The political uncertainty in Pakistan has put its moribund economy in touch-and-go condition. Failure to compromise among political elites in the recent past virtually converted the country into a ‘deadlocked democracy.’ However, post-9th May events have further dwindled the chances of political consolidation.  One might argue that mitigating aberrant political behaviors among actors has unlocked new vistas for a tradeoff. Still, it might be terminal to be oblivious to the factors of the widening gap between the elites and the citizens and the response from international actors about recent political developments in Pakistan.  

Recent erudite discussions published in a few national dailies have portrayed a rather pessimistic picture of elite capture in the country and offered an idealistic solution to redress the quagmire. This article aims at finding pragmatic policy options to thwart imminent perils to democratic consolidation. World Development Report, 2017, about “Governance and The Law,” believes that power asymmetry shapes the policy arena, and there is a need to enhance the role of law in the countries being mindful of the power of the actors in the policy arena. The report advocates a functioning policy cycle instead of the traditional six-stage cycle of public policy. Hence, we cannot deny or exclude apolitical actors from the policy-making process. 

Hitherto, it has been advocated that the political policy arena can neither divorce bargain, and compromise nor the existence of apolitical actors having the power to influence the policy-making process. However, the dismal dubbing of Pakistan as a case of abject state capture also needs to be addressed here. Elite capture is a necessary evil in the developing democracies and Pakistan is no exception to it. 

The theory of consociationalism developed in the late 1960s and refined by Arend Lijphart and others proposes a top-down two staged process for political consolidation. In the first stage, government by the elite cartel with a fragmented political culture should be transformed into a stable democracy by maximizing the number of stakeholders and inducing bargains and compromise among them. In the second stage, the leaders promote conciliation among their supporters and followers to create a social balance. 

Events of 9^th May, 2023 aimed at upsetting the political applecart, resulted in tumult in the policy arena. The events however broke the impasse in the deadlocked democracy. Precarious macroeconomic conditions coupled with the ending tenure of the 15^th National Assembly of Pakistan have left Pakistan with few policy options to proceed further.  

Some voices in the power corridors seem to support lingering on the elections to the 16^th National Assembly for economic consolidation before democratic consolidation. Robert Dahl, Martin Lipset, and Dankwart Rustow seemingly support the idea that wealthy nations have greater chances to sustain democracy. It has been argued that though poverty alleviation and democracy both are important for public policy yet development should be given preference over democracy. Pippa Norris’s statistical analysis of available data also supports the argument that richer economies have better chances for political consolidation. 

 Political turmoil in Pakistan is being observed with caution by international stakeholders and is a hiccup to investment in Pakistan. A recent survey by Gallup has revealed that 27 percent of the firms believe that political instability in Pakistan is their biggest obstacle. Hence, lingering on general elections for the sake of economic stability may further aggravate the economic woes of the country. Persson and Tabellini, and Halperin Siegle and Weinstein believe that political stability and democratic consolidation lead to social welfare and macroeconomic stability.   

Conducting elections during ongoing political and economic instability has its perils and prospects too. It might be argued that significant adjustments of political power in the policy arena have deterred the impact of antagonism among political elites but there seems to be a wide gap between the preferences of the citizens and the elites. Albeit the fact that there is little data-driven research or political think tanks in Pakistan that keep on collecting and interpreting data regarding changes in electoral behaviors and preferences of the voters yet it may be presumed that the impact of change in power asymmetry apropos of the voting pattern is highly uncertain. 

The elections, if conducted on time under the ongoing status quo, may result in any of the three policy scenarios. If the ongoing political equilibrium remains unchanged, the elections would be considered without democratic consolidation because electoral managers have been under scathing criticism in the recent past, and their public perception is shady. The post-election crisis of governability could not be addressed if cosmic changes are made for improving the election atmosphere without permitting all political actors into the field. Such circumstances would neither create congeniality among the citizens for the governance nor muster the requisite support from international actors.  

In the third scenario, all political actors may be permitted into the electoral fray with reasonable freedom to impact the electoral outcome. Such elections may get support from international actors however, the outcome of elections may plunge the country into a deep crisis keeping in view polar positions in a power asymmetry. 

Probable policy impacts of the political morass may either be the rolling up of the constitutional power-sharing dispensation that is already under clouds due to the absence of the two provincial assemblies or, the actors in the political arena would have to go back to the basic principles of the bargain and compromise enunciated by the theory of consociationalism.

The track record of the acrimonious political history of Pakistan does not provide any rational justification for a broader compromise among political elites. Power concentrating electoral framework leaves little room for the losers to cooperate and the tendency of democratic autocracy is on the rise among the winners.  Besides, a bulge in the number of frustrated, agile youth among citizens is posing a potential challenge to the status quo. 

The perspectives encourage political actors to come up with a short or medium-term post-election all-inclusive setup for national reconciliation. Though numerical strength may be important to float the policy proposals yet approvals may be subject to minority veto for ensuring broader consensus. A charter of the economy is already a fashionable idea for political consensus but that alone would not be sufficient for reaching up to a pre-election compromise.

Hence, the probability of power-sharing regimes under the in-vogue parliamentary setup, and implementation upon horizontal and vertical distribution of power within the asymmetrical political arena (in accordance with the consociational theory) may also be included to cater to the pragmatic political interests of stakeholders. Such short-term measures might be helpful for bridging the ever-increasing elite versus citizen gulf and the edifice for long-term political consolidation in Pakistan.

Before talking about a paralyzed state, let’s look into the qualities of a healthier one. A typical list of qualities for an ideal state includes freedom of speech, equality, employment, access to free media, women’s empowerment, justice, discipline, development, wisdom, reasoning, knowledge, self-sufficiency, the absence of hostilities within or outside the state, democracy, and all other pleasant state characteristics.

What would be the reverse, then? Maybe altering the ideal state qualities. But sometimes, sick states fall much lower than one could imagine. To drive or even to drag such a disabled body isn’t a walk in the park. Here we can use the term “intentional paralyzing”. One can try to eliminate natural disability, but if paralysis is intended, no amount of effort will be able to address it.

What techniques might aid in breathing life back into an expired body?

As we all know, a body is paralyzed when the mind stops working. And this formula is as it is applied to a society in order to have complete control of it. At first, people’s ability to think critically is curbed through fabricated opinion builders so that they become deaf to wisdom. This creates chaos as the hast of jumping to the conclusion becomes a habit/norm thus forming the basis of social paralysis. But history has preserved the thoughts of great minds that can guide us the way to drive out a stupefied state of mind.

Rousseau’s perspective of state:

In order to make a state workable, several philosophers have offered varying perspectives. Let’s look at Rousseau’s theory and attempt to apply it to the situation in the present. Rousseau draws the concept of state of nature. Where the natural conditions were peaceful, non-conflictual, isolated, solitary, self-centered neither happy nor unhappy Many nations now experience an artificial state of nature because they share many of the characteristics of Rousseau’s state of nature stated above.

Rousseau presented this thesis, which was framed by the violence, injustice, tyranny, exploitation, and authoritarianism that prevailed in France at the time. Similar things are occurring in third-world nations now. According to history, his “social contract theory” served as the impetus for the French Revolution. Thus, we can argue that there are two potential solutions to this problem. Revolt or an artificial state of nature/social contract.

To what type of societies social contract theory is applied?

Rousseau portrays a peaceful and calm state of nature converting to “Society” with the arrival of the concept of “Private property”. This ultimately brought in/raised the concept of good and bad which led to the formation of a “society”. As the man became civilized, he lost two of his qualities including freedom and pity. Man became dependent and the natural feeling of compassion replaced envy and competition. The society entered a “state of war” So, man decided to go back to the state of nature to experience freedom again. It is not humanly possible to go back in the past, for that matter, Rousseau suggests the creation of an artificial state of nature. He explains that as society has evolved, we need to have a contract in order to get rid of dependence and inequality. The social contract will basically be the “general will” of the people, which is not bound to any individual, agency or third party, rather it is the collective interest of a community/all individuals of society.

Following the general will is like following oneself. And this is how people become free as they were before. In such setups, general will is an idea that can be implemented in the shape of laws, and the government as an agency can enforce them. The crux of the whole explanation could be, there should be a sense of protection of life and property of each member of society, also people should obey themselves under general will. If this criterion is not being fulfilled by the government, then the contract is revocable.

But Rousseau also addresses some of the significant questions regarding society and rights. If we take a glance at the present societies, we can observe the prevalence of “Might is right ”. This menace is not confined to the state structure but also has chained the international system into its shackles. Viewing the world order, we can see a race between the states to become the mightiest in order to grab the sole superpower status. In this regard, Rousseau argues that force constitutes a right? By nature, right is free from the chains of strength and weakness. The mighty cannot enslave the weaker and also, the weaker, on acquiring strength, cannot exploit the precursory potent. 

Next, he asks about giving up liberty through convention.

At the international level, various agreements are now being signed by states. where they must give up a portion of their rights in order to abide by the terms of the agreement. UN, NPT, KYOTO Protocol, etc. However, these treaties take into account the overall will of the states. States voluntarily give up their rights in this case. However, deciding to give up all of your freedom is not an option. Accepting slavery, according to Rousseau, means you are not a human being, which goes against human nature. You become what you are not. Slavery and justice contradict each other. Slavery is, therefore never an option for nations to practice.

There are few strategies that Rousseau suggests in order to achieve sovereignty/liberty.

He proposes the look after of the general will of society by submitting your rights, since the society has right over you, at the same time it has a right over your property as well so that any unlawful acts could be curbed to keep the order of the society maintained. For that matter, all are accountable before the law.

Finally, do we lose anything in the social contract? Rousseau opines that instead of losing people only gain. E.g.: From no rights to better rights. Therefore, a closer look of the world today manifests that there are two extremes that take place in today’s societies.  The developed states are existing in an artificial state of nature where there is social contract among people with some exceptions. And under-developed states are in a transition period where there is the existence of society and exploitation in the name of private property. But here, the social contract of general will is yet to be penned!