seeking new loans from multilateral donors and friends of
Pakistan and the impressive past growth of Musharraf tenure has made their way easier to make access to the
new facility of the IMF for emerging markets hit by the crisis to support the balance of payment problems. PML
(N) obtained 6.847 billion loans during its two tenures. Mr. Nawaz Sharif introduced some social schemes during
his first tenure and started motorway project, while in his second tenure he made Pakistan a declared atomic
power by carrying out atomic explosions. How the second democratic force PPP can justify which alone has
burdened the country with about 50% of total debts obtained after 1973 by getting $ 26.500 billion loans from
different external agencies.
The name of democracy is often abused and misused in Pakistan. There are two basic principles that democracy
includes: equality and freedom. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and
having equal access to power, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which
are generally protected by a constitution. On this touchstone it can be concluded whether Pakistan citizenry has
ever seen democracy in Pakistan? Surely the people of Pakistan have never seen real democracy in its history.
Our Rulers want to remain above law and to keep dragnet of accountability confined to have-nots only. They
have no respect for law and superior judiciary. Morality, principles and values are of no concern to them.
Democracy is used as a ploy to cover up every wrong of the rulers. As regards freedom; consider the fact that an
ordinary citizen remains terrified even today of the prospect of having to interact at even a basic level with any of
the institutions of the state including the police station and court to ascertain the actual function of the state in
people’s lives.?Quaid-e-Azam wanted Pakistan to become a welfare state. Our present rulers are doing quite the
opposite. They are deeply involved in plundering the assets of the state as well as the nation, and have allowed
social evils to flourish. The strange and incomprehensible attitude of the ―elected leaders‖ is damaging Pakistan
and threatening the whole system. The institutions are being ruined, constitutional distortions are subtly protected
by consistently highlighting tales of murder of merit, favoritism, bad governance to thrust and sustain a one man
rule that could be defined as civilian dictatorship, and parliament is ignored and cabinet is turned into a non-
entity. The impact of nepotism also moves along further down the hierarchy, resulting in flawed mechanisms that
take root in many places. The failure to adhere to merit has had a negative impact on education, on healthcare
and on many other spheres of life.
In fact there are no democrats in Pakistan. The democracy in Pakistan is without democrats. Pakistan’s history
pertaining to the period from 1988 to 1999 and then since 2008 is a witness to the fact that Nawaz Sharif ,
Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari have proved to be the spoilers of democracy and betrayers of peoples’ trust,
hopes and aspirations. In fact the greatest stumbling block in democratic development has been the contradictory
behavior and attitude of Pakistani political leadership itself. They have failed to build a pro-democracy
environment, and building consensus. The political leaders tirelessly talking about democracy, who expressed
democratic sentiments, upon assuming power, changed and demonstrated authoritarian tendencies. They
pursued or adopted policies that strengthened authoritarian attitudes rather than promote democratic norms, flout
rule of law and defy tolerance of any political opposition. As a result of these tendencies, there is a growing
skepticism about the sustainability of democracy. The people have started talking the tenure of the dictator was
far better than this so called democratic regime.
Many of us think ―elections‖ is synonymous with ―democracy‖. I often hear that once the system is ―allowed to
continue‖ it will lead to a ―better democracy‖ in Pakistan. The political forces advocating this thought process

3. actually misstate and deliberately hide the other side of the story that the elections is a step only in the process of
democracy, it is not democracy itself. Democracy, on its own, does not assure or even lead to freedom, or
rejection of dictatorship. It is a great tragedy that our political elite as represented by our mainstream political
parties, has never truly attempted to challenge the domination of the state eliteism. Democracy does not mean
that leaders, who repeatedly come to power through national elections, and without first conducting party
elections, which is the first rung of the ladder, and once assuming power, become all powerful and discriminatory
can not be democrats at hearts. They are dictators in the real sense, as they maintain a dictatorship role within
the party cadre and once in power, fail to fulfill the requirements of the term and norms of ―democracy‖. History
indicates that the combination of political, civil and economic freedom is a better guarantee of ever-increasing
prosperity than a capitalist dictatorship. There are sufficient examples—Portugal or the Baltic countries—of
underdeveloped countries that have generated stable and reliable environments through political freedom to
invalidate the notion that a country should be kept in political and civil infancy until it reaches economic maturity.
Unless and until we appreciate that elections are means to an end, and, not an end in itself, unless and until we
appreciate that those who come in power are there to serve not to be served, and, unless and until we appreciate
that no system can deliver till it consists of people with a will to serve its people, Pakistan shall continue to
flounder. Democracy yields a lot of disappointing results, but it rarely rewards leaders for sharp declines in living
standards or drawn-out wars. There is a widespread presumption in favor of democracy worldwide, and dictators
need a special reason for being in power in order not to be perceived as illegitimate but our political leadership
should keep in mind that prosperity can cut both ways: people may be thankful to the dictator for it, but
prosperous people may be less willing to trade economic gains for political freedom. Would my readers agree to
the point that keeping aside the other qualities a good dictatorship and a bad democracy are almost the same
thing in the sense that bad democracy is just another form of dictatorship?