Human Rights and Democratic Development in Pakistan

by Hina Jilani

Part I

The Conceptual Framework

     The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development endeavours to understand democracy in relation to the social, economic and political impact on citizens of conditions generated by a given system of governance. The Centre emphasizes both the design and functioning of institutions of governance, as well as the process of empowerment of marginalized sectors of society in the political and economic decision-making that affects them. The Centre believes that a democratic society is one within which all human rights are fully respected and space is created for "equality of condition, not simply of opportunity" (1). It is through this approach that the Centre has developed the linkages between democracy and human rights, underscoring the interdependency and indivisibility of political and civil rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other.

     In order to construct its analysis in regard to a specific country, the Centre has developed a conceptual and analytical framework for assessing the state of democratic development. This framework is applied through the lens of internationally recognized human rights criteria. This study on Pakistan is based on that framework. The framework itself, however, could be used in any country(2). In this first section of the study, the major elements of the framework are summarised.

      The Centre's conviction that "civil society is the key element in determining whether or not an effectively democratic society exists", has placed civil society institutions at the centre of any examination of the quality of democracy and the state of human rights. Civil society is seen as "the sum of all non-family social institutions and associations in the country" which are autonomous, independent of the State and capable of significantly influencing public policy (3). In a democratic civil society, the important characteristics of civil associations would include, apart from autonomy and independence, prevalence of a culture of tolerance and dialogue, and an environment where there is a substantive equality of access to the State for all groups without discrimination based on gender, race, religion or ideology.

      Civil society institutions would thus include religious organizations, NGOs, trade unions, citizens' groups, the media, political parties and other interest groups such as business organizations. The family is not an institution of civil society, but it is important in conditioning civil society through its role in learning and socialization, and as an environment favouring realization of the human person. It also invites scrutiny as an institution that promotes, denies or violates rights of certain of its members. (The fact that the family is not considered a part of the civil society does not deny its crucial significance as a "locus of the violation of the human rights of women and children"(4), nor should the fact be ignored that its structure and functions are largely determined by public policy. The standards of treatment and behaviour in the "private sphere" find expression in two major international Conventions (Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women), which represent an international consensus on these standards. While the role of civil society institutions is largely associated with the "public" sphere, a discussion of these cannot ignore the fact that the very concept of "civil society" designates a zone of interaction between the "public" and the "private" spheres. The "private" sphere is instrumental in generating the conditions which shape collective public action.

     Ability of groups to influence public policy is measured by their capacity to help set the public agenda, and their ability to influence the process and outcome of public policy. Effectiveness of groups depends largely on the adequacy of their human and financial resources, their organizational capabilities and advocacy skills. This effectiveness is enhanced by the level of tolerance and interaction amongst diverse sectors of civil society, which facilitates setting common objectives for policy advocacy. Democratic organization within civil society is an ongoing process. Political autonomy of civil society with respect to the State requires continuous negotiation and redefinition. A culture of tolerance has to be kept alive in order to sustain vibrancy in dialogue within civil society, and to ensure and defend equality of access to the State.

      The measure of a society's level of democratic development is reflected in the vitality of its civil society. Institutionalization of norms and practices in democratic governance allows for the creation of effective mechanisms for facilitating interactive relationships between the State and civil society. Under these conditions the citizen not only has access to the State but is also equipped with means of systematically monitoring State policy decisions and their implementation. Another element indicating the level of democracy is the power of the majority to secure their rights and legitimate interests against the vested interest of powerful elites. A necessary condition for a fully functioning democracy is the respect for the entire body of human rights, not only in their formal recognition and promotion by the State but in the effective exercise of these rights by civil society and citizens, collectively and individually.

      The vitality of civil society enhances its capacity to manage the tensions of pluralism. Citizenship does not abolish class conflict or diversity. It nevertheless does imply some consensus on what constitutes the "common good" and how to reconcile it with pluralism. Such reconciliation is only possible where there is "agreement that 'public interest' does exist and that the parties have the right to participate in its elaboration and in the obligation of submission to society's laws" (5). It is the responsibility of the State to cultivate the notion of citizenship and its implications for citizen behaviour amongst the population.

      Whether modernization and democratic institutionalization are mutually supportive is a major debate concerning processes of transition to democracy. The framework developed by the Centre addresses this issue. Are the States in transition to democracy really evolving towards democracy along with their economic modernization? Another aspect of the debate is the question as to whether procedural democracy(6) is, on the one hand, sufficient to found claims of legitimacy by the State and, on the other, whether it promises justice and respect for human rights. "A State that is incapable of defending its legality maintains a system of democracy of low intensity citizenship ... A situation in which one can vote freely and be confident that the vote will be properly scrutinized, but where one cannot expect just treatment from the police or from the administration of justice, all of which calls seriously into question the liberal component of that democracy and which gravely restricts citizenship." (7)

      Le Centre met en garde contre l'acceptation aveugle de la théorie selon laquelle le modèle néolibéral de l'économie de marché débouche automatiquement sur la démocratie. Au contraire, il appert de plus en plus que le néolibéralisme est incapable de défendre et de réaliser l'ensemble des droits humains. Étant donné qu'il envisage la démocratie en tant que modèle de société et non simplement modèle d'État, le Centre oeuvre à l'élaboration et à la promotion d'un modèle d'économie de marché qui favorise au maximum l'exercice des droits plutôt que de le minimiser.

      The Centre cautions against the unquestioning acceptance of the argument that the neo-liberal model of a market economy automatically leads to democracy. On the contrary, it would increasingly appear that the neo-liberal state is incapable of defending and actualizing the full family of human rights. The Centre being committed to democracy as a model of society and not simply as a model of State, is committed to the development and promotion of a model of market economy which maximizes, rather than undermines, rights.

     When democracy is conceptualized as encompassing both political and developmental democracy, its linkages with human rights become clearer. While recognizing the importance of representation and formal democratic processes, this vision of democracy highlights the role of civil society institutions in creating democratic space for popular participation stretching beyond political decision-making and into effective participation in the distribution of power and resources. The capacity to play this role can only be built where the democratic ideal includes equality of condition as well as of opportunity. It is in this context that freedom from want and hunger becomes as significant as freedom from torture. Responsibility of the State for alleviating conditions that obstruct the attainment of education and basic health care becomes as important as its responsibility for ensuring life, liberty and security of the person. The level of democratic development can, therefore, be assessed through the lens of human rights.

     With this approach in mind the Centre identified key criteria for measuring democratic development. These criteria are grouped in four baskets of rights, namely, security, participation, welfare and non-discrimination(8). The criteria are drawn from the International Bill of Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Each of the chosen criteria is central to its contribution to the "dignity and worth of the human person". There is no claim that the choice of criteria is indisputable. Its purpose is to underscore the interdependency and indivisibility of all human rights. The criteria represent rights that make a life of dignity and worth possible, and the absence or abuse of any of them diminishes the prospects for the dignity of the human person.

The Application of the Democratic Development Framework in Pakistan

The framework developed by the Centre has been used for the study of Pakistan's democratic development to measure the level of democracy, and to assess the potential of civil society institutions for advancing or eliminating emerging trends that heighten or reduce the prospects for democracy in Pakistan. Aspects of social and State structures have been examined in the light of the country's social and political history, its constitutional and legal framework, and the values reflected in the design and functioning of its institutions. The capacity of these structures to promote both democracy and human rights is the focus of the examination. The analysis of the State and civil society in the context of rights to participation and security, rule of law and the administration of justice, rights of collectivities(9), and the state of democratic institutions (10) is based on the link between democracy and human rights. Access to the State is measured by the extent to which the right of participation is effective, together with the exercise of the associated freedoms of information, opinion, expression and association. Some concrete cases(11) have been used to examine the organizational capacities of civil society and its ability to influence the process and outcome of public policy. The section on security rights, while examining the conduct of the State and its agencies, also examines the role of non-State actors in security of life, liberty and person. Political and social tensions which render certain categories of people more vulnerable than others are also discussed. This discussion indicates the level of marginalization of different groups in society and the extent to which the social, and political environment is conducive to their development.

      While political and social conditions are indicators of the level of democracy achieved by a country, they do not portray the complete picture if State policies and the legal framework are not studied with respect to the realization of economic rights. The most basic illustration of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights is the effect of political conditions on economic rights, or the impact of extreme material inequality on political stability and guarantees for civil and political rights. This aspect of democratic development can be assessed by the degree to which welfare rights are effective. These rights concern the basic human needs to food and shelter as well as to employment. The criteria for measuring this basket of rights are education, health care, labour rights and environment. In recent times, these rights have come under duress because of the lack of clarity in defining their legal status and sanctions for their enforcement and justiciability, on the one hand, and, on the other, because of the diminishing role of the State in social programmes. This has increased poverty amongst the already disempowered sections of tsociety. It has also adversely affected the capacity of the poor to organize in order to ensure recognition of their economic rights.

      National and international political economy is now profoundly determined by globalization. Any study of Pakistan's democratic development would remain incomplete without an analysis of economic policies adopted in response to economic crises, worsened by the ever-increasing debt burden. Defence expenditure remains a major portion of the domestic budget. No foreign policy shifts or initiatives for negotiating regional peace are apparent as potential reductions in defence expenditure. Social sector spending is the first to suffer cuts in this scenario. Structural adjustment policies dictated by the international financial institutions (IFIs) have ignored the social cost of these cuts, as well as the consequential decline in people's welfare rights. The government's privatization polici (12), economic reform packages, and withdrawal of subsidies undermine poverty alleviation plans and measures. As a result, people feel shut out of policy-making, a process to which only the government and the IFIs are privy. Dissatisfaction with governmental policies is manifesting itself through labour unrest. Almost every action taken in pursuance of these policies is challenged in courts, where cases remain pending while hardships increase. In any case, it is doubtful whether the judicial system can respond adequately to this complex situation. Nor can it transcend the pressures faced by the State in order to offer any acceptable solutions. Social instability is becoming more and more visible in the form of declining law and order. The State has surrendered its autonomy to frame economic and social policies to the IFIs, and has thereby rendered itself incapable of responding to public demands. This is likely to add even more serious dimensions to the already existing crisis of governance, causing a further deterioration of the state of human rights and dimming the prospects for democracy in Pakistan.

     This study, while mentioning some aspects of social, cultural and economic rights, does not fully discuss all the issues mentioned above. In this respect it remains unfinished. The subject warrants a thorough examination in the light of current events. The conclusions and recommendations presented here, while necessarily touching also on economic, social and cultural issues, concern primarily questions related to civil and political rights and the fundamental democratic imperative of the right to participation.

NOTES

 1)     Roads to Democracy : Human Rights and Democratic Development in Thailand. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Bangkok/Montreal, 1994. Return

 2)     See: Nancy Thede et al., The Democratic Development Exercise: A Discussion Paper. Terms of Reference and Analytical Framework. Montreal: International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Occasional Paper, July 1996. The document is available on the ICHRDD website (www.dd-rd.ca). Return

 3)     Ibid. Return

 4)     Ibid. Return

 5)     Ibid. Return

 6)     The author uses the term 'procedural democracy' for situations where periodical elections are employed as means of claiming legitimacy through representation, but the nature of the State and the system of governance lack essential elements of democracy.Return

 7)     G.O' Donnell (1993), as quoted in Ibid. Return

 8)     On the basis of previous applications of this analysis in Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, and El Salvador, the Centre has substantially revised its framework. It now also includes baskets concerning collective rights, political institutions and the rule of law. Return

 9)     Such as minorities and women. Return

10)     Such as the legislature, the judiciary and political parties. Return

11)     Political parties, religious groups, trade unions, the press and other media, non-governmental development and human rights organizations. Return

12)     Privatization of public sector concerns, including services and utilities like power, water and gas is one of the most critical concerns in relation to people's economic rights. Return