Dictatorship is universally considered as an undesirable political regime.[1] This goes by many other names: monarchy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, imperialism, etc. Dictatorship occurs when one person is the highest lawmaker in the group, whose power is unchecked by any other person or institution. History has recorded the many evils of this system.
According to Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are always bad men,"[2] The reason is because individuals are primarily self-interested, and dictators have the power to reward their self-interest at the expense of the group. Such abuse can become extreme. Another English politician - William Pitt the Younger, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, had also said something similar, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it". As referred to earlier, the extremeness of corruption would invariably lead to frustration and eventually anarchy and chaos.[3] While focusing on Pakistan, we can infer from the repetitive patterns of military dictatorships in Pakistan that all the military dictators in Pakistan have been megalomaniac in nature. All of them have considered their position at the centre of the power simply indispensable for the security of Pakistan. Therefore they have simply erased the undesirable portions of the constitution and inserted the clauses of their own choosing quite blatantly. Mostly they have capitalized on the people disenchantment with the political leadership that has preceded them[4]. Epitomizing the Louis XIV who claimed himself to be the Monarchy and the Constitution. The situation has culminated in the Musharraf period.
A single person may be an effective leader when the organization is small enough for the leader to master all its details. But the larger the group, the more details there are to know and run, and the less one person can handle it all. Those who try to control every aspect of a large organization fail. Dictators therefore must delegate a share of their authority to underlings, but this raises other serious problems. Underlings are also self-interested, and seek to protect their own welfare over the group’s. This leads to popular disenchantment and social divide. As there is no peaceful way of getting rid of these corrupt elements so resorting to violence remains the only viable option to be taken up by the masses. In the ensuing scenario, many dangerous forces are unleashed, including anarchy as well. It so happens in most of the military regimes of Pakistan that the a handful of corrupt politicians serve the purpose of the dictatorship readily, and in the process not only cushioned him but also at times provided him with an extra lease of life. During Musharraf’s regime, most of his aides and ministers were bank-defaulters and the plunderers of the national exchequer nay they continued to make hay while the sun shone on them under the very nose of the so-called National Accountability Bureau (NAB). However, in each case the manifest chaos and popular restlessness is the outcome of this unholy alliance between the dictatorship and the pseudo-politicians. The obtaining gloomy scenario in Pakistan points to this very fact.[5]
Again there is information deficit in dictatorships. Dictators receive little accurate information from below. This is critical because individual dictators cannot match the collective wisdom of the group. Groups bring together a much broader array of information, education, viewpoints, specialized skills, experiences and creative suggestions, all of which get aired during democratic debate. There are many reasons why this benefit is significantly reduced under dictatorships.
Although the number of dictatorships has significantly decreased in the last two decades and across continents, this regime has been persistent and widespread throughout history, still exists in large parts of the world today and constantly threatens fragile democracies.[6] Dictatorship can be defined as term detonating any regime violating freedom and other basic human rights. So according to this criterion broadly speaking there are two forms of government – dictatorship and democracy – and one possible situation characterized by the absence of government – Anarchy. Although this dichotomy is generally accepted yet analysts generally refer to another situation as well i.e. Aristocracy[7] .
Dictators usually find it irresistible to impose their own "Absolute Truth" on the masses, rather than collect truth from them. Almost always, dictators shut down free speech and free press to ensure their own Absolute Truth goes unrivaled. Examples of this conceit include Hitler’s "Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment," Lenin’s "party line" and the Catholic Church’s "orthodox faith." People with different opinions are usually branded as "heretics" and persecuted by such "guardians of truth" as the Gestapo, the KGB or the Inquisition.
This only reinforces the first problem i.e. telling dictators what they want to hear, not the unpleasant truth. The underlings cannot afford to annoy the one who is at the helm of affairs thereby keeping him in dark and the trust deficit between the rulers and the ruled further get widened.[8]
The problem of learning accurate information in a dictatorship is impossible to understate. Hitler, Stalin, and countless other dictators eventually came to live in fantasy worlds, which were finally shattered only by some reality-based event like a military invasion or revolution. The same is the case with the Shah of Iran who was overthrown by Khomenised revolution. Here Khomeini was a single rallying point and the situation could not lead to anarchy. But in Pakistan quite a number of dictatorial measures under Musharraf and opening up of so many fronts that culminated in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto could have easily led to Anarchy if the elections would have been further delayed. One common aspect of nearly all dictatorships is that their leaders come to believe the "reports" of their own propaganda machines, namely, that the masses are happy, even if in reality they are desperate. Stalin, for example, believed his "Socialist Realism" films that depicted happy peasants singing in the fields, even though actual peasants were resorting to cannibalism trying to survive famine. Again President Musharraf would read the same mantra everywhere i.e. He is the most popular leader of the country. Again the growing lawlessness emanated from the price-hike and the people’s distrust of him and the army as an institution have been deliberately shunned to him. Pakistanis are virtually facing the virtual famine. Portraying the things quite gloomily, some of the Pakistani scholars wonder as to whether or not Pakistan is poised to become a new Kampuchea.[9] Ongoing conflicts in Swat and Tribal Areas belie Musharraf’s tall claims that Al Qaeda is on the run in Pakistan. The pessimists claim that in the face of the ongoing domestic turmoil, there is every likelihood that the Central Government will probably be confined only to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi.[10] Again in Pakistan, under military regimes the trickle-down effect of the so-called prosperity and abundance is not visible even in microscope.. In such a situation the class conflict in the Marxian sense cannot be really ruled out. In Pakistani sense in particular, this problem is compounded by the dominance of the army in the national affairs[11].
Dictatorships waste enormous resources on security. Dictators often require a large army, internal police force and security apparatus to thwart rivals, stifle criticism and stay in power. In a democracy, free rivalry and criticism actually help to drive incompetent or corrupt leaders out of office. Democracies do have other costs, like periodic campaign advertising and elections, but these are usually far less than a permanent security force policing the entire population. In Pakistan we incur so many resources on the VIP Security.[12]
Absolute power would corrupt the possessor of the power.
The security state under dictatorship ignores the welfare needs of the general people.
It is difficult to get accurate information in dictatorships.
The dictator’s discomfiture with truth leads to his unpopularity and downfall.
The inability of the people to bring about peaceful change in dictatorial regimes made them to resort to violent means.
The normative judgment on political regimes has evolved much through history. Before the French Revolution, monarchy was considered as the best form of government in most of the classics of political thought. From the nineteenth century on, democracy has gained the status of the best political regime (Bobbio 1989).
This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887
Thabit A. J. Abdullah, Dictatorship, Imperialism and Chaos, Zed Books, 2006.
Karamatullah K. Ghauri, “A Tale of Two Power Addicts”, Dawn Islamabad. April 12, 2008.
Pakistan- Politics, Global Security, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/politics.htm (Accessed on April 20 2008)
Russia under the rule of Vladimir Putin gradually moved away from democracy (Pipes 2004). Pakistan returned to dictatorship in 1999 after 12 years of democracy while its neighbour, India, remains mainly democratic.
The term Aristocracy has been largely incorporated into the wider term Dictatorship after the Bobshevik and the fascist regimes of 1930s . (Bobbio 1989).
Zafar Ali Sheikh and Paul Wiseman, Distrust and Fear Grip Pakistan, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-11-13-pakistan_N.htm (Accessed on May 10, 2008)
M. Abul Fazl, “Will Pakistan become another Kampochea?”, Dawn Islamabad. April 12, 2008
Ahmad Faruqui, “The Long Road Ahead”, Dawn Islamabad. February 11, 2008.
ibid
Energy Conservation the only option, Dawn Islamabad. February 10, 2008
[1] The normative judgment on political regimes has evolved much through history. Before the French Revolution, monarchy was considered as the best form of government in most of the classics of political thought. From the nineteenth century on, democracy has gained the status of the best political regime (Bobbio 1989).
[2] This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:
[3] Thabit A. J. Abdullah, Dictatorship, Imperialism and Chaos, Zed Books, 2006.
[4] Karamatullah K. Ghauri, “A Tale of Two Power Addicts”, Dawn Islamabad. April 12, 2008.
[5] Pakistan- Politics, Global Security, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/politics.htm (Accessed on April 20 2008)
[6] Russia under the rule of Vladimir Putin gradually moved away from democracy (Pipes 2004). Pakistan returned to dictatorship in 1999 after 12 years of democracy while its neighbour, India, remains mainly democratic.
[7] The term Aristocracy has been largely incorporated into the wider term Dictatorship after the Bobshevik and the fascist regimes of 1930s . (Bobbio 1989).
[8] Zafar Ali Sheikh and Paul Wiseman, Distrust and Fear Grip Pakistan, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-11-13-pakistan_N.htm (Accessed on May 10, 2008)
[9] M. Abul Fazl, “Will Pakistan become another Kampochea?”, Dawn Islamabad. April 12, 2008
[10] Ahmad Faruqui, “The Long Road Ahead”, Dawn Islamabad. February 11, 2008.
[11] ibid
[12] Energy Conservation the only option, Dawn Islamabad. February 10, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment