Dr Ghulam Nabi Shakir
DEMOCRACY is often celebrated as the highest expression of political participation, public representation and collective governance. Yet its health cannot be measured merely by elections, rallies, slogans or parliamentary ceremonies. The deeper question is whether political culture permits dissent, encourages participation and tolerates criticism. In Pakistan, the visible structure of democracy exists, but its internal spirit remains weak.
One neglected dimension of this crisis is the absence of internal democracy within political parties. Parties should provide spaces where members contribute ideas, challenge policies and shape political direction. Instead, many have become centralized structures revolving around personalities, hereditary leadership or symbolic authorities whose decisions are rarely questioned. Followers are often expected not merely to support leaders but to defend them emotionally, even when criticism is justified.
This is not merely a political problem; it is also sociological and philosophical. In Pakistan, political leaders can assume authority greater than institutional authority. Leadership becomes symbolic and emotional, while political affiliation turns into a community of allegiance where loyalty is valued above competence, obedience above dialogue and emotional attachment above constitutional reasoning.
Max Weber associated charismatic authority with personal qualities capable of inspiring devotion. Contemporary political culture can reinforce such reverence through inherited symbolism, party mythology, media repetition and polarization. Criticism of a leader may then be interpreted as betrayal of political identity. Democracy consequently risks becoming political feudalism under democratic labels.
The roots of this culture lie partly in history. Colonial Administration cultivated centralized authority and obedience rather than participatory citizenship. After independence, fragile democratic institutions existed alongside feudal culture, patronage networks and dynastic politics. Political parties frequently developed around personalities and electoral control, while leadership transitions often depended on inheritance, inner circles or emotional mobilization rather than transparent internal processes.
This environment produces passive citizens rather than democratic participants. Party workers can become defenders of personalities instead of contributors to policy or organizational reform. Robert Michels’s “Iron Law of Oligarchy” explains how organizations founded on democratic ideals can become dominated by leadership, leaving ordinary members dependent on those at the top. Pakistani parties sometimes demand democracy from the state while reproducing centralized authority within themselves.
The contradiction also has psychological consequences. During economic instability and social fragmentation, people seek certainty and belonging. Leaders become representations of identity rather than subjects of rational scrutiny. In polarized environments, criticism is perceived as a personal attack and political identity becomes tribalized. Loyalty can become more important than evidence.
Yet democracy depends fundamentally upon the legitimacy of disagreement. A democratic society is not one in which everyone thinks alike, but one in which criticism can exist without fear, exclusion or hostility. Paulo Freire’s critique of authoritarian pedagogy is relevant: when individuals are conditioned to repeat, defend and obey, critical consciousness deteriorates.
Pakistan, therefore, needs internal democratization of political parties. Leaders should recognize that criticism can strengthen institutions, while supporters should understand that loyalty does not require surrendering independent judgment. Media, schools and universities should promote institutional debate, critical thinking, civic ethics and democratic dialogue.
Ultimately, Pakistan’s democratic challenge is not merely corruption, instability or governance failure; it is the persistence of authoritarian psychology within democratic structures. A mature political culture requires citizens who can admire leaders without worshipping them, support parties without surrendering independent judgment and disagree without abandoning democratic values. The true measure of democracy is not how loudly people praise their leaders, but how freely they can question them.
—The writer was a Principal and Teacher Educator at School Education Department Punjab.
