How not to achieve

In South Asia, 75 years is not a young age to die. And Krishna Kant, India's Vice President had nothing left to live for. Perhaps he had harboured hopes of making it to the top ceremonial post of the largest democracy in the world. But the ruling coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) apparently had other plans, and it denied Krishna Kant the opportunity that had often been given to vice presidents in the past. Krishna Kant passed away the week the BJP's nominee, APJ Abdul Kalam, walked into Rashtrapati Bhawan. Embracing death while still in harness is a glory that comes to the chosen few, and he was perhaps lucky that he did not have to spend his last years in anonymity.

Dhirubhai Ambani was the other prominent South Asian who died last month. In a region where wealth is inherited rather than created, Ambani was a kind of pioneer. He exploited the desires of common investors like none before him and, in the process, single-handedly rewrote the rules of the game for managing shareholders' confidence. Ambani's life is often portrayed in the Indian media as a rags-to-riches story of a person destined to be great. Perhaps Lady Luck too played her part in the transformation of a safari-suited salesman into a suiting tycoon. But it would be gross disrespect to the man if we were to attribute all his successes to mere chance. Dhirubhai's ability in convincing common investors that the system could be used if one knew how was perhaps the main propellant that made this man star of India's burgeoning middle-class. Ambani Senior (he has two sons in the trade) was to India's petty traders and salaried class what Laloo Prasad Yadav is to the so-called 'backwards' in Bihar. Charismatic leaders sell dreams and prosper. Be it in politics or business, the basic rule of leadership is the same – you show your vision and sell the idea that it is achievable.

For reasons rooted in South Asian religions and culture, businesspersons in our region do not command the respect that their peers do in the West. Even East Asian societies are far ahead of us in recognising the role of profit-seekers in creating wealth that can be shared around. Sri Lanka gave the democratic world the first ever woman prime minister in human history. Bangladesh is perhaps the only country in the world where both the ruling and opposition parties are led by women. Kerala became the home of the first popularly elected communist government. Man Mohan Adhikary of Nepal was the first communist prime minister in any parliamentary democracy. Sure, this is a Subcontinent of many achievements. But why is it that this region of poverty has failed to present even one noted industrialist, trader or banker as a national personality? One answer may be that, as in most feudal societies dabbling in democracy, politics continues to be the playing field of the landed gentry, lawyers, and the military. The traditional elite maintains a firm grip on the destiny of our societies.

The unsustainability of it all

When even elected posts have fallen prey to the ambitions of the elite, it is not at all surprising that the higher echelon of the military remains the sole preserve of the gentry. Exceptional individuals that rise from the ranks are too few to challenge established authority, and they are willingly co-opted by the class of the top brass. General Pervez Musharraf may be a Mohajir, but he has proven to be no different in his mindset and behaviour than his predecessors, General Ayub Khan and General Zia-ul Haq. Thus, his recent diktat that Pakistan needs a sustainable federal democracy has not convinced anyone – and the entire political leadership of Pakistan has positioned itself against the chief executive and president. General Ayub's experiment in 'controlled' democracy was given the moniker of grassroots or basic democracy. General Zia ruled in the name of Islamic society. And now, another pretender in uniform wants his ride in the chariot in the name of sustainability.

The Swedes and the United States Agency for International Development may use this vague phrase for their programmes in the Third World, but Myalimu (or Teacher Julius K Nyerere) of Tanzania was perhaps the first to define it properly. The Southern African Research and Documentation Centre, an organisation that boasts of Nyerere as its founding patron, believes that the concept of sustainable democracy is based on the perspective: "Democracy is more than just an election. It is a culture that cannot be imposed but must be developed from within". Precisely. But how does one develop the culture of democracy if not through timely and impartial elections? Can a military takeover, no matter what the pretext, ever strengthen democracy? General Musharraf knows that it cannot, but he is hoping that a phrase will save him from the ignominy that is the fate of military rulers, howsoever well intentioned they may be at the outset, as the chief executive doubtless was.

Coining terms to hide their ambitions has always been the favourite game of our leaders. Indira Gandhi's Garibi Hatao, Ayub's Basic Democracy, Bandarnaike's Sinhala Pride, King Mahendra's Partyless Democracy – we have heard them all, and found them insincere to begin with and counter-productive in the end. It is now time for mistakes by the general in Islamabad, for he seems not to recognise the inherent vacuity of his proposal. The general cannot ride into the pages of history books on a horse that is little more than a stale phrase. Apart from the proposal for a joint electorate and the reduction of age of voting from 21 to 18, no other provision of the "Creating Sustainable Federal Democracy" document deserves even a close examination. It is little more than a fig leaf to hide the ambition of a serving general bent upon consolidating all power in his own hands in the name of "Unity of Command". Under the system the general has in mind, no amount of checks can create balance in governance.

Swearing by democracy

It is easy to be critical of the Pakistani regime because men with guns are in charge in Islamabad, but the travails of democracy are no fewer elsewhere in South Asia. Afghanistan is yet to extricate itself from America's War on Terror. The fate of democracy in Bangladesh remains hostage to the clash of egos between the two begums in Dhaka. The Bharat of LK Advani and Narendra Modi (or even Sonia Gandhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav for that matter) has very little resemblance to Jawaharlal Nehru's Idea of India. King Jigme in Bhutan may be morally correct in pursuing Gross National Happiness for his subjects, but he denies individual Bhutanese a say in the determination of their own destiny. In the Burma that is now Myanmar, the common people still bear the curse of the Buddha, suffering having been assigned to their lot when an ancient king stripped off the gold plating of the Buddhas in Ayudhaya (Siam). Maldives may be doing fine thus far under the charge of Uncle Gayum, but it is time we started asking, after him, who?

There is no peace in Nepal, and civil war is hardly the right environment for the nurture of a nascent democracy. After the dissolution of the parliament and the expiry of the term of local government units, it is back to rule by fiat in the Kingdom of Nepal. The traditional elite is in the saddle in Kathmandu like it has not been for half a century, through control of the administration and the army. The press is cowed down and there are too few willing to question authority. It is a nervous time in the island of serendipity as well, as everyone holds their breath willing the negotiations between the Tigers and the government to keep from collapsing. Up in Lhasa, where Beijing's decree runs since Tibet is an Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China, democracy remains as distant a dream as ever.

All in all, South Asia seems to be far behind on the road to democracy even though our leaders swear by it all the time. Given the mess in governance, there was little surprise when the United Nations Development Programme ranked all the countries of this region at the end of its list on the basis of the human development index. South Asia is lagging behind not just in economic growth, but in social equity as well.

But cursing the stage is unlikely to improve the performance of our dance instructors, in Jaffna, Imphal, Srinagar or Karachi. No constitution can guarantee good governance if the entrenched elite of the society is not sincere. For all its ills, democracy is the only system of governance where polling booths decide the fate of the ruler rather than court intrigues and battlefields. General Musharraf's designs need to be condemned all over South Asia because they seek to put the fate of elected persons in the hands of someone who is not answerable. His is an open invitation to anarchy and continuous rebellion – for the general is introducing a virus far deadlier than the greed of petty politicians.

The only way to strengthen democracy is to ensure that generals keep their hands off politics. Aspiring Musharrafs of South Asia must realise that the fundamentals of democracy have remained unchanged since the days of the Magna Carta and the French Revolution – its three pillars are still liberty, equality and solidarity. These are values that no armed force of the world can deliver. Elections may leave a lot to be desired, but they ensure that the likes of Krishna Kant have higher chances of dying of old age rather than being killed in a coup or a rebellion.

The excuse that military rule is good for the economy is another fallacy that needs to be exposed yet again. Some Pakistani commentators have been shamelessly promoting this theory, citing the growth rate of the Zia years. But those were the days when American overlords footing the bill of a neo-imperial war in a frontline state overlooked the excesses in Pakistan. But these are times when entrepreneurs like the late Dhirubhai Ambani can spur growth and others seek to establish social justice in the land. That can happen only in a democracy.

General Musharraf must understand that no one other than the common citizen of Pakistan has the right to decide the fate of a country that grew out of a desire of a section of Muslim Indians to be masters of their own destiny. Disqualifying over 90 percent of the national population from holding public office just because they are not graduates is nothing but a ploy that no one is ready to buy. All it will do is cause the rise of more Osamas.

Pakistan's future seems already mortgaged, at least in the short term. Let not others in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh or India look to the Musharraf example as something to emulate.