Considering the current levels of violence, an important question to ask is "is democracy compatible with a tribal system?" In Pakistan we see that the leader of a party must come from a particular family line, rather than because he (or she) is the best candidate. This results in a situation where a young university undergraduate, with little experience, changes his name so he can run the party. This seems, at best, farcical. His press interview was not inspiring, did not make the viewer believe that he could fix the massive problems ahead. But he is chosen because of his family.
Think about the established democracies. These did not occur overnight. They took a long time to develop. And they certainly did not develop straight from a tribal system. There were many steps, importantly gradually changing the balance of power and forming a nation first. Unfortunately in some countries democracy has been forced on them, before the first steps have been taken towards a united country. This leads to a situation where tribes (clans, families, castes) still believe that they are likely to be oppressed by the others, the "them and us" is still very embedded in the way of life. This of course then leads to situations where people are accused of cheating. Of those, once in power, trying to protect themselves and their tribe.
1 comment:
Oh I don't know, I mean we seem to have something approximating (mascarading as?) democracy here, based on a sort of tribal system.
Maybe like here, what is needed in Pakistan is a political tribe that they can all rally around in their mutual dislike (a bit like the theory that in any successful shared house, there has to be one housemate that allows all others to bond together in their shared irritation).
Of course what the Pakistani equivalent of 'Tory' is I'm not sure... :-p
(Liz)
presuming the female always needs to be in brackets - helps us remember our place eh?)
Post a Comment