Democracy is a system that has evolved over a long period of time. However, to deliver its fruits to the people takes time. When we look at developed countries, democracy has delivered to the people of those countries after a hundred or more years. According to American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory on the hierarchy of needs, the basic need that an individual has is that of food, security and shelter. The notion of self-respect and actualization comes towards the last stages. Looking at our present democratic systems in this developing Asia, we could assume our hierarchy of needs has been inverted, with the need of stable, democratic and rule-bounded society as the basic for all individuals.
Several factors have enlivened the practice of democracy. Yet, economic discontent, social unrest, unemployment, the role of foreign government institutions, and people’s aspirations provided the context of democratization. In South Asia, parties initially took shape as movements and vehicles for mass mobilization, articulating democratic aspirations of the people and shaping nationalist consciousness. However, some founding parties met with their demise, creating political vacuums into which new parties could enter.
Over the last two years, virtually the entire population of South Asia has had the opportunity to take part in elections, and the voters have shown a marked desire to send their leaders packing. There was plenty of evidence for this already, including Pakistan’s first democratic transfer of power and, last May, India’s epic rejection of the party that has dominated the country since independence.
In Nepal, the transformation of the Himalayan kingdom to a republic, from a unitary state to federalism, and from a religious to a secular state - have been monumental. Nepal was rocked by a civil war for a decade between 1996 and 2006, when the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) decided to pick the gun and wage an armed revolt to establish a communist state. The country was then governed by the 1990 constitution, which provided for a constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. A deal was struck in 2005 whereby parties and Maoists came together; a People’s Movement was waged in 2006; the monarch had to surrender and accept sovereignty lay with the people; Maoists ended their war and became a part of the democratic structure; and elections were held for a Constituent Assembly in 2008. If framed with the right set of policies which is inclusive of the polarized society, the new constitution has the potential of making Nepal a great nation - one with democratic institutions, social harmony, and economic prosperity.
Sri Lanka showed that democracy can triumph in the face of nepotism, as it was turning out to be so. The incumbent president had created an atmosphere of hushed silence and fear, bringing judiciary to heels. The announcement of surprise elections was mere official protocol to bring about a third six-year term for the president. However, an astonishing defeat shows the power of electoral franchise. It is a different debate whether Sri Lanka can work out a amicable future for itself, but the established fact for the time being is that democracy self-selects a better alternative of government.
Burma’s forty-five years of military rule have seen periodic popular uprisings and lingering ethnic insurgencies, which invariably provoke harsh military responses and thereby serve to perpetuate and strengthen military rule. In August and September 2007, nearly twenty years after the 1988 popular uprising in Burma, public anger at the government’s economic policies once again spilled into the country’s city streets in the form of mass protests. On the 4th of this month, the nation celebrated its independence day-quiet a paradox in the face of authoritarian regime which disallows freedom of expression. Myanmar’s government adheres to rhetoric exercise diligently, propounding political transformation while the nation has failed to sustain development on education, health, transportation, and the economy due to fragile stability and the problems with rule of law. After 67 years of independence, there are no electricity supplies, clean water systems and modern hospitals in public areas.
For the people of Pakistan, having fought against its military rulers for democracy, they find themselves once again in the midst of an entrenched military authority, albeit “approved” through elections. Pakistan does not fit the trend of global democratic triumph; democracy has neither been fully consolidated, nor have the economic conditions that are expected to give solid foundations to democracy being achieved. Nevertheless, 84 percent of the citizens of Pakistan consider that democracy is suitable for their country. However, Pakistan has the highest levels of identified non-democrats of any country in the region and 50 percent of the respondents are indifferent to democratic rule. Pakistan has been marred with military rule, explicit in the past and now behind the garb of presidential governance. Both the judiciary and legislature, in all effect run on military dictate. The thinking of the current leadership has virtually brought the country on the verge of amendment of their constitution.
India, over the past two decades has changed from a country dominated by a single nationwide party into a robust multiparty and federal union, as regional parties and leaders have risen and flourished in many of India’s twenty-eight states. The regionalization of the nation’s political landscape has decentralized power, given communities a distinct voice, and deepened India’s democracy, Bose finds, but the new era has also brought fresh dilemmas. There is a double movement in the Indian polity-the attempt is to create a market oriented society which invariably is compelling a movement from below of the masses to moderate the negative effects of free-market. The three major processes that are shaping the future are economic transformation of a second kind (different from the 1990s), emergence of Hindu nationalism and popular democratic nationalization. In the coming two decades, the plausible shift of entire villages and towns into cities, either through definitional changes or as being subsumed under existing cities, will create a major force of men and women, majorly in the age group of 18-32, to be reckoned with. The idea of deepening democratic systems in the nation, to the lowest level of functional body is open to debate as governance, what is understood in popular parlance today, is still segmented, i.e., it has not been a process of inclusion. There have been many left out from this democratic upsurge, while those riding on this wave of transformation have steady increased their clout of influence.
Overall, South Asia’s political situation reflects a shifting process, where the various spatial arrangements rub across one another, sharing a common set of democratic norms and a shared history. The diversity of culture, language and terrain is reflected in its political landscape. As a united geopolitical region, we have lessons to learn from each other on various aspects. Some nations have shown remarkable resilience to instability and have developed community-based social infrastructure, thereby, proving the prominent role of women in society. Education, health, inequality have remained and will remain the typical issues of cause and effect for the 1.7 billion people in this geography. While one has to live with malice of ill-government, one has to learn the science of united democracy. Somewhere tyranny is being put to challenge and elsewhere, citizens have reposed the faith in equality of all. If we could imagine such geography, where the entire South Asian community puts its weight behind participatory democracy, a situation where every citizen has say in decision making process and not just through vote, then we are on the right path of development.
