Deterrent Value of Democracy

Deterrent Value of Democracy

The term "deterrence" is thought to be the exclusive domain of the strategic community, at least in Pakistan, so the title of this article might raise some eyebrows. However, I will only investigate whether the term "deterrence" or any of its variants can be utilized in another area of state affairs, not challenge any authority on the subject.

In fact, no strategic terminology has any value in its application if it is not properly valued, and this valuation needs to be solid: credibility, capability, communication, intention, impact, and the likelihood of a favorable outcome are all important factors.

The United Nations promotes democracy as a fundamental principle by "promoting human rights, development, peace and security." The United Nations also supports "good governance, monitors elections, supports the civil society to strengthen democratic institutions and accountability, ensures self-determination in decolonized countries, and assists in the drafting of new constitutions in post-conflict nations," among other aspects of democracy.

It is interesting to note that the term democracy did not appear in the Charter when it was created in 1945; however, the phrase "We the People's" serves as the opening line, indicating the application of its fundamentals. However, I am concerned about the institutional acceptance of democratic principles in developing nations.

The people's respect for state institutions remains the weakest component of democracy.

In addition, the United Nations does not insist on any particular form of government other than democracy.

Respect for people's choices by state institutions only occurs when governments—elected or unelected—value their opinions. However, public opinion is given no weight if the public is treated as merely voters and not equal participants in governance.

A number of nearly-permanent regimes in otherwise peaceful and stable states were shocked by the events that occurred in North Africa and a few states in the Middle East during the Arab Spring (2010-2013). Even though widespread violations of human rights had not been reported prior to the start of the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, widespread discontent remained the primary cause. Mohamed Bouazizi's unfortunate self-immolation occurred as a result of the Tunisian uprising, which was a clear example of a state's disrespect for its people. The incident appeared to be minor at first, but it quickly changed the game. As a result, President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali attempted to make some concessions to the people but failed. Ben Ali, who ruled the country for more than 26 years before he had to step down, fled the country in 2011. In 2014, Tunisia held new elections and passed a new constitution, beginning the country's transition to true democracy.

Egypt was next in line to be taken over by the people. In fact, I was in Cairo just a few months before the popular uprisings against Hosni Mubarak's (r. 1981-2011) government. Tourists filled Cairo's streets, and the country seemed to be moving at a normal pace. My only observation was that people were unwilling to discuss the government or its performance.

The events and happenings that occurred after the gatherings in Tahrir Square are now recorded in history. If true democracy is to be practiced, the lesson learned demonstrates that not only the leadership but also state institutions must respect the wishes of the people.

Before large-scale public demonstrations in other Middle Eastern nations, the wave of change reached Libyan shores as well as Egypt and Tunisia. To this day, Syria and Yemen are still engaged in a bloody civil war.

Getting back to Pakistan, for instance, the treatment of the common person by government agencies like the police and judiciary remains a major source of concern. The people of Pakistan, on the other hand, rarely react to such cruel treatment or behavior on the part of the state planners.

The UN Charter's emphasis on people's participation, good governance, and accountability of state institutions suggests that a tamed democracy cannot match the essence of democratic values. As a result, in order to manage state institutions in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of a public servant's duty to serve the public, it is necessary to ensure that individuals' choices and voices are respected. The state is obligated to care about the welfare of the people in accordance with democratic principles.