Except for two standout periods (1971-1977 and 2008-2018) when democracy made significant gains in Pakistan, the country has been either under authoritarian or hybrid regimes. Global democracy watchdogs, suchas V-Dem, Economist EIU and Freedom House have consistently ranked Pakistan among the countries with lowest democratic index.

The consistent low ranking has not been on account of suspect parameters but for the state of political economy. During its first eleven years following independence in 1947, the country had seven prime ministers. Pakistan has already had 30 prime ministers. Had they completed five-year terms the number would have been around 16. However, not one of the prime ministers has completed a five-year term.

Yet, the core issue is not the length of a leadership term, nor even having an elected government. Democracy is a holistic ideal that shapes almost all aspects of a society. It requires for transparency, accountability, free judiciary and media, affirmative action and meritocracy. Sadly, even under elected governments, Pakistan has been ranked among the countries with low adherence to democratic values.

Leaving the representative institutions aside, how have the other institutions of the state - Judiciary, administration, police and media – performed? It seems that most of them have failed to uphold democratic principles.

Our libraries are full of books and scholarly papers saying that promotion of education, economic empowerment, separation of powers to prevent the institutional overreach, devolution of power and strong local governments are keys to strengthen democracy in Pakistan. Unfortunately, we are still ranked among the lowest in democratic governance index.

It is said that an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Therefore we do not have to go very far to identify the roots of our societal ills. At the level of family- the foremost unit of the society – one witnesses entrenched patriarchy and rigid household hierarchies. Wives and children, including grown up ones, are expected to be compliant and submissive towards the head of the household. Most children aren’t allowed to make important decisions about their education, careers and marriage. Even women with independent wealth and incomes here are often denied the full control over their assets. Most daughters face considerable restrictions on pursuit of education, choice of careers and marriage.

A majority of families and households in Pakistan follows this pattern. This tradition shapes an ethos that normalises command, control and inequality. It teaches respect for authority at the expense of individual rights and consultation.

At school, children are discouraged from questioning and critical thinking. The practice leads to a political culture where citizens are more likely to accept strong, autocratic leadership and less likely to demand accountability or question the authority. As policemen, bureaucrats, judges, generals, parliamentarians and prime ministers, people raised in patriarchal households who have studied at traditional schools carry too much patriarchal baggage to break free from it in order to stick to and promote democratic values of transparency, accountability, political coexistence and merit.

The hierarchical emphasis in family and clan affiliations and the biradari system tend to trump merit. Power is often inherited rather than earned through a competitive, transparent process. This is a permanent hurdle to the democratic principle of merit. As power is concentrated in dynastic and elite structures that protect their own, accountability is difficult to enforce. It’s not just the top political families that are dynastic. A predominant majority of parliamentarians shows the dynastic streak in preparing their kin to succeed them.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, this trend is not limited to politics. The practice is rampant across all walks of life. It is routine, for example, for control of religious seminaries to be inherited by a son of the deceased principal.

Of course, there are other factors in Pakistan besides these sociological challenges to democracy. However, citizens raised in the patriarchic mould are remarkably easy to be manipulated by anti-democratic narratives and forces. A micro culture at household level that denies fundamental rights and agency will always struggle to foster a national democratic governance system based on the principles of accountability, transparency, equality and justice for all.

A change in the household-level patriarchal culture is obviously a slow, organic process. It follows that the evolution of a democratic culture at the national level will take time. However, certain catalysts can accelerate the evolution at the household level to help promote democratic principles and values among a people. One such catalyst is urbanisation. However, rapid urbanisation has also caused many problems including the development and persistence of slums, crime and unmanaged urban sprawl.

Instead, a nation-wide set of interventions that aims to bring desirable ‘urban’ values to rural communities and secondary and tertiary towns has more sustainable promise to lay a strong foundation for a more democratic culture. This ‘modernisation’ of rural communities may include promotion of renewable energy and clean cooking; provision of credit and entrepreneurial training for women to start businesses in livestock, horticulture and local crafts and products’ value chain; digital training and internet access; constitutionally protected elected local governments; health and education facilities; and the establishment of women police stations at union council level. This will not only help protect agricultural land and food provision and reduce pressure on urban centres, but also lay the foundation for a more stable and democratic society by building the national economy bottom up.

If there’s one thing that has influenced every sphere of our lives recently, it is the media and digital technologies. Together, they form a double-aged sword as fake news and patriarchal propaganda can multiply the harm. Institutions like the PEMRA and the NCCIA can only guide and regulate the media and cyber platforms. Media businesses and platforms have a great responsibility to promote content on democratic principles and values rather than speculation that serves only to destabilise the polity and undermine civil supremacy.

The writer is a sociologist with extensive work in social policy and development. He’s accessible at [email protected]