Regulations of a Democratic Country - Case Study Example

Constitution and its relation with Democracy and political stability The characteristics of a democracy is involved in the ment of American president Abraham Lincoln; “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”. In former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill’s opinion, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Democracy, 2004) A well written constitution is often considered as the measuring scale for measuring the strength of democracy and political stability in a country. It is a written document for the smooth functioning of a government. It is an instruction book which provides orders to the government and the public regarding the functioning of political, social, economical, cultural, and secular aspects. It defines what is legal and what is illegal in a country. It establishes the relationships between the government and the public with respect to the rules and regulations of a democratic country by which the government and the citizens should function. Democracy can be seen at its best in some countries while in some other countries same thing cannot be said even though they claimed to be so. Political stability is strongly associated with the strength of democracy in a country. Politically non stable countries cannot be considered as strong democracies since political stability is one of the measuring units which determine the success of democracy in a country. Long standing democracies always will have political stability. Pakistan is considered to be a democratic country by the Pak government and the Pak people. But external political observers may not fully agree with the above statement especially under the present circumstances. In a democratic country, judiciary, executive and parliament are considered as the essential entities. The democracy will be strengthened in a country when these three forms of democracy combine well and function together. We have witnessed the removal of Pak Supreme court judge by the former Pakistan president Pervez Musharaf which created lot of problems in Pakistan. Judiciary is considered as an independent body functioning in a democratic country. Normally a democratic government will respect the rulings of the Supreme Court in that country even if they have different opinions. It is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the constitutional rights in the correct manner whenever a conflict arises in the country. The democratic governments will never try to interfere in the functioning of the judiciary even though the topic of who is having more power, the government or the judiciary is still under the debate. Whenever a conflict arises between the government and the judiciary the democratic principles will be weakened. Some people argue that the parliament should have the upper hand over judiciary since the parliament consists of elected members by the people. As per the democracy definition the people of a democratic country have the supreme power and hence the parliament which consists of the elected members should have the upper hand over judiciary. On the other hand some others argue that only the judiciary is able to interpret the rules and regulations of a democratic country based on the written constitution and hence they should be given the upper hand. A country which functions against the rules of their constitution may not be considered as a democratic country in their opinion. The success of democracy remains in avoiding the clash between the judiciary and parliament. Both bodies should have mutual respect and should function for the growth of the country rather than political or individual gains. The judiciary must be free from any prejudices and bias and they should never keep any political intentions. In Pakistan, the chief justice of Supreme Court has been argued of functioning as politically motivated by the former president Musharraf and hence he dethroned the Supreme Court chief justice. Since Musharraf was functioning as an autocrat, he never took the opinions of the parliament seriously. In fact in Pakistan most of the power rest on the shoulders of the president or the military chief. Even the president is accused of controlled by the military in Pakistan and hence judiciary, executive and parliament have value only on papers. In Pakistan, though they have a written constitution, it is often interpreted by the military chief not by either the president or the chief justice of parliament. Constitution is not respected in Pakistan. As per constitutional rights, Pakistan is a secular state whereas in practice the essential forms of secularism are not seen in Pakistan. For example in a secular country people have the right to believe in religions and have the right to spread their beliefs. Nobody can think in terms of spreading Christianity or Hinduism in Pakistan even though as per the constitutional rights, it is possible. So constitution is not respected in Pakistan and hence it cannot be considered as a strong democratic country. India on the other hand believed to be the biggest democracy in the world not only because of the high population, but because of the smooth combined functioning of Parliament, Judiciary and executive. There are certain incidents in which former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has been accused of interfering in to the rights of judiciary which finally resulted in the declaration of “emergency” in India from 1975 to 1977. Justice V R Krishna Iyer and Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha were crucial to the imposition of the Emergency in India . Justice Sinhas (Allahabad High Court) verdict on June 12, 1975, declared Indira Gandhis election to the Lok Sabha as void. Justice Iyer, then a vacation judge in the Supreme Court, decided on Indiras appeal. On June 24, Justice Krishna Iyer gave a conditional stay allowing her to remain a Member of Parliament, but disallowing her to take part in the proceedings of the Lok Sabha. Indira Gandhi acted fast, the Emergency was declared on June 26. Justice Iyer, who is active in espousing public causes in his retired life in Kochi, looks back. The era of Emergency, which was inaugurated by Indira Gandhi on June 25/26, 1975, was the darkest chapter in the democratic history of India (Iyer, 2000) The above occasion is the only occasion when Indian democracy is seriously tested. But Indira Gandhi soon realized the mistake she has committed and removed the emergency in 1977. In India, it is a common thing that the ministers who were found guilty by the courts of committing something against their constitutions, resigning or dismissed from the post. Judiciary is functioning independently and the government always respects the opinions of the court. Any Indian citizen can spread their religious belief in India as per the constitutional rights even though there were some unfortunate incidents like communal violence in some of the states in India because of the above issue. But the constitution of India offers the secular rights to everybody and hence any issue related to the above incidents can be questioned in Indian courts. The recent communal violence reported in one of the Indian states Orissa has been controlled by the government in order to uphold the constitutional rights. The controlling of such a violent group may not be possible in a weak democratic country like Pakistan. India is considered to be one of the rapidly growing countries in the world and some reports showed that India will become a super power within 20 years time. The recent economic crisis has not affected the Indian economy much. Indian economy is one of the rarest economies which stand out among dipping economies in the world. On the other hand Pakistan’s economic growth is not good compared some other neighboring countries because of political instability, internal problems like conflicts between Muslim radical groups, war on terror at the Afghan frontier and increased terrorist’s activities. The above facts clearly indicate the relation between strength of democracy and political stability to the economical growth. Conclusions Constitution and democracy are interrelated. Without having a well defined constitution democracy may not be strengthened. The strength of democracy determines the political stability in a country while the political stability determines the economic growth of a country. Internal and external political problems often retard the economic growth. India is considered to be one of the strongest democracies in the world which is reflected in its economic growth. On the other hand weak democracies like Pakistan are struggling because of the political instability due to internal problems. In a democratic country the people are supposed to be the superior persons. The parliament which is elected by the people controls the functioning of a government based on the legislations they make while the judiciary controls the government on the basis of the constitution and the legislation made by the parliament. Human rights are well preserved in a democratic country compared to other countries. References 1. Democracy, (2004), Retrieved on March 26, 2004 from 2. Iyer Krishna V R, (2000) Emergency -- Darkest hour in Indias judicial history, Retrieved on March 26, 2004 from Read More