Fact or myth: Does illiteracy serve as a good excuse to deny Pakistanis democracy?

Pakistan grapples with establishing a functioning democracy and lacks the institutional arrangements needed to embed democratic norms in society. There is widespread belief among the intelligentsia and policymakers that the country lacks the foundations of an educated population and a culture conducive to a stable democracy. The elite commentariat argues that an uneducated population is unfit to make the right choices, and allowing it to choose would undermine liberal values upheld by the well-educated. It is argued that full-blown democracy could open the doors to religious extremism and theocratic autocracy, which serves as the rationale for caution against the “rule by the unfit.” 

Instead of democracy, a technocratic dispensation is proposed, similar to Plato’s rule by philosophers, where experts in various fields provide a governance model that promotes economic development and uplifts the masses. The eminent persons would supposedly possess qualities that ensure the reign of justice until the economy develops and the population becomes educated enough to appreciate the benefits of democracy.

These ideas are not unique to Pakistan and are well-entrenched truisms among the privileged in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It can be traced to the spread of ‘The Theory on Democratization’ in the 1950s by American sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset. He posited that factors such as national wealth, a large degree of industrialization, and high levels of education are prerequisites for a stable democracy. While these arguments may superficially ring true, subsequent studies failed to provide sufficient empirical evidence to prove the theory. 

The threat to Pakistan’s democracy does not come from the low educational attainment of its population but rather the unequal distribution of wealth and the state capture by the elite.

- Javed Hassan

Critics of the theory have argued that it is based on a flawed assumption of causation, where wealth leads to education, which leads to industrialization, and ultimately democracy. While many strong democracies are indeed wealthy and possess the characteristics Lipset pointed out, correlation does not necessarily imply causality. There are many examples of societies that have established successful democracies despite starting with low economic development and modest levels of education. There is no definitive empirical evidence supporting a universal, causal, and sequential path to a stable democratic society. In other words, a country does not necessarily need to be wealthy, industrialized, and highly educated to be democratic, and the presence of these characteristics does not prove causality. Importantly, countries lacking these characteristics cannot be excluded from being democracies.

Political economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson have argued that democracy in the United States did not stem from wealth or education but rather from the political struggles of early settlers, who were mostly illiterate indentured laborers, demanding representative institutions to influence their societies. Their 2007 paper “On the Economic Origins of Democracy” states that: “though largely uneducated, the settlers of Virginia valued and demanded representative institutions that would enable them to influence the types of societies in which they lived. The first formal democratic institution granted to the settlers was the Representative Assembly conceded by the Virginia Company in 1619, which effectively enfranchised all white adult males”. 

Similarly, India’s democracy did not start with a highly developed industrial economy and had a relatively low level of education compared to the US and Western Europe-- and yet has developed a strong democratic culture. Democracy has contributed to it having a strong education system for the general populace that is now propelling its economic growth. Post-war democracies have not necessarily emerged in societies with a long tradition of democratic culture, but from diverse origins to produce enduring democracies that are now stable and flourishing. 

From as far afield as Indonesia to sub-Saharan Botswana, the idea of prerequisite conditions for democracies is negated. Suharto’s 32-year dictatorship in Indonesia was one of the most brutal and corrupt of the 20th century where decision-making power was concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of a few generals and the dictator’s family members. Its catastrophic economic collapse in 1998 paved the way for democracy in this largely Muslim country, which had remained economically undeveloped with only modest levels of educational attainment for its population. Democracy taking root in the country was positively transformative for both the economy and overall human development. These cases demonstrate that it is indeed possible for a society to be relatively underdeveloped and uneducated, yet develop a stable democracy.

The threat to Pakistan’s democracy does not come from the low educational attainment of its population but rather the unequal distribution of wealth and the state capture by the elite. Their political power and control of the administrative system ensure they can extract much of the resources of the state. Democracy and the set of institutions for making collective decisions would imply a sharing of political authority, and consequentially, the distribution of benefits implied by democratic processes. Since the elite is unwilling to dilute its control, an uneducated population not having a democratic culture is an insidious excuse used to deny the people democracy.

– Javed Hassan has worked in senior executive positions both in the profit and non-profit sector in Pakistan and internationally. He’s an investment banker by training.

Twitter: @javedhassan