What is it that made Pakistan different from India? Both the countries sought independence 60 years back from the British. However, Pakistan spent most of its independent days under military rule!! Why is democracy a difficult concept in Pakistan? Has tolerance any role to play? Have the fundamental ideas made it difficult to bring in democracy?
Definition of Democracy as in wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
- a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
- majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
Definitions of military on the Web as in wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- of or relating to the study of the principles of warfare; "military law"
- characteristic of or associated with soldiers or the military; "military uniforms"
- the military forces of a nation; "their military is the largest in the region"; "the military machine is the same one we faced in 1991 but now it is weaker"
- associated with or performed by armed services as contrasted with civilians; "military police"
An interesting article From Guns to Cereal, Military Dominates Pakistan on http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12759153 talks how deep-rooted military rule is in Pakistan. This article explains how Pakistan became a military regime country and got military aid from western allies.
What is the success story of India or any other country having democracy? Has the tolerant philosophy of these countries help them to remain democratic? As I continued researching further on the idea if tolerance has any major role to play in democracy, I found interesting discussions on the web.
An interview with Bangladesh opposition leader Sheikh Hasina Wajed on The Times, "Democracy Means Tolerance. We Don't Have That", http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060410/int_hasin.html, talks about the intolerance in Bangladesh, and as a result democracy is very difficult concept in that region.
I can continue giving several examples to show how democracy cannot stand in a very intolerant society. Should there be reform in philosophy of those nations to establish democracy?
To love democracy, it is necessary to love it moderately. This phrase summarizes the principal lesson of the thought of Count Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the 19th century's most significant political philosophers.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Sreeparna, 2007-11-08 22:37:03
Here is my rationale for the above quote. I am not an expert on the subject matter, but this is my best assumption. You are most welcome to share some more light to it.
Alexis de Tocqueville is a French guy who came to the United States sometime in 18th century. He was instrumental in laying the foundation of democracy in the United States. In his classic study, Tocqueville and the Nature of Democracy (1982; English trans., 1996), the French philosopher Pierre Manent who wrote about Tocqueville’s philosophy, noted that democracy has always had two sorts of enemies: the declared enemies who wish to abolish democracy outright and restore aristocracy or some other regime that enshrines political inequality; and the “immoderate friends†who seek to extend the central democratic imperative of equality into every realm of life, thus assuring oppressive new inequalities. Both are dangerous; the activities of both shackle freedom, one by design, the other unwittingly. Manent is right that, today, the immoderate friends of democracy are “incomparably more numerous than its enemies.†To love democracy well, he concludes, “it is necessary to love it moderately.â€
It is a paradox— “Tocquevillean paradoxâ€â€”of human life that the highest excellences are almost always achieved through moderate, not extreme, zeal. There is something blinding about zealousness, something that overshoots the mark. Eagerness attracts; over-eagerness repels. “Moderationâ€â€”what the Greeks called sophrosune—is an aristocratic as well as an ancient virtue.
http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/19/nov00/tocque.htm
Just to add few words to my own thought and the reason why I thought it was appropriate for quoting “Tocquevilleâ€, as we see from the above rationale any kind of extremism or fundamentalism, in any religion is detrimental for democratic nation. And I can extrapolate this to tolerance, as tolerance cannot go hand in hand with extremism or fundamentalism!!
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2007-11-08 06:51:46
'To love democracy, it is necessary to love it moderately.'
That is a very quaint statement. Would you like to elaborate on it?
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2007-11-08 01:46:02
You seem to have a definite point there.
Our country has been ready for democracy through the centuries starting from the time our own kings ruled either parts of Bharatavarsha or all of it. We have always had village level self rule. There were conversions and domination of the religious majority in different traumatic ways during the Moghul and the British rule, but village autonomy had not been disturbed to any measurable extent.
I wonder whether continuation of this legacy was possible in those all-Muslim parts of British India, which became Pakistan in 1947.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Just realized that this is the way you want the 'name' to be spelt.
Thanks for the explanation. Tocqueville/Manent seem to warn would-be-democrats from the company of those
'....who seek to extend the central democratic imperative of equality into every realm of life, thus assuring oppressive new inequalities'
Your quote was most appropriate. Your observations were well expressed. India has also begun nurturing along with its crop of democrats, the weeds of democracy who resemble them. We must stay warned.
Regards. Partha.