CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES FOR DEMOCRACY AND SECURITY: PAKISTANS PERSPECTIVE The present discourse on democracy is predominantly dominated

by the issues of security, identities and issues related to the social transformation of societies. The issues concerning both the government and society are surrounded by the debate on liberal and illiberal democratic norms and practices- causing a widening gap between the developed democracies and democracies that continue to be in infancy. 1. The paper generally focuses on the democracy and security related challenges confronted by the conflict-ridden South Asian regional states and in particular Pakistan. Tracing the internal and the e ternal dynamics of the threats confronted, the paper e amines its conse!uential repercussions for the democracy including the societal security. The multiple threats "both home grown and cross-border# are being used by the states to retain several characteristics of national security state- the most visible being the role taken upon itself by the military to ensure the security of the state against all internal and e ternal enemies. The element of $fear% generated alongwith the &ustification applied continues to influence the public debate on the fundamental concepts of sovereignty, territorial integrity, the type and nature of the transnational threats and its impact on the societies. The paper particularly looks into the approaches identified and policies formulated identified by the governments of Pakistan, Sri 'anka, (epal and )ndia in addressing the twin threats i.e. internali*ed threat and e ternali*ed threats. The measures taken during post-conflict period particularly to ensure the reconciliation and integrating of the marginali*ed and those sympathetic to the armed struggle+insurgency have also been critically discussed. ,or e ample Sri 'anka- a country known for multiculturalism and peaceful co-e istence amongst various religious communities is recovering from a long internal ethnic strife- a strife which set into motion a new wave of violence being employed by the insurgents. The -th amendment of the Sri 'anka stated the position of the Sri 'ankan government. The amendment states. $(o person shall directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri 'anka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate state within the territory of Sri 'anka. Anyone who contravenes that provision becomes liable to the imposition of civic disability for upto seven years, the forfeiture of his movable and immovable property / the loss of his passport /)n addition if he is a member of parliament, he loses the seat.% 0. The killing of 1ellupillai Prabhakaran, Tamil leader apparently though has brought an end to violent insurgency, however, their lies a number of serious political challenges for the present government to seriously address. 2ost important for the Sri 'ankan democracy being. 3uilding trust-based relationship with the Tamils 4iaspora 3uilding bridges with the Tamil community living within Sri 'anka 5nsuring socio-political integration of Tamil population 4emilitari*ation of the Sri 'ankan democracy and governance 'ifting of emergency regulations6 substituting war economy with peace economy6 and replacing ultra-nationalist Sinhalese mind-set with Sri 'ankan nationalism.
1

7nlike Sri 'anka in (epal the 2aoist party successfully converged their armed struggle into a social movement. 2ovement that ended the monarchial system and brought a paradigm shift whereby socio-political and legal and economic reforms have been initiated. The armed struggle being more of an outcome of the disillusionment of the 2aoist party with the ab&ect poverty and the (epalese political development after democracy was introduced in 1889. )nspired by the $Shining Path% rebels of Peru the 2aoist party of (epal applied a similar strategy and targetted the government institutions. The developments, following, the bloodless social movement resulted in making Pushpa :amal 4ahal Prachanda as the country%s chief e ecutive. The ;ommon 2inimum program envisaged the immediate relief program and a number of $initiatives to ensure the much need political reforms that would have helped ensure the social transformation6 assisted in integrating the politically marginali*ed in the (epalese social structures. )t is important for the fragil democracy of (epal to reemerge amicably from the current political deadlock. <ow consensual politics would be ensured would largely depend on the conflict+ political behavior of all the democratic forces6 consensus constitution and the integration of the 2aoist fighters in socio-political mainstream. Similarly the governments of 3angladesh, )ndia and Pakistan are confronted with the similar security challenges. A comparative analysis of the ma&or internal conflicts and its conse!uential repercussions for democracy are important for any proper and fuller understanding of the challenges confronted. =. The traditional concepts of sovereignty have somewhat been revised and changed. 5arlier after the demise of the cold war the emphasis shifted from the state-centric security to human security-with greater emphasis on democracy, liberalism, human rights, human development and good governance. >hereas post 8+11 there are again calls for redefining security framework amid fears of failing democracies, the soft state related issues, terrorism, e tremism and threat perception including the so-called $)slamic threat%. The policies that followed the 8+11 incident have changed the global development dynamics. )t has changed the way societies interpret or see themselves or the world. ?ames @osenau and ;*empiel, Aovernance without Aovernment. Brder and ;hange in world politics1880#. )t is not only the anarchic nature of international politics caused by some of the lingering political and territorial disputes but also included are the distorted perceptions and understanding of the issues of soft states such as ineffective institutions, terrorism, fundamentalism and religious e tremism that largely constitute the present-day security concerns. The very concept of the $common security concerns% as an alternative approach for maintenance of peace today is viewed as $enforced% by many. ,or e ample many countries particularly developing muslim countries had &oined the coalition after the 8+11 incident because of the changed international political environment, which was confronted with unilateralism, coercive diplomacy and fear and not because they "then# faced the common enemy.

,oremost among the concerns were the security issues surrounded by the threat perceptions. )n this new political environment-multiculturalism is challenged and issues of assimilation and integration have assumed greater importance.- The issue of e tremism being related to violence and terrorism now poses new challenges to the social construct of society. The challenges confronted by multiculturalism perhaps urgently needed the rationali*ation+ homogeni*ation of culture. >hereas, transition to modernity is viewed as enforced due to global pressures and not "indigenous or a conse!uence of self reali*ation#. >here the society sees the legitimacy of the governments coming from abroad. Today when we talk about moderation or even the reasons for $dysfunctional democracies% we see a tendency where we start identifying the commonalities- >ill such an approach helpC or <ow do we accommodate the !ualitative change that has occurred in societies.- what are the other new modalities neededC And what is meant by civili*ing the society6 )slami*ing the society or democrati*ing the society. )t is important to understand the mind-set that seeks for the &ustification of a particular group having an e clusive right to the truth. Such a mind set continues to prevent any real dialogue and has caused the brutial division at the level of society. )t is e tremely important to identify strategy that helps cope with diversity of moral values "preaching or negating democratic values# both within societies and between cultures. )t is crucial to manage and control such negative tendencies, renounce rhetoric+ and be tolerant of rational disagreementwhich is a way to civili*ed society. The changing nature of conflict and a renewed focus on state- centric security has intensified conflict not only between states but between and within societies and religion. ;onflict between people of socio-cultural belonging poses a new and a serious challenge to peace-peace that is ine tricably linked to harmony and democracy. >e do hear complains of $irrational and aggressive behavior of society-while, for many living in muslim societies the 7S policies are being viewed as a ploy of the west for domination that aims for successful $social engineering% of the societies in the name of democracy. D. The ongoing debate on pluralism, violence and e tremism including intolerance is comple and consists of a number of variegated elements. 2uslims have been described as $indigestible% or $brutal% and $uncivili*ed%. The ongoing concerns on conflict and security therefore do have a religious undertones and which, in my view can be traced to political, ideological, cultural intolerance or bases. The controversies largely woven around democracy, societal security and religious e tremism, ) believe, demands a new paradigm to ensure the socio-cultural understanding- which involves dialogical reasoning to build the bridge alongwith a paradigm of religious understanding which would perhaps encourage a rational development of democracy and civil society institutions. <owever, e!ually important is to change the authoritative coercive mind set. 2ost dialogues are bilateral monologue. E. )n Pakistan, ) feel, we are living in a society where the social mind-set is largely tribal or feudalistic, the legal totalitarian, educational regimentational and religious deductive. <ence their e ists a need to formulate a multipronged strategy. Particularly for those who
3

not only pose a challenge to democracy but to the state and societal security also. <ere ) am referring to the emergence and strengthening of the non state actors+group that poses a challenge to the national security. The reference is not to those that work within the constitutional framework and make a demand for a social change or a constitutional change. This particular category is apriori truth and are reflective of such practices that e ist in a liberal democracy. >hile, it would be wrong to include those who picked-up arms and created violence "for e ample 'al 2as&id episode of violence#-where the writ of the government was challenged. As a matter of fact, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan "TTP# also does not falls in this particular category. The local population included in TTP in the case of Swat violence, to me were rebels, traitors "those challenging the writ of the government# and if it had or has any non-Pakistani involved then they are the invadersstruggling to impose a system by resorting to violence and by generating fear. Perhaps, the development has resulted in theori*ing the $;obweb Paradigm% in international politics-where the armed groups operate without any state control and are involved in transborder conflict. ,or 5 ample, )ndian claim of 7nited 'iberation ,ront of Assam " 7,'A# being based in 3angladesh6 a faction of (ational Socialist council of (agaland leadership being based in 5urope, Thailand and 3urma, )ndian claim of 'ashkar-e-Taiba operating from Pakistan and several other similar groups based in the regional countries. The presence of such groups have undoulitedly added comple ities to the inter and intra state conflict6 have intensified the struggle for dominance between those who are struggling to maintain the status !uo and those who are working for the change6 and definitely has made crises management more daunting. -. )n the case of Pakistan, the onset of the present challenge to the socio-political structures to many is a foreign policy crises i.e. crises that is characteri*ed by threat. Taking threat perception to medium and high levels. Aiving rise to the threat perception particularly at society level which has generated fear and polari*ation both. >here on the one hand the 7nited States is viewed both as a partner "at the governmental level# and an adversary "at people%s level#, while, on the other hand TTP continues to use violence+ terror to make government comply to its demands. The two reactions have caused the $Spiral Process%- which presently being e perienced have strengthened the $enemy syndrome% and seemingly is now the guiding principle of all actions and responses from the two sides. 5!ually important is to build a proper and a fuller understanding of the various attributes of the present crises confronted by the Pakistan which has affected the socio-political structures. The three important being the. "1# system attributes, "0# crises attributes, and "=# actors attributes. The first implies the conte t in which the crises unfolded. )n the case of Pakistan the two very important characteristics of the attributes are conflict environment "i.e. conflict that either made or intensified with the onset of >ar on Terrorism, whereas, the other characteristic is based on identity "i.e. struggle that we have seen between liberal democracy and religious identity#. The crises and the actors attributes in the case Pakistan, in my view were more a conse!uence of the regional political environment and the >ar on Terrorism and hence have been kept out of the
4

scope of this paper. <owever, the conflict behavior in totality is reflective of the $causal link% of all the three attributes. F. Terrorism in the case of some countries "Pakistan included# is also a conse!uence of a conflict between the concept and its understanding. 5!ually important it is to understand the anatomy of the internal conflict-which continues to e ist6 and the anatomy of intolerance and religious e tremism. The threats confronted by the Pakistan democracy and security undoubtedly are inter-linked having cross-border dynamics. The new security challenges therefore demand a radically different approach. >hile, e!ually true it is that the traditional security framework was inade!uate in addressing the issues of human well-being or building the capacity of the government institutions.