The recent revival of democracy in South Asia has shifted the balance decisively in favour of democracy, but authoritarian trends continue to dilute the reforming impact of democracy. The possibility of setbacks to democracy cannot be ruled out

South Asia experienced a historical shift towards democracy in 2008 as general elections were held in Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh. In addition, the Maldives held its presidential elections. Nepal also replaced monarchy with a republican system in May 2008.

These are positive signs that demonstrate the acceptability of elections and representation as legitimate methods of governance and political change.

However, if these developments are examined in a historical context, both democracy and authoritarianism, in various overlapping shades are found in South Asia.

Political systems have tended to change even within countries over time, oscillating between democracy and authoritarianism. Pakistan has experienced this cycle as well; its current democratic dispensation is one-year-old and there is widespread sympathy for the democratic process in political and societal circles. However, it is difficult to suggest that democracy has become non-reversible in Pakistan.

Bangladesh returned to democracy after a gap of two years (2007-2009), during which it experienced technocratic-bureaucratic-military hybrid authoritarian rule. The future of democracy in Bangladesh now depends largely on the capacity of the two major political parties to develop consensus on strengthening democracy and working together in relative harmony.

Nepal is now experimenting with republican democratic order. However, the inadequacies of the political players during the phase of constitutional monarchy under the 1990 Constitution are a cause for concern. It remains to be seen if Nepalese political elite can now function differently.

Democracy and authoritarianism do not always function in an exclusive manner and can co-exist. Democracy can adopt some authoritarian characteristics and vice versa. Invariably, democracies have special and emergency provisions in the constitution and law to use authoritarian techniques for dealing with a specified situation. At times, such provisions are used in a highly partisan manner.

Similarly, authoritarian military regimes and monarchical governments have not always been repressive. At times, they allow limited dissent, give some space to political parties and groups, and some freedom to the media.

Authoritarianism is associated with arbitrary authority whose political legitimacy is dubious. It is marked by an overwhelming and intolerant disposition towards individuals and socio-political groups that attempt to function autonomous of the government. The space available to autonomous group activity is limited, and it can change on the whims of the ruler and his close associates.

Authoritarianism assigns a high premium to obedience and low tolerance to open dissent, especially if it challenges the basic features of the authoritarian political and social order. It can manifest under civilian as well as military rule. Invariably, bureaucratic-military regimes have an authoritarian disposition and emphasise hierarchy, firm control, discipline, and absence of ambiguity instead of participation and socio-economic egalitarianism.

Democracy, on the other hand, is the most cherished political system. The minimalist notion of democracy emphasises open and competitive elections, universal adult suffrage and civil liberties. The comprehensive and liberal notion of democracy underlines a number of conditions in addition to elections. These include constitutionalism, the rule of law and basic freedoms at the operational level.

There is no exclusive domain of power for leaders and state institutions that are not accountable to the elected parliament and the electors. An overwhelming role for the military or the bureaucracy is anathema to democracy.

Democracy recognises political, social, cultural and religious pluralism based on individual and group freedoms and a non-discriminatory environment for disadvantaged sections of the population, especially ethnic, regional and religious minorities. There is recognition of an autonomous domain for societal and political activity that enriches democracy.

Democracy also calls for socio-economic equality and equity in theory and practice irrespective of religion, caste, creed, religion and gender, and works towards consensus building through dialogue and accommodation among competing interests rather than insisting on majority rule.

Independence of judiciary and civil and political rights, including freedom of press, expression and association, are also basic pre-requisites of democracy.

In South Asia, democracy has faced challenges from three main sources. First, democratically elected governments pursue policies that undermine the essence of democracy. Overplay of majority rule can easily cause sharp divisions in the polity and undermine democracy in the long run. Unless the political majority recognises that the political minority must stay on board, democracy is threatened. The latter should not lose the hope of political change through constitutional and legal means. Similarly, the opposition or political minority needs to acknowledge the majority’s right to rule, albeit within a constitutional and legal framework.

Second, organised groups threaten democracy. This is more likely if the government violates constitutionalism and rule of law by strictly controlling and manipulating access to state power and the channels of social mobility and political recruitment for new political aspirants.

The rise of religious and ethnic intolerance and extremism is a major threat to the future of democracy These groups use indiscriminate violence to pursue their narrow partisan agendas that in turn threatens civic order and societal stability.

However, terrorism is the most potent threat to democracy, peace and stability in South Asia. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other South Asian countries are threatened by terrorism in varying degrees. The Mumbai attack of November 2008 shows that terrorism also causes serious distortions in inter-state relations in South Asia from time to time.

The third, and perhaps most serious, challenge to democracy in South Asia is the individual’s lack of confidence in political and societal systems. If a large number of people come to the conclusion through their political experience that they cannot bring about any change in power structures and policy, they lose interest in the political system. If such alienation becomes widespread in society, democracy cannot be sustained. Either authoritarian or dictatorial forces take control or the alienated people become vulnerable to extremists.

The challenges to democracy can also be traced to the non-egalitarian socio-economic order in South Asia. Some vestiges of inequality and discrimination can be traced to religious and traditional practices that hinder democracy. Further, acute poverty, underdevelopment and lack of awareness of rights also sustain non-egalitarianism and authoritarian tendencies.

Democracy and authoritarianism will continue to exist in South Asia. This is a struggle for socio-economic equality and participatory governance with constitutional liberalism. The recent revival of democracy in the region has shifted the balance decisively in favour of democracy, but authoritarian trends continue to dilute the reforming impact of democracy. The possibility of setbacks to democracy cannot be ruled out.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

(Daily Times, Sunday, February 15, 2009)