The Stunt of Joint Electorate

Attempts to make controversial the well-settled issues can in no way be regarded as good omen for the nation. This is to create confusion and mental vacillation by keeping the nation engaged in an unending debate. Those of intellectuals, media people, and politicians are doing this are, in the words of Qur’an, like the woman "who breaks the yarn which she has spun into untwisted strands, after it (the yarn) has become strong." (Al-Nahl 16: 92)

Pakistan enjoys a unique position in the recent history of Muslims. This country has come into being as a result of a conscious, popular and democratic struggle – a struggle of the Muslims of the subcontinent. There can be no doubt that Pakistan is the homeland of all those who are settled here and that under a social contract the rights of all are to be respected. But the fact that cannot be neglected is that this country’s coming into being owes neither to military action, nor does any nation or group save the Muslims had a role in its creation. Furthermore, it was a struggle not only of those Muslims who used to inhabit those areas where the flag of freedom was hoisted; it was rather a struggle of the Muslims of the entire subcontinent. It is the result of the sacrifices of all these Muslims and all have equal rights on it. Foremost is the fact that it was not a matter of independence of an area, it was a struggle for the solution to the subcontinent’s political imbroglio, for the clear identification of destination for the Muslim of the subcontinent and their future, and finding the highway to that destination. This movement was a covenant with Allah, the Muslim nation, and the history itself, that resulted in the shape of the independent state of Pakistan.

The plan for the division of the subcontinent was clearly an act of dividing a country along ideological lines that was accepted by the British government, Muslims of the subcontinent and the Congress after long discussions and debate, reconciliation and understanding. Under a social contract, two independent states came into being, each with its own distinct identity. This identity of Pakistan was given a legal and practical shape first in the Objectives Resolution and then in the Constitutions of 1956 and 1973. It rests on three pillars, which are symbols of the nation’s consensus: State’s Islamic identity, its democratic order, and its federal system. These three points are agreed upon and uncontroversial. These are mutually coordinated and contribute to each other’s strength.; and their importance is in the order in which these are written in the Objectives Resolution and the Constitution. Such an action that may emasculate and weaken any of these or which may harm them amounts to disloyalty with Pakistan and betrayal to the martyrs of Pakistan Movement. It is the responsibility of every nation to protect its foundations, to cut the hand that dares to attack them, and render its attack ineffective.

The issue of the system of election concerns with all these three foundations. Those who are talking of joint electorate, pretending innocence and in the name of liberal democracy and equality, are, knowingly or unknowingly, harming the foundations of Pakistan. They cannot be allowed to continue with this game. This game was played in connection with the issue of Blasphemy and the same condemnable game is being played again with respect to the issue of the system of elections. These overtures are all being made by a certain clique that at times cries for democracy and at others claims that these issues have nothing to do with Deen (the religion); some times it raises the issue of minorities’ rights, and at some it bewails the situation of basic rights. The ludicrous extent of this is that the stunt finds a mention even in the report of the Women Commission’s. In the fore-front is the clique that in the garb of NGOs is active in promoting Western civilization and values and that has the backing of secular forces of the world. But, in sharp contrast to all these forces, Pakistan came into existence as a result of the struggle of the subcontinent’s Muslims and would continue to stand on its foundations, God willing, despite these element’s stratagem. It is, however, necessary to understand and face a challenge or trickery, for this is the way through which nations achieve their objectives, realize their aspirations, and provide for their protection and progress.

In the history of the subcontinent, the issue of the system of elections had assumed importance well in the beginning of the 20^th century. With the question of peoples’ representation in government bodies it was quite natural to ask as to ‘who would represent whom?’ And what would be the foundation for this? While the British and the Hindu leadership of the Congress were talking of a single system of elections for all those who lived in India, Muslims were asserting that theirs was a distinct national identity and that the system of joint electorate on the basis of so-called neutrality, ignoring religion, culture, civilization and separate national interests, would practically amount to their disenfranchisement since Hindu population was three times larger than theirs. Till then, there was no talk of the country’s division. Rather, there was a great clamor for Hindu-Muslim Unity. But, Muslims asserted their separate distinct identity the moment the issue of power sharing and elections raised its head up and, ultimately, the principle of Separate Electorate was accepted in 1909 in the place of joint ballot. This issue was raised with full force again on the occasion of Simon Commission and Nehru Report (1928-29). Despite the stiff opposition of the Congress, and of Pundit Nehru in particular, the Muslims did not compromise on their separate identity. Some Muslim leaders who were reluctant in the beginning, came out of their dawdling and struggled to get the collective decision of the Muslims accepted, rather they started to converge at its logical demand i.e., the division of the country on the basis of Hindu and Muslim majorities.

The stance of the secular forces was that religion was a private matter, having nothing to do with politics, state, and electoral process. Whereas Muslims claimed that their religion (Deen) was not restricted to individual’s beliefs and worship, it is also the basis of their nationhood and shapes their collective character. West’s liberal and secular democracy cannot be the destination for Muslims. The democracy that Muslims champion is rooted in Allah’s Sovereignty and the framework of Shariah, and that Deen and politics (religion and state) are not about two different worlds. Just like worship, their politics is regulated by Deen (teachings of the religion).

Iqbal summed this up in his historical address of 1930. He explained the difference between Western thought and civilization and Islamic ideology and history, and this became the basis of Pakistan Movement and its raison d’etre. He said:

What, then, is the problem and its implications? Is religion a private affair? Would you like to see Islam, as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and reject it as a polity in favor of national politics in which religious attitude is not permitted to play any part?…

The nature of the Prophet’s religious experience, as disclosed in the Qur’an, however, is wholly different. It is not mere experience in the sense of a purely biological event, happening inside the experiment and necessitating no reactions on his social environment. It is individual experience creative of a social order. Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled merely because their origin is revelational. The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Therefore the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim. (Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal, pp. 166-7)

This unique bearing and historical role of Islam required that state system be based on Islamic identity and ideological unity of Muslims, and other nations and groups are guaranteed rights to live, progress and play their collective role in the system. An Islamic state establishes its collective and political system on this very ideological consciousness. Neither this identity of Muslims is weakened nor other nations are deprived of their identity in the name of collectivity. This is a state of nationalities, rather than a single nation. That is how collective cooperation and stability is achieved on the basis of a credible pluralism. The system of organizations during the Ottoman Caliphate presents us with a historical example of this pluralism. In the subcontinent, the same objective was achieved through the system of separate electorate. And to realize these very objectives and aims after attaining independence, the Muslims of Pakistan tried to shape this system in such a way as to ensure full representation of the Muslim nation and to provide full opportunity to other nations and religions for sending their representatives to political institutions according to their own beliefs and concepts. This system does not base on any discrimination, rather it is a healthy and judicious effort to allow the real social plurality to flourish on the political horizon and play its due role. Quaid-e-Azam has elaborated this fact in clear words:

We (the Hindus and Muslims) are different in everything. We differ in our religion, our civilization and culture, our history, language, our architecture, music, jurisprudence and our society, our dress – in every way we are different – We cannot get – if together only in the ballot box. (Speech in November, 1945)

Even earlier, in 1938, while addressing a session of Memon Chambers of Commerce and Memon Merchants Association, Quaid-e-Azam explained the Muslim stance in detail. On the one hand, he declared that Qur’an is the source of guidance for Muslims’ collective life, and, on the other, exposed the conspiracy of the Congress for imposing joint electorate system on Muslims. He said:

There is no need to find a program for Muslims. They have a complete program since 13 hundred years and that is the Holy Qur’an. Besides our economic, civilizational and social reform and progress, the political program is found in the Qur’an. I believe in this Divine Law and the freedom I want lies in acting upon this Divine Word. The Holy Qur’an demands of us three things: freedom, equality and brotherhood. As a Muslim, I wish to achieve these three. Our salvation lies in (acting upon) the Qur’anic teaching and only with this we can cross over all the phases of progress.

Referring to the Muslim mass contact campaign of the Congress, he said:

Is it not the aim of this scheme that the Congress may eliminate separate electorate system by taking Muslims into its fold and under the excuse of the so-called approval of Muslims may enforce joint electorate system against the will of the discerning and insightful Muslims. It passed a law of joint electorate for local bodies despite Muslim members’ opposition. Does it behoove a democratic government to frame a law for a nation or sect on its own choice without taking care of the wishes and aspirations of the representatives of that nation or sect? Our demand is that every person should have the right to candidacy just as every one has the right to vote. In case of joint electorate, the candidates would win because of the vote of the other nation i.e., that which is in majority. What the Muslims desire is that their representative should be the person who has won maximum votes of Muslims themselves, and not that he got the votes of others but became the representatives of Muslims. (Daily Inqilab, Lahore, June 12, 1938; Guftar-e Quaid-e-Azam, Ahmad Saeed (ed.,), pp. 212-216)

Ignoring the specific political context of Quaid’s speech of Aug. 11, 1947, and also his more than 200 statements on the subject, a clique is trying to use the speech in support of united nationalism and joint electorate. This is nothing but revolt against Muslims’ history, particularly against the facts and circumstances of the subcontinent before and after the creation of Pakistan. The system of elections is about the right of a nation or a group that those people should represent it who is from within it and can represent befittingly its beliefs and ideologies, programs and aspirations, civilization and values, and priorities. This is not about citizenship of a country. While people of all ages are citizens, the right to vote is enjoyed only by those who attain a certain age. Likewise, people of different beliefs, concepts, and civilizational and religious identity can be the citizens, and equal citizens, of a country but the requirements of justice with respect to representation and influence on policy-making can be met only when each and every civilizational and religious community is represented by its own people. The system of separate electorate presents a logical and natural way to attain this. To an extent, this objective can be achieved also through the system of proportional representation. But joint electorate’ is such an ungainly and brutal system that negates religious, ideological, and civilizational identity and paves way for a clique’s domination of others by manipulation of votes and politics of numbers, and thus real plurality is denied in the name of uniformity and equality.

Muslims have never accepted it: either when they were in minority in the subcontinent or when they are in majority in an independent state. That is why Islamic and ideological forces have tried to retain the system of separate electorate in Pakistan’s political system and in the Constitution. Only the secular elements, particularly the supporters of the Congress and the Hindus of East Pakistan, have conspired for joint electorate. The 22-point agenda of Ulema in 1951 based itself on separate electorate. (See principle number 3, 5, 10, and 11). Similarly, Ulema supported the same in the Constitutional recommendations of 1953. The principle of separate electorate was also recommended in Liaquat Ali Khan’s Basic Principles Report (1950), Nazimuddin Report (1952), and Muhammad Ali Bogra Report (1954).

The 1954 elections in East Pakistan were held on the same principle, and Jagto Front’s 22 points had no mention of it. However, when the Hindus of East Pakistan got a leverage as a result of the plotting of secular elements in East Pakistan’s Assembly and the Central Assembly, they tried to strike a blow to this principle. While voting on the issue, under the Constitution of 1962, West Pakistan’s Assembly voted in favor of the separate electorate with 300 votes in a 310-member House. In the East Pakistan’s Assembly, Muslims’ majority voted in favor of separate electorate but the Awami League won for joint electorate with a thin margin with the help of 60 Hindu votes. That is how a ‘landmine’ was installed in the system of elections which, as was apprehended, gave rise to Bengali nationalism and led, ultimately, to Pakistan’s bifurcation. In one of his insightful and thought-provoking writing in 1955, Maulana Maududi has expressed his apprehension that if joint electorate were imposed, then Bengali nationalism would raise its head in first East Pakistan and then West Pakistan too would become its victim. (Maulana Maududi, Islamic Law and Constitution, p. 331)

Analyzing the issue, Dr. Wahid Qureshi writes:

Besides other factors, which strengthened the secessionist tendencies in East Pakistan, one was the mode of election. The Government of Pakistan dismissed the proposal of separate electorate offered by the Christians of Pakistan and accepted the demand for joint electorate pressed by the Hindu community of East Pakistan. Consequently with the passing of time the group of Hindu voters in the representation of East Pakistan tightened and reinforced the secessionist movement. (Ideological Foundations of Pakistan, p. 193)

This happened because, according to Dr. Wahid Qureshi:

By abolishing the separate electorate it was indirectly accepted that Hindu and Muslim of East Pakistan were one nation. (p. 251)

There is no doubt that many factors caused to grow up the separatist tendency in East Pakistan. Among them, the important factors included the behavior of political leadership and bureaucracy belonging to West Pakistan, more than necessary centralization, injustice in the appropriation of resources, disruption of democratic process, and lack of political participation of people of all the areas. Along with this, it is necessary to keep in view the fact that weakness in the country’s ideological foundations, particularly a blow to Muslim nationalism through the change of elections system, have had a major share in deteriorating the situation. Local Hindu forces and India have taken its full advantage. Joint electorate system has played a major role in it. After the fall of Dhaka, Maulana Maududi had categorically analyzed the situation. His words deserve full attention and deep thinking:

Another major step towards dismemberment was joint electorate. The 1956 Constitution had been framed by the various political parties providing the basis for the establishment of Islamic system of government. But Iskander Mirza and Suhrawady, by pushing the joint electorate through made such a loophole in the Constitution that it was no longer effective in holding the two wings together. We warned them at that tie that joint electorate would prove fatal for the country. We urged them at the same time that separate electorate should be retained with major modifications. But what the people in power had in view was that Islamic system of government should bot be allowed to work in Pakistan and that the country should become a secular state. That is why the Hindus managed to get the joint electorate bill through in the teeth of opposition from the Muslims of both the wings. This law was more harmful in principle to the country as a whole but it was particularly ruinous in effect to East Pakistan. (Selected Speeches and Writings of Maulana Maududi, vol. II, Zakir Aijaz, ed., International Islamic Publications, Karachi, 1982, pp. 325-326)

The strengthening of secular elements and the ultimate success of the champions of united nationhood as a result of joint electorate is a historical fact. This historical blunder mattered greatly in bifurcating Pakistan and disturbing the political map of the subcontinent.

This was what happened to Pakistan. India’s story, too, is an eye-opener. After independence, the Congress tried its utmost to impose joint electorate. Though the Constituent Assembly did recommend, after great expostulation, to do away with the separate electorate, but advised for allocating seats in the Assembly for Muslims and other minorities. Consensus was achieved on this in the Committee but the clause for allocating seats for minorities was removed after another somersault in the Constituent Assembly. It is to be noted that such a trickery was shown even earlier in Liaquat-Nehru Pact. In the original text the two Prime Ministers had agreed on the guarantees on minorities’ representation in both the countries. N.V. Gadgil, who was a minister in the Nehru Cabinet and had participated in the Pact, admits in his book, Government from Inside, that:

Original Pact contained two paragraphs accepting the principle of reservation for Muslims in proportion to their population in all the services and representative bodies in the constituent states of India. Similar provisions were suggested for the Central Government. (p. 86)

Shaikh Muhammad Ikram was in the Pakistani delegation. He writes that a suggestion of this type about the Hindus of East Pakistan was also included in the Pact. But Sardar Patel did not agree to this despite the agreement of Pundit Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan and, according to Gadgil, Indian Cabinet did not accept this part and in spite of Nehru’s insistence that he had already agreed with Liaquat Ali Khan on the principle, the Cabinet refused to accept it. (Gadgil, p. 87). The decision of the Cabinet was that "those two paragraphs must go lock, stock and barrel." (Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan, S.M. Ikram, Lahore, 1970, p. 462).

And all this in the name of secularism!

Another form for the representation of minorities was possible in the system of elections on the basis of proportional representation. There is a mention of this method of elections in the Nehru Report (1928), rather an admission of its usefulness:

We feel strongly attracted to this method and are of the opinion that it offers the only rational and just way of meeting the fears and claims of various communities. There is a place in it for every minority and automatic adjustment takes place of interests. We have no doubt that proportional representation will in future be the solution of our problem.

But this was rejected as non-practicable at the time of the Constitution making despite the insistence of Committee members, though the very Nehru Report had said:

Most of us feel that there are no insuperable difficulties in the way of giving a trial to proportional representation in India. (See The Nehru Report 1928, in Readings on Minorities, vol. II)

Since the real objective was to render the voice of minorities ineffective, neither separate electorate nor proportional representation was adopted. Joint electorate were imposed in the name of secularism, the result of which is that in spite of being 12 percent of total Indian population (according to official statistics, independent sources put it at 15 percent), the share of Muslims in government services is 2 percent, even lower in the army, while in the Central and Provincial Assemblies it has on average been 3 to 4 percent. In some areas, they are not represented at all; for instance, their representation has been zero in Madhiapardesh in spite of being 5 percent of the population. (See, Readings on Minorities, Iqbal Ansari ed., New Delhi, 1996, vol. I, p. 26).

As far as the objective of secularism and the claim to achieve national solidarity, then the rise of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), demolition of the Babri Mosque and the existence of 17 separatist movements are a proof of the failure of joint electorate. (See, Rajni Kothari’s "Cultural Context of Communalism in India" in Readings on Minorities, vol. II, pp. 31-47).

In India, the result of eliminating the separate electorate and imposing joint electorate instead has come in the shape of Muslims’ virtual political disenfranchisement. While in Pakistan, it did great harm to Muslim nationalism and national security, and ultimately played a major role in giving domination to secular elements in the country and in bifurcating it. These were the circumstances as a demand of which and in the face of Muslim people’s heartfelt desire and political insistence, Pakistan National Assembly and Senate revived the system of separate electorate in 1985 that is enforced till now. This was a decision that was agreed upon by both the National Assembly and the Senate, and the non-Muslim members had fully supported it along with the Muslim members. This was an effort to strengthen the ideological foundation of Pakistan. It is unfortunate that this return to the root proved unsavory to the secular elements and they spare no chance in conspiring against it. They are not prepared to take lesson either from the situation of Muslims and other minorities in India, or from their own history.

We should realize that the real issue is of the link between the state and Deen (religion), and the role of Deen in the country’s politics. The system of elections is a part of it and is like a step in the ladder for a change in the issue. If the state is based on Deen and if the government system is to function in the light of the principle of Allah’s sovereignty, then representation in leadership and collective-decision-making institutions would naturally depend on religion, civilization and society, and ideological direction of the collective system. Both are intertwined, as nail and flesh, and flower and its fragrance. That is why, whether in India or in Pakistan, the debate on separate or joint electorate has revolved around the axis of religious and national representation. Those who are raising this issue are those who openly champion secularism and the separation of state and religion, whereas those individuals and parties that consider religious guidance as necessary for politics hold that separate electorate, i.e., election of representatives on the basis of religious and national identity, is necessary.

Protection of minorities’ rights is an essential and religious duty of the Islamic State. But, to please a few minority elements at the cost of changing or weakening the foundations of the state is like committing collective suicide. It is opposed to the concept of Pakistan and the leading ideology of Pakistan Movement. Quaid-e-Azam has clearly said:

Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam he was outcast not only religiously but also socially, culturally and economically. As for the Muslim, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society. Throughout the ages, Hindus had remained Hindus and Muslims had remained Muslims and they had not merged their entity – that was the basis of Pakistan. (Address in Aligarh, March 1944, Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah; vol. III, p. 2)

Can a sensible man think that if this difference is the foundation of Pakistan, then this foundation would disappear soon after Pakistan’s coming into being; and the streams that could never merge, would make a single nation? Have the Qur’an and the Prophet’s model changed? Have our standards of good and evil have changed? Has a change occurred in Halal and Haram? Have the history and civilization changed their colors? Have art and architecture changed their course? If not, then how can the standards of Muslims and non-Muslims for elections, representation, and priorities be identical?

To ensure the rights of minorities is our duty, and our covenant with Allah and His Creation. But this does not mean demolition of state foundations, change of its destination and the pledge made with the Muslims is given up. While presenting the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister and Quaid’s right-hand Khan Liaquat Ali Khan had clearly said:

The Father of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam gave expression to his feelings on this matter on many an occasion, and his views were endorsed by the nation in unmistakable terms…

Quaid-e-Azam and other leaders of the Muslim League always made unequivocal declarations that the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based upon the fact that the Muslims had a way of life and a code of conduct. They also reiterated the fact that Islam is not merely a relationship between the individual and his God, which not, in any way, affect the working of the state. (Speech in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949; pp. 2, 4)

And Quaid’s another trusted fellow Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar had said in his address in the Constituent Assembly on March 10:

It is correct Quaid-e-Azam had given pledges to the minorities but Quaid-e-Azam had also given pledges to the majority. Pakistan was demanded with a particular ideology, for particular purpose and this Resolution that has been moved, is just in accordance with those solemn pledges which the Quaid-e-Azam and the leaders of the Muslim League gave to the majority as well as the minorities.

The principle of framing of Constitution and establishment of political system on the basis of Deen (religion), and representation according to religious and civilizational identity was settled when the Objectives Resolution was passed and on which our Constitution is founded. Hussain Shahid Suhrawardy and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s act of imposing joint electorate was a surrender to the Hindu forces and secular elements, and disloyalty to the ideology and objective of the creation of Pakistan as well as the Objectives Resolution. Reviving the separate electorate, the National Assembly and the Senate had acted to rectify the wrong done in the past and whose bitter yield the nation has tasted. To stir the same debate today is to strike a blow once again to the foundation of Pakistan’s ideology and Constitution, and is against the interests of both Islam and Pakistan.

The Holy Qur’an has elaborated the principle of representation in the Islamic state, as:

O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Prophet, and those charged with authority among you. (Al-Nisa 4:59)

Here, the clear decree for ‘among you’ has once and for all settled the issue of Muslims’ representation: Muslims’ representatives and people on positions of authority have to be from among themselves. Similarly, Qur’anic directive for leadership and obedience is clear:

Do not obey any whose heart we have let to neglect the remembrance of Us, one who follows his own desires, whose case has gone beyond all bounds. (Al-Kahaf 18: 28)

Only those can deserve Muslims’ leadership who are from among them, whose hearts and minds are filled with Allah’s remembrance, whose desires are subservient to Allah’s guidance, and those who observe the limits determined by Allah and His Prophet. Only such people can be elevated to the position of leadership.

At another place in the Qur’an:

Allah commands you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due. (Al-Nisa 4:58)

These directions can be acted upon only in the system of separate electorate or in such a system where Muslims elect their representatives, and the followers of other religions choose theirs in accordance with their own religious and civilizational values.

To create confusion about what is so clear, some intellectuals have brought in far-fetched ideas into the debate. They say that in the Pact of Madina the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had declared Muslims and non-Muslims a single nation; and that the system of joint electorate can be adopted by considering Muslims and non-Muslims as forming a single nation, in the light of this example! Nothing can be more ridiculous.

It seems that those who are presenting this view have not studied or even gone through the Pact of Madina, but are forwarding their views just after glancing the title or are passing forward whatever they listen themselves. In the Pact, Muslims and non-Muslims, under a common system, have been coordinated on the basis of their distinct and separate identity and the distinct identity of each has been taken care of in every respect.

On the one hand, this Pact provides a clear outline for co-existence in a political system. On the other, it protects separate identities of both Muslims and non-Muslims and maintains separate systems even for financial issues. The Pact is not an example of a joint system. It is rather a model for mutual cooperation and collaboration of the followers of different religions and nations who at the same time maintain their identity. Common citizenship, supremacy of Islam, accepting the Holy Prophet as the final authority and obey his order, determination of each and every group’s rights and obligations and financial responsibilities according to the principles of equality and justice - are the features of this model. Looking into all these details, if one insists on declaring it a model and evidence for joint election system, then only regrets are due to his wisdom.

In the above, we have presented our case in the light of the subcontinent’s history, ideological foundation of the Pakistan Movement, pledges and statements of the leaders of the Movement, the style and interests of Islamic State, and the teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah and Prophet’s mode. It would be appropriate to show to the champions of secular democracy the mirror of West’s political thought as well as principles and experiments of liberal democracy, so that they keep from asserting that separate electorate system is the invention of religious fanatics and that it is the antithesis to the equality the liberal democracy upholds.

The claim that the right to voting in the Western democratic system without any concern to beliefs, language, race, and civilizational and cultural identity gives equality to minorities and the conflict between majority and minority, and exploitation is eliminated, can be a wish but has nothing to do with the world of realities. Ted Robert Gurr of the Maryland University, USA, has written a book Minorities at Risk, published from Washington in 1993, after great research of many years. Having studied the situation of 233 minority groups, Prof. Gurr says that during the last 50 years the problems of minorities have recorded increase and have resulted in conflict and violence.

Will Kymlicka, professor of political philosophy at the University of Ottawa and a receiver of Macpherson prize for political ideology for 1994-95, is advocating not only the separate electorate but the concept of multicultural citizenship in quite clear and logical a manner. Oxford University Press published his book Multicultural Citizenship in 1996. He says that in today’s world there are 600 linguistic and 5,000 ethnic groups in 184 countries where there is a state of persistent tension and conflict and liberal democracy has failed to present a solution.

In democratic system, when there is no concordance between the concepts and the ground realities then the course of physical elimination of minorities is resorted to so that uniformity is achieved in the society. This has been done through massive deportations and expulsions from a country, ethnic cleansing and large-scale blood-letting. Where this did not happen, minorities were forced to adopt the language, religion and customs of the majority.

Liberal thinkers were expecting that global and legal steps taken for the protection of human rights would provide for minorities’ security. But the United Nation’s charter is silent on the rights of national minorities. This has now become clear that minorities’ rights cannot be safeguarded merely through human rights. This needs thinking with quite different and new perspective.

The known philosopher of the Harvard University John Rawls’ thought-provoking book A Theory of Justice has influenced the Western way of thinking during the last 30 years. In his recently published book, he has highlighted the outlines of liberalism and liberal imperialism. The judicious system whose outline he has presented about the global order, its constituent countries, and religious, civilizational, racial and linguistic groups within a country is ‘pluralism’. He thinks that by giving the place of nation, which it has in a political unit, to human group, there can come to existence a more realistic and judicious system.

These trends in the political thought are enough to open the eyes of those who are crying for joint electorate in the name of liberal democracy and equality, and out of their narrow-mindedness and obstinacy allege that separate electorate are undemocratic and based on discrimination. We feel sorry for them that their posture is away from logic and historical facts. Because of prejudice and the colored prism, they are opposing a logical system that is based on justice and reality.

At the end, we would like to say that one way to attain the pluralism we are talking about, and for which separate electorate is an important vehicle, is through the proportional representation in which every school of thought is represented in the Parliament according to its strength on the ground and in reality. In Pakistan’s peculiar circumstances, the system of proportional representation has many advantages that we have enumerated in our book: Proportional Representation and the Revival of Democratic Process in Pakistan.

Though the reform of all ills is not possible merely through proportional representation system, yet it can remove many of the current system’s faults and the chances of election of better people into the public institutions increase. It can also help in strengthening and stabilizing the system of political parties. However, political parties would have to organize themselves on more democratic lines, introduce transparency in their dealing and performance, and prepare for more answerability before people and courts. The reform in the electoral system is a must for the promotion and development of democracy. The need is to decide on all these issues in the light of Pakistan’s circumstances and requirements, and known Islamic and democratic principles so that the nation can march towards practical changes.

Index Isharat               Top

Translation and adaptation of the editorial of Tarjuman Ul Quran July 2000.