essay on democracy without justice is tyranny

Democracy without justice is tyranny

Democracy without justice.

Introduction A democracy places its citizens at the helm of government. Elected representatives who answer directly to them utilize this power, with justice being enforced impartially in accordance with law; this ensures all citizen’s rights are upheld while operating effectively as part of democracy.

Democracy can quickly devolve into tyranny without justice being maintained, due to powerful individuals acting without worrying about potential repercussions for their actions. This may result in the suppression of dissenters, minority groups or fundamental human rights violations.

Justice in a Democracy

Justice is essential for the functioning of democracy for several reasons. First, it ensures all citizens’ rights – such as life, liberty and property rights – are upheld; fairness also plays a part in social order and stability by decreasing instances of violence or other forms of discontent among its inhabitants. Thirdly, justice encourages economic expansion: businesses are more likely to invest and create jobs when they believe their rights will be upheld fairly.

Unjust democracy poses serious dangers.

An unjust democracy allows powerful individuals to act however they choose without worrying about any repercussions for their actions, leading them into irresponsible behavior that leads to dictatorship. As such, an imbalanced democracy may result in:

Minority group oppression:

Under an unfair system, it becomes easy for majorities to abuse minorities through violence, segregation, or discrimination. Violence could take the form of physical attack against them; segregation might separate communities. Discrimination might manifest itself.

Suppression of Dissent: Critics who question government can be silenced through coercion, imprisonment or even execution when justice does not prevail.

Basic human rights can easily be violated when there is no justice in society. This includes freedoms such as assembly and speech as well as the right to a fair trial.

How can justice be ensured in a democracy?

A democracy offers numerous means to ensure fairness. These include:

Judiciary Independence: For impartial decisions to be rendered by judges without fear of reprisals from administration.

An efficient judicial system must uphold and defend the rule of law for citizens. While upholding the rights of each citizen. To achieve this goal, an effective court system, well-trained police force, and fair punishment scheme are needed.

Respect for law as culture:

People must show respect for both the law and legal systems, by abiding by it themselves, helping law enforcement officials, filing reports of crimes committed and cooperating with police when needed.

2023 depicts Pakistan’s current democracy and justice situation.

Pakistan only recently gained independence from British domination in 1947 and remains an emerging democracy today. Since then, several democratic defeats such as military coups and instances of martial law have taken place. Nonetheless, regular elections and peaceful transition of power between political administrations has propelled Pakistan forward on its journey toward democracy.

Justice in Pakistan continues to face some hurdles despite this progress, particularly within law enforcement and judiciary systems. Police often are accused of violating human rights while the judiciary is often perceived as corrupt and inefficient; additionally there is considerable impunity for criminals holding positions of authority.

Pakistan is facing an extremely precarious situation in 2023. Economic and security challenges the nation is currently enduring have led to widespread protests and demonstrations. To quell opposition, administration has adopted an aggressive response, further damaging trust in both government and court systems.

Pakistan serves as a stark reminder of how fragile democracy and justice truly are, necessitating continuous protection due to corruption, impunity, and violence that can easily undermine them.

Here are a few specific examples of how Pakistan’s democracy and justice are under threat in 2023:

Authorities have been accused of abusing the legal system to attack their political rivals.

Police officers have been accused of abusing their power when confronting protesters.

Government officials have been involved in multiple high-profile corruption incidents.

Security forces have carried out several extrajudicial killings.

These issues pose a threat to Pakistan’s democracy and future of justice. If the government doesn’t address them, trust in both executive branch and legal systems may further erode, making addressing economic and security matters much harder for everyone involved.

It is essential to acknowledge that many individuals in Pakistan are working tirelessly towards increasing justice and democracy. Lawyers, campaigners and journalists all play an integral part in fighting to ensure all citizens’ rights are respected while the government accounts to its constituents.

Pakistan remains on an uncertain course towards greater democracy and justice, yet due to individuals fighting for these ideals there remains hope that Pakistan can move past its obstacles to form a more equal and democratic society.

Conclusion Any successful society must be built upon two fundamental pillars – democracy and justice. Without fairness in our democracies, democracy could quickly deteriorate into tyranny. Therefore, we must take all steps possible to ensure fairness among us all.

Additional Ideas It is also essential to remember that justice encompasses more than simply protecting individual rights. Ensuring the public can hold government accountable is another goal, so governments must be open and sensitive to people’s needs when handling transactions involving the public. Without accountability measures in place, government abuse of power becomes much more likely.

Keep in mind that justice is a dynamic concept; its meaning shifts with society over time and what was considered inclusive in one age may no longer apply in another era. Therefore, having an established mechanism allowing revision of definition of justice should remain an essential feature.

About Author

Muhammad Munib Rasool

See author's posts

Unveiling Alternative Pathways to Teaching

Online degree programs in the usa, the path to css success and significance of online classes, pakistani women face equal opportunities as men, will pakistan legalize bitcoin in the future, investment in education is important, is bitcoin going to replace the dollar soon, how to get an online degree in the usa, digital currency have an effect on the economy, how central bank digital currencies (cbdcs) will impact the global financial system, subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates.

We don't spam.

The Art of Time Management

Cyclone biparjoy: devastating storm hits india and pakistan, related articles.

BRICS VS G7

Why Was Imran Khan in jail?

Pakistan’s Ineffective Government

Why USA is still a superpower in 2023

• Pingback: Literacy and Democracy: The Challenges and Solutions in Pakistan - CSS ESSAYS

a good thought

Thats great.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Adblock Detected

Why tyranny could be the inevitable outcome of democracy

Associate Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology

Disclosure statement

Lawrence Torcello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Rochester Institute of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Plato, one of the earliest thinkers and writers about democracy, predicted that letting people govern themselves would eventually lead the masses to support the rule of tyrants .

When I tell my college-level philosophy students that in about 380 B.C. he asked “does not tyranny spring from democracy,” they’re sometimes surprised, thinking it’s a shocking connection.

But looking at the modern political world, it seems much less far-fetched to me now. In democratic nations like Turkey, the U.K., Hungary, Brazil and the U.S., anti-elite demagogues are riding a wave of populism fueled by nationalist pride. It is a sign that liberal constraints on democracy are weakening.

To philosophers, the term “liberalism” means something different than it does in partisan U.S. politics. Liberalism as a philosophy prioritizes the protection of individual rights , including freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, against mass opinion and abuses of government power.

What went wrong in Athens?

In classical Athens, the birthplace of democracy , the democratic assembly was an arena filled with rhetoric unconstrained by any commitment to facts or truth. So far, so familiar.

Aristotle and his students had not yet formalized the basic concepts and principles of logic, so those who sought influence learned from sophists , teachers of rhetoric who focused on controlling the audience’s emotions rather than influencing their logical thinking.

There lay the trap: Power belonged to anyone who could harness the collective will of the citizens directly by appealing to their emotions rather than using evidence and facts to change their minds.

Manipulating people with fear

In his “ History of the Peloponnesian War ,” the Greek historian Thucydides provides an example of how the Athenian statesman Pericles, who was elected democratically and not considered a tyrant, was nonetheless able to manipulate the Athenian citizenry:

“Whenever he sensed that arrogance was making them more confident than the situation merited, he would say something to strike fear into their hearts; and when on the other hand he saw them fearful without good reason, he restored their confidence again. So it came about that what was in name a democracy was in practice government by the foremost man.”

Misleading speech is the essential element of despots, because despots need the support of the people. Demagogues’ manipulation of the Athenian people left a legacy of instability, bloodshed and genocidal warfare, described in Thucydides’ history.

That record is why Socrates – before being sentenced to death by democratic vote – chastised the Athenian democracy for its elevation of popular opinion at the expense of truth. Greece’s bloody history is also why Plato associated democracy with tyranny in Book VIII of “The Republic .” It was a democracy without constraint against the worst impulses of the majority.

• Ancient Greece

Project Offier - Diversity & Inclusion

Senior Lecturer - Earth System Science

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

• EXPRESS NEWS
• URDU E-PAPER
• ENGLISH E-PAPER
• SINDHI E-PAPER
• CRICKET PAKISTAN
• EXPRESS LIVE
• CAMPUS GURU
• EXPRESS ENTERTAINMENT
• FOOD TRIBUNE

Democracy sans justice

Meanwhile, the absence of justice defies the foundational norm of democracy

Justice and democracy are two corresponding and complementary concepts in political philosophy. As a central ideal of liberal political morality, the former accords distinctive appeal and application to the latter in modern times, while the latter stands as a practical manifestation of the former. Though elections, inclusion, freedom of expression, accountability and liberty form the ingredients of real democracy, their existence is inseparably linked to that of justice.

Meanwhile, the absence of justice defies the foundational norm of democracy. Without justice, democracy is nothing more than a facade for tyranny. It serves as a tool for legitimising totalitarianism and the interests of tyrants. It is mainly because stakeholders deceitfully obtain public mandates in ritualistically fixed elections and portray themselves as public representatives and guardian angels. Threats to their vested interests, disguised in democracy, are deliberately perceived by them as a threat to democracy itself. To this end, draconian laws aimed at demonising dissenting voices solidify and make their stakes almost unchallenged.

The unchallenged facade of democracy gradually evolves into a tool of direct and systematic tyranny. The direct faces of tyranny include crackdowns on dissenting voices. Intimidation, coercion, torture and trials under different pretexts, including treason, religiosity, and regionalism, often manifest direct state tyranny against its people. Meanwhile, systematic brutality encompasses all policies and practices that put the subjects into perpetual desperation. Divisive state policies and planned sensitisation of ethnic, regional and religious lines engage people in petty matters and stifle their intellectual growth. Crony capitalism, chronic poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, skyrocketing inflation and brain drain often exemplify this.

Democracy without justice ultimately transforms into a totalitarian, Machiavellian and Orwellian culture where brutality overrules genuine democratic norms. The rule of lawlessness and the absence of justice enable megalomaniac and greedy individuals to govern affairs through rigged elections. Since there is no justice or accountability, they are at liberty to perpetuate oppressive practices and policies without fearing consequences.

Additionally, the ruling powers deliberately deprive the masses of freedom of expression, the right to information and education, as an enlightened populace, would threaten their stakes by demanding justice. Consequently, the interests of the powerful become national interests, and all tactics — implied or explicit — to achieve them become the law of the land.

Moreover, an unresponsive and authoritarian regime indulges in all forms of loot and plunder of public resources, leaving little, if at all, for the public. It subjects the masses to socioeconomic deprivation. These public miseries are capitalised upon in the name of the facade of democracy during rigged polls by selling false hopes of prosperity. These parasitic practices and policies place the public at the receiving end, chaining them in the systematic shackles of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment, resulting in the lowest socioeconomic and human rights indicators.

Furthermore, the facade of democracy shields the state’s tyrannous practices. Under the pretext of public support, laws are made that only serve the powerful at the expense of the people.

In addition to other forces of the status quo, two sections that strengthen the democratic façade and benefit the most are the clergy and the so-called intellectuals, mainly related to the media. The former manipulates sentiments by professing divine authentication of the status quo while the latter trades truth and creates misguided public opinion. Both tend to paint shambolic democracy as the best possible form and portray stakeholders in saintly and angelic colours.

And unfortunately democratically clothed totalitarian regimes are more oppressive and sustainable than openly declared authoritarian ones. This is because, unlike totalitarian regimes where people question and oppose their government on legitimate grounds, the facade of democracy suppresses public resistance in the name of their consent in dramatic elections.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 25 th , 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook , follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Shahzaib Rind Explains Pre-Fight Slap, Confrontation with Indian Opponent | Latest News

Police Arrest Demonstrators at NYU Palestine Protest |Latest News

Kashmiri 'Azaadi' Chants By Pro-Palestinian Protesters At Columbia University | Latest News

Catastrophe in Lumut: Ten Perish in Navy Helicopter Collision |Latest News

Day 1 Of Iranian President’s Visit to Pakistan | Pakistan News | Latest News

Hamas Shifts Ceasefire Terms, says US State Department | Latest News

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's Landmark Visit to Lahore | Pakistan News| Latest News

USA, France, Italy, and Germany Protest in Support of Palestine | Israel-Gaza | Latest News

Israeli Intelligence Chief Aharon Haliva Resigns Due to October 7 attack | Latest News

China Rebukes G7 Over South China Sea Meddling

Pakistan By-Election 2024 Official Results: Who Won? | Pakistan News | Latest News

Sharif Calls for Muslim Unity on Gaza & Kashmir During President Ebrahim Raisi Visit | Pakistan News

Sergei Lavrov Accuses West of Heightening Nuclear War Risk | Latest News

Shehbaz Sharif Speaks About Meeting with Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi | Iran President Visit | Pakistan News

Pakistan Set to Privatize PIA by June, Says Finance Minister of Pakistan |Pakistan News |Latest News

Sydney Sweeney's epic vacation adventures: Upside-down fun and kite surfing wipeouts

Sinner plays down Djokovic, Alcaraz comparisons

Djokovic mulls going without coach after 20 years as a professional

Feyenoord boss Slot leading race for Liverpool job

Badosa 'fighting' for tennis career despite doctors' concerns

Five-star Arsenal thrash Chelsea to open up Premier League lead

Skincare 101

The Home Edit

On Express Urdu

عمران خان پر مولانا کی مہربانی

فلسطینی زیتون بھی مزاحمت پسند ہے

کچھ ہوا ہے نہ ہی ہوگا

کرنٹ افیئر ہیں کہاں

تحریک انصاف ضمنی انتخابات ہار گئی

Data for risk-informed policymaking in Pakistan

Pakistan’s unabated economic predicament

Bolstering security for foreign nationals

Imagined diseases

US sanctions on Pakistan’s missile programme: scope and severity

America’s Asia excludes Pakistan

• Life & Style
• Prayer Timing Pakistan
• Ramazan Calendar Pakistan
• Weather Forecast Pakistan
• Online Advertising
• Subscribe to the Paper
• Style Guide
• Privacy Policy
• Code of ethics

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from. Unless otherwise stated, all content is copyrighted © 2024 The Express Tribune.

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• Home Planet
• 2024 election
• Supreme Court
• TikTok’s fate
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

Is America uniquely vulnerable to tyranny?

What a brilliant new book gets right — and wrong — about America’s democracy.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Is America uniquely vulnerable to tyranny?

In The Odyssey , Odysseus and his crew are forced to navigate a strait bounded by two equally dangerous obstacles: Scylla, a six-headed sea serpent, and Charybdis, an underwater horror that sucks down ships through a massive whirlpool. Judging Charybdis to be a greater danger to the crew as a whole, Odysseus orders his crew to try and pass through on Scylla’s side. They make it, but six sailors are eaten in the crossing.

In their new book Tyranny of the Minority , Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt — the authors of How Democracies Die — argue America’s founders faced an analogous problem: navigating between two types of dictatorship that threatened to devour the new country.

The founders, per Levitsky and Ziblatt, were myopically focused on one of them: the fear of a majority-backed demagogue seizing power. As a result, they made it exceptionally difficult to pass new laws and amend the constitution. But the founders, the pair argues, lost sight of a potentially more dangerous monster on the other side of the strait: a determined minority abusing this system to impose its will on the democratic majority.

“By steering the republic so sharply away from the Scylla of majority tyranny, America’s founders left it vulnerable to the Charybdis of minority rule,” they write.

This is not a hypothetical fear. According to Levitsky and Ziblatt , today’s America is currently being sucked down the anti-democratic whirlpool.

The Republican Party, they argue, has become an anti-democratic institution, its traditional leadership cowed by Trump and a racially reactionary base. As such, it is increasingly willing to twist legal tools designed to check oppressive majorities into tools for imposing its policy preferences on an unwilling majority. The best way out of this dilemma, in their view, is radical legal constitutional reform that brings the American system more in line with other advanced democracies.

Tyranny of the Minority is an exceptionally persuasive book. I think it is almost inarguably correct about both the nature of the modern Republican Party and the ways in which it exploits America’s rickety Constitution to subvert its democracy. I come to some similar conclusions in my own forthcoming book on democracy, The Reactionary Spirit (which, full disclosure, has benefited significantly from Levitsky’s feedback in drafting).

Yet at the same time, I believe he and Ziblatt slightly overweight the significance of America’s institutions in its current democratic crisis. Institutions matter for how authoritarian parties take power, but ultimately they may be less decisive than the social strength of the forces arrayed against democracy.

If a reactionary movement is popular or aggressive enough, it’s not clear that any kind of institution can stop it from threatening democracy. Hence why other advanced democracies with distinct institutional arrangements, like Israel , are currently going through democratic crises with root causes strikingly similar to America’s. It’s true that America’s institutions have paved a swift road for the Trumpist right’s attack on democracy. But they may not be quite as central to the story of its rise as Tyranny of the Minority suggests.

The American right’s turn against democracy

Ziblatt and Levitsky are two of America’s very best comparative political scientists, with expertise that makes them uniquely well-equipped for the subject they’re examining.

Ziblatt is the author of an important study of European conservative parties , concluding that their strategic choices played a unique role in determining the health of continental democracy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Conservative parties, by their nature, represent those forces in society — including the wealthy and powerful elite — opposed to radical social change. For this reason, Ziblatt found, they are especially important in determining whether defenders of the status quo attempt to stymie social change from within the democratic system or whether they reject elections and political equality altogether.

Levitsky is a Latin America specialist who, along with co-author Lucan Way, wrote a prescient analysis of a new style of autocracy back in 2002 — a system they termed “competitive authoritarianism” that subsequently emerged as the premier institutional means for turning a seemingly stable democracy into an autocracy (see: Hungary ). Competitive authoritarian governments masquerade as democracies, even holding elections with real stakes. But these contests are profoundly unfair: The incumbent party ensures that the rules surrounding elections, like who gets to vote and what the media gets to say, are heavily tilted in their favor. The result is that the opposition has little chance to win elections, let alone pass their preferred policies .

Tyranny of the Minority analyzes the United States in light of these two broad themes, the importance of conservative parties and the ever-evolving institutional nature of authoritarianism. The first half of the book analyzes how and why the Republican Party went down an anti-democratic path. The second focuses on how the peculiar design of American institutions has created opportunities for the GOP to undermine democracy from within.

Around the world, they find two conditions that make political parties more likely to accept electoral defeats: “when they believe they stand a reasonable chance of winning again in the future” and when they believe “that losing power will not bring catastrophe — that a change of government will not threaten the lives, livelihoods, or most cherished principles.”

In the 21st century, these conditions no longer held among the GOP’s conservative white base. Democrats were no longer a mere political rival, but avatars of a new and scary social order.

“Not only was America no longer overwhelmingly white, but once entrenched racial hierarchies were weakening. Challenges to white Americans’ long-standing social dominance left many of them with feelings of alienation, displacement, and deprivation,” Levitsky and Ziblatt write. “Many of the party’s voters feared losing ... their country — or more accurately, their place in it.”

This, they say, is what made the party vulnerable to conquest by someone like Trump. Rather than fight the base in democracy’s name, traditional Republican elites like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) acted as “semi-loyal democrats”: leaders who say the right things about supporting democracy and the rule of law, but value partisan victory over everything else — including basic, non-partisan democratic principles. This enabled the entire party to become a vehicle for an anti-democratic agenda.

“Openly authoritarian figures — like coup conspirators or armed insurrectionists — are visible for all to see. By themselves, they often lack the public support or legitimacy to destroy a democracy. But when semi-loyalists — tucked away in the hallways of power — lend a hand, openly authoritarian forces become much more dangerous,” they explain. “Throughout history, cooperation between authoritarians and seemingly respectable semi-loyal democrats has been a recipe for democratic breakdown.”

How America’s system makes life easy for would-be autocrats

In the US, Levitsky and Ziblatt see a democracy made vulnerable by its own Constitution.

The Constitution’s framers were the first to take Enlightenment ideas about freedom and translate them to an actual political system. The only historical democratic experiences they looked at were from antiquity , in places like Athens and Rome. Classical sources repeatedly chronicled threats to democracy, even outright collapse, emanating from mob rule.

Though the founders knew that democracy was at heart about majority rule, they took the Greco-Roman experience seriously and designed a system where majorities were severely constrained. The tripartite separation of powers, bicameral legislature, indirect election of the president and senators, lifetime Supreme Court tenure, the laborious process for amending the Constitution: all of these were built, in whole or in part, as limitations on the ability of majorities to impose their will on minorities.

Some American counter-majoritarian institutions emerged not from well-intentioned design but political necessity. Leading founders like James Madison bitterly resented the basic structure of the Senate, where each state gets two seats regardless of size; Alexander Hamilton called it “preposterous” during a constitutional convention debate. It was included purely to mollify small states like Delaware and Rhode Island, who were refusing to join the Union absent sufficient protections for their interests.

Over time, the US shed some of these minoritarian trappings — senators are now directly elected, thanks to the 17th Amendment — but deepened others. In 1803’s Marbury v. Madison , the Supreme Court gave itself expansive power to strike down legislation that was not explicitly granted in the Constitution. More recently, the filibuster emerged as a de facto 60-vote requirement for passing legislation in the Senate — a practice similar to the supermajority vote that the founders explicitly rejected early on.

Levitsky and Ziblatt show that almost every other peer democracy went in the opposite direction.

The United States is “the only presidential democracy in the world in which the president is elected via an Electoral College,” “one of the few remaining democracies that retains a bicameral legislature with a powerful upper chamber,” and “the only democracy in the world with lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices.” Moreover, they note, “the U.S. Constitution is the hardest in the world to change” — making it extremely difficult for reformers to do anything about America’s minority-empowering institutions.

These institutions allow the Republican Party to rule despite being a distinctly minority faction — one that holds extreme positions on issues like taxes and abortion , and has lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections.

So long as the party retains appeal among a hard core of racially resentful supporters, efficiently distributed around the country to take advantage of the Senate and Electoral College’s biases, it can remain nationally competitive. The right’s control over the Supreme Court will likely last decades, thanks to lifetime tenure, allowing it to remake American policy and institutions with impunity. The GOP’s disproportionate national power enables its cadres at the state and local level to pursue explicitly undemocratic policies for holding power, like felon disenfranchisement and extreme gerrymandering, without fear of federal intervention.

Hence the titular “tyranny of the minority”: The Republican Party, having broken with its core commitment to democracy, has now embraced a peculiarly American strategy for taking and wielding power undemocratically.

“America’s countermajoritarian institutions can manufacture authoritarian minorities into governing majorities,” they write. “Far from checking authoritarian power, our institutions have begun to augment it.”

Can good institutions save a rotted society?

Levitsky and Ziblatt are, in my mind, clearly correct about both of their two major points: that the GOP has become an anti-democratic faction, and that America’s minoritarian institutions have given them a straightforward pathway to wielding power undemocratically. The evidence for both propositions is overwhelming, and the book’s style — engaging historical case studies accompanied by a precise deployment of data — hammers them home persuasively. Tyranny of the Minority is an exceptional book, one of the very best in its genre.

But there are some tensions inside of it: in this case, a subtle conflict between the two halves of the argument.

The United States, Ziblatt and Levitsky note, is hardly the only wealthy democracy to have experienced the rise of far-right parties hostile to social change — citing the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and “all of Scandinavia” as prominent examples. Yet those democracies, in their view, “remain relatively healthy.”

The key difference, Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, lies in the institutions. Because those countries are considerably more majoritarian, it is far harder for an authoritarian minority to corrode democracy at a national level. Therefore, they conclude, the best way to safeguard America’s institutions is to make them more like our peers abroad: abolish the Electoral College, eliminate lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, end the filibuster, switch to proportional representation in Congress , ban partisan gerrymandering, and make the Constitution easier to amend.

The obvious objection to these proposals is that they are impractical, that the very nature of the problem — Republican control over minoritarian institutions — makes reforming them infeasible. But there’s a deeper, and more interesting, question raised by Levitsky and Ziblatt’s diagnosis: Is it really the case that our institutions are what make America unique?

America’s minoritarian institutions certainly create a particular pathway for our domestic revanchist faction to gain power and wield it against democracy. But there are plenty of other ways for a democracy to eat itself.

Israel, for example, has an extraordinarily majoritarian political system. It is a parliamentary democracy, meaning limited separation of executive and legislative power, whose legislature is elected on a purely proportional basis. There is a simple majority requirement for passing legislation and even amending the Basic Law (its constitution-lite). The judiciary is, for all intents and purposes, the only check on unfettered majority rule.

Yet Israel is, at the moment, in the midst of a democratic crisis every bit as serious as America’s, perhaps even more so , in which an anti-democratic governing majority seeks to remove the court as a barrier to its radical agenda. The root cause of the crisis is very similar: a far-right faction of the population that wishes to protect existing social hierarchies from the threat of change. But the extremist strategy for cementing their power is the polar opposite: exploiting majoritarian institutions, not minoritarian ones. It’s the founders’ fear come to life, the Scylla to America’s Charybdis.

The point here is not that there are only two options for institutional design, America’s vetocracy or Israel’s blunt majoritarianism. Most advanced democracies fall somewhere in the middle, adopting a mix of majoritarian and counter-majoritarian institutions designed to generally permit majority rule while also preventing abuses of power.

Rather, the United States and Israel put together illustrate that institutions are an at-best-imperfect check on far-right authoritarian movements. The American far right has built a strategy tailored to American institutions; the Israeli far right has adopted a strategic approach tailored to the Israeli context. In both cases, the root of the problem is that there’s a sufficient social foundation for far-right authoritarian politics: one that provides the raw political muscle for bad actors to attack democracy using its own institutions.

Other democracies are not immune to far-right surges, including some that Levitsky and Ziblatt cite as relatively healthy.

The AfD, Germany’s far-right party, is surging in popularity, topping recent polls in four German states . A survey in May found that Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally, would defeat President Emmanuel Macron in their second rematch by a 55-45 margin . The UK approved Brexit by a majority referendum. Even in Canada, one of the most democratically stable Western democracies, extremist-linked legislator Pierre Poilievre is leading the traditionally center-right Conservative Party, which is currently ahead of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in the 2025 polls .

Not every far-right victory is a threat to democracy, of course, but it’s hard to be sure until they have power. Some Western far-right parties, like the AfD , are already showing troubling signs.

And in the US, where the far right is clearly undemocratic, surveys show a real chance that Trump wins the 2024 US election with an outright majority — not just in the Electoral College, but in the popular vote .

At root, Levitsky and Ziblatt appear a little too confident in their argument that the GOP’s extremism dooms the party to minority status.

It’s true that their agenda is out of step with the majority of Americans. But many voters, especially swing voters, don’t always vote on policy or ideology. They make ballot box decisions based on things like gas prices, inflation, and whether the party in power has been there for too long — factors that are often out of the president’s hands. Even if they do not agree with Trump that Mexicans are rapists or that the 2020 election was stolen, they’re willing to vote for him if they’re sufficiently frustrated with either the status quo or the other party’s option.

The same is true in other countries. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government was briefly dethroned in the 2021 election — only to return to power in 2022 after voters experienced life under a fractious coalition that spanned the right-left continuum. Marine Le Pen’s recent rise seems to be less about a majority of voters agreeing with her on immigration than a sense that she’s the only real alternative to an unpopular Macron .

Far-right parties, even potentially anti-democratic ones, can be politically viable under nearly any set of institutions. The key is to establish sufficient support among a large segment of the population that agrees with them, enough for there to be a large ideologically driven backlash. Once that happens, the party can establish itself as a viable alternative to the mainstream. And once that happens, they gain the potential to win over less ideological swing voters who simply have frustrations with the political status quo and look to any port in a storm.

This is not to let America’s institutions off the hook. Levitsky and Ziblatt are absolutely right that its outdated constitution makes it easier for the GOP to travel down an authoritarian path.

But “easier” doesn’t mean “necessary.” While Levitsky and Ziblatt ultimately take an institutions-first approach, seeing their reform as our way out of America’s crisis, I take a more society-first view: that America’s problems are primarily the result of deep social fissures exacerbated by outdated and poorly designed institutions. Even if the United States had a more authentically democratic institution, we’d still be riven by divides over race and identity that have unerringly produced the worst political conflicts in the country’s history.

It follows from this that institutional reforms are not enough: In addition to policies for political reform, we also need to think about ways to reduce the social demand for extreme politics. More bluntly: If widespread hostility to social change enables the GOP’s far-right authoritarian lurch, we need to figure out ways to shift Americans’ beliefs in a more egalitarian direction.

But such a proposal should be considered in addition to Levitsky and Ziblatt’s proposals, not in replacement of them — much as my critique of their book more broadly is less a fundamental concern than a difference in emphasis.

Tyranny of the Minority is one of the best guides out there to the crisis of American democracy. It just puts a touch too much focus on institutions at the expense of the deeper social forces rotting their foundations.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Policy

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Bird flu in milk is alarming — but not for the reason you think

What the backlash to student protests over Gaza is really about

Could a major lawsuit against realtors mean lower home prices?

Lawmakers are overreacting to crime

How the Supreme Court weaponizes its own calendar

Imagining an internet without TikTok

• Faculty Voices Podcast

• Current Issue
• Perspectives in Times of Change
• Past Issues
• Student Views
• Student ReViews
• Book Reviews

Select Page

A Review of Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point

by Kurt Weyland | Nov 20, 2023

Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (Crown, 2023, 349 pages)

With this important new volume , Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are following up on their outstanding bestseller, How Democracies Die (2018) . The earlier book constituted a clarion call to defend liberal democracy from the risks arising from the global wave of populism, which culminated in the shocking election of domineering, belligerent outsider Donald Trump. In Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point, our authors examine mainly the United States, but their provocative arguments have broader implications, as this essay will discuss with a focus on Latin America.

The 2018 volume used the United States as a “least likely case:” If a demagogue with autocratic leanings can win executive office even in the global paragon of democratic liberalism, how much greater is the risk facing all the other countries where populists have taken power? Conversely, the troubling question arose: If populist chief executives have dismantled democracy in several other nations, could Trump manage to undermine it in the United States as well? By probing these important questions systematically and developing many penetrating insights, Levitsky and Ziblatt provided the most prominent and best warning call about the principal threat to political freedom in the third millennium.

By contrast to the broad perspective of How Democracies Die , the new book concentrates mostly on the United States, using comparisons with other countries, especially from the Global North, to highlight American exceptionalism. In a nutshell, Levitsky and Ziblatt advance two main arguments and support them with a great deal of insightful reasoning and relevant evidence.

First, the Republican Party (GOP) has turned into the refuge of whites who fear status loss due to the U.S. advance toward multiracial diversity. But because this societal transformation has firm demographic roots and is therefore bound to continue, the GOP is confining itself to an electoral minority. In reaction, good parts of the party have become undemocratic and try with illiberal means to thwart the emerging multi-racial majority, they assert.

Second, the U.S. institutional framework has an exceptional set of counter-majoritarian features, designed to forestall the unfettered domination of the current majority and to give political minorities institutional mechanisms for defending their basic interests and rights. The Electoral College in presidential elections, the Senate with its disproportionate representation of small states and its filibuster, and the Supreme Court with its judicial review and its lifetime judges all fulfill this function. Yet in Levitsky and Ziblatt’s view, the effort to prevent a “tyranny of the majority” through this globally unique institutional set-up has gone too far: It has allowed the nationally ever less competitive GOP to establish its tyranny of the minority —while also enabling its continued focus on racially resentful whites and its refusal to adjust to multiracial diversity.

Considering the readership of ReVista, what are the implications of these powerful and thought-provoking claims for Latin America? From this comparative perspective, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s emphasis on the United States’ counter-majoritarian institutions is surprising. After all, the biggest threat to contemporary democracy arises precisely from the majoritarian thrust of populism; thus, counter-majoritarian institutions are important safeguards against this problem.

As I explain in my forthcoming book, Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat: Countering Global Alarmism (Cambridge, January 2024), populism’s domineering, power-hungry leaders eagerly marshal their plebiscitarian mass support to undermine and dismantle liberal checks and balances to executive authority. Wherever they can bend or break such counter-majoritarian institutions, they advance toward stifling political hegemony and strangle democratic liberalism.

Whereas U.S. democracy may suffer from excessively strong counter-majoritarianism, Latin America has been particularly exposed to the perils of populism because its counter-majoritarian institutions are relatively weak, both in their formal design and in actual political practice—as Levitsky’s ample earlier work on the region has helped to document. Many Latin American presidents command much greater legislative and decree powers than their counterpart in Washington, and they can often extend their formal attributions: They can bend the rules and arrogate even more power, for instance by using any slight problem as a pretext for passing “emergency” decrees. Once they win elections, populist leaders eagerly exploit these weaknesses and abridge democracy.

Because Latin America’s institutional frameworks are much weaker and less counter-majoritarian than in the United States, the maintenance of the existing checks and balances is essential for democracy’s defense against the perils of populism. Due to this different status quo, the recommendations of Levitsky and Ziblatt’s new, U.S.-specific book are not directly applicable to the region; in fact, they would aggravate the risk.

The evidence: Recent populists who asphyxiated democracy busily eliminated or subjugated one counter-majoritarian institution after the other. In their systematic assault on political liberalism, both neoliberal Alberto Fujimori of Peru and anti-neoliberal Hugo Chávez of Venezuela forced profound transformations of their countries’ constitutions. To impose their hegemony, they boosted presidential powers and lifted prohibitions on reelection, under the majoritarian pretext of promoting “the will of the people.”

In their constitutional overhauls, both Fujimori and Chávez took special aim at a counter-majoritarian institution whose frequent elimination in the Global North Levitsky and Ziblatt praise (p. 208): They abolished the upper chamber of Congress to facilitate their own control over the legislative branch. Colombia’s right-wing populist Álvaro Uribe also sought to get rid of this safeguard; but his referendum proposal failed—a crucial defeat of his undemocratic project of power concentration.

Similarly, both Fujimori and Chavez closed, packed, or emasculated their countries’ high courts, which allowed them to harass the political opposition, put heavy pressure on the media and restrict civil society. By contrast, powerful, independent and activist courts were decisive in containing Brazil’s hard-right populist Jair Bolsonaro and in blocking the continued reelection of immensely popular Uribe—a starkly counter-majoritarian move.

Current experiences corroborate the importance of counter-majoritarian institutions in the struggle against undemocratic populism in Latin America. While El Salvador’s unicameral legislature facilitated democracy’s quick suffocation by autocratic populist Nayib Bukele, his counterpart Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has seen his power limited by Mexico’s bicameral Congress, where senators have shown some independence from their own president.

These arguments apply to other regions as well. For instance, Viktor Orbán easily strangled Hungarian democracy because the country has a unicameral legislature and, more broadly, an institutional framework with pronounced majoritarian features. By contrast, the power-concentration efforts of Poland’s right-wing populists, who have tried hard to emulate their Budapest colleague, have been hindered by the bicameral legislature, especially after opposition forces won a senate majority in 2019.

In sum, whereas Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the United States has retained excessively counter-majoritarian institutions, Latin American countries with their much weaker checks and balances are well-advised to defend their counter-majoritarian institutions, which provide much-needed protection against the temptations and risks of majoritarian populism.

Indeed, even in the United States, counter-majoritarian institutions significantly helped rein in populist Trump, and they may become even more important after the vengeful populist’s ever more likely reelection. From 2017 to 2021, independent courts prohibited many illiberal initiatives. Federalism also proved decisive as state and local governments run by Democrats systematically opposed the president. More basically, the administration of presidential elections by the states prevented the power-hungry populist from directly controlling voting procedures. If the federal government had been in charge, Trump may have engineered his reelection by “finding” the requisite number of votes wherever he was falling short in late 2020.

In regards to the United States, Levitsky and Ziblatt may also go too far in some of their other claims. While whites’ “racial resentment” certainly was important for Trump’s surprising rise, this was not the only appeal with which the billionaire tycoon beat his primary opponents in 2016, captured the presidency that year and almost repeated this feat in 2020. Instead, he also enlisted cultural and religious conservatism, economic nationalism, nostalgic patriotism and—in 2020—law-and-order slogans.

Recognizing these broader appeals is significant because they enable Trump in particular, and the GOP in general, to reach out beyond the shrinking demographic base of non-Hispanic whites that Levitsky and Ziblatt emphasize. Indeed, to the surprise of many observers, Trump in 2020 won higher vote shares among African-Americans and especially Latinos than in 2016— after four long years of inflammatory rhetoric tinged with racism, xenophobia and sexism. For instance, the populist’s espousal of cultural conservatism and patriotism and his defense of gun rights were quite popular among Latinos in South Texas, as my Americanist colleague Daron Shaw has found.

For these reasons, the Republican Party may not inevitably head into the demographic cul-de-sac that Levitsky and Ziblatt foresee. Consequently, the party may not depend as much on the US’ counter-majoritarian institutions either. More basically, the GOP may not be as disproportionately “authoritarian” as our authors claim. Instead, the Democratic Party has its radical fringes as well; when polled, its members and sympathizers endorse political violence and hold other illiberal views about as much as their Republican counterparts, as Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason documented in their 2022 book on Radical American Partisanship (pp. 46-49, 64-69, 123-26). Fortunately, however, attitudes are often far from driving actual behavior; thus, despite the unusual turbulence of the Trump era, political violence in the US has remained at low levels, compared for instance to the troubles and travails of the late 1960s.

In conclusion, while Tyranny of the Minority insightfully highlights several important problems plaguing the contemporary United States, the prospects of American democracy may not be quite as dire as Levitsky and Ziblatt claim.

Kurt Weyland is Mike Hogg Professor in Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin and author, most recently, of Assault on Democracy: Communism, Fascism and Authoritarianism during the Interwar Years (Cambridge 2021).

Related Articles

A Review of Born in Blood and Fire

The fourth edition of Born in Blood and Fire is a concise yet comprehensive account of the intriguing history of Latin America and will be followed this year by a fifth edition.

A Review of El populismo en América Latina. La pieza que falta para comprender un fenómeno global

In 1946, during a campaign event in Argentina, then-candidate for president Juan Domingo Perón formulated a slogan, “Braden or Perón,” with which he could effectively discredit his opponents and position himself as a defender of national dignity against a foreign power.

A Review of Aaron Copland in Latin America: Music and Cultural Politics

In Aaron Copland in Latin America: Music and Cultural Politics, Carol Hess provides a nuanced exploration of the Brooklyn-born composer and conductor Aaron Copland (1900–1990), who served as a cultural diplomat in Latin America during multiple tours.

Harvard University | Privacy | Accessibility | Trademark Notice | Reporting Copyright Infringements Copyright © 2020 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.

Admin Login

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder review – how to defend democracy in the age of Trump

Lessons from Nazi Germany and eastern Europe show us how democracy dies, and what we must do to save it

W inston Churchill once famously declared: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Underpinned by the rule of law and the popular will, democracy is the only way we can prevent the arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power: suppression of free speech; curtailment or abolition of civil liberties; laws passed by decree without public debate or popular approval; arrest and imprisonment without trial; torture and murder by unchecked agencies of the government; and theft, extortion and embezzlement by politicians in power, who inevitably turn into kleptocrats when democracy is destroyed.

Yet democracy is a fragile creation. After a period following the collapse of the Soviet Union, when constitutional democracy spread to many countries not just in Europe but across the globe, and Francis Fukuyama declared that history had come to an end, the tide seems to have turned. Democracies are now being destroyed in Russia, Hungary, Turkey and Poland, as strongmen such as Putin , Orban , Erdoğan and Kaczyński dismantle civil liberties, silence critical voices and suppress independent institutions. What makes it worse is that such would-be dictators enjoy popular support for what they are doing. A similar process may well be under way with the advent of the Trump regime in the United States.

How we defend our most fundamental freedoms has once again become a matter of great urgency. The historian Timothy Snyder has produced this short book as one response. History, and especially the history of the 20th century, has lessons for us all, he contends. A specialist on east-central Europe, Snyder made his name with a book, Bloodlands , that argued, less than persuasively, for an equivalence of Stalin’s purges with the Nazi Holocaust. More recently, he has declared in Black Earth that the Holocaust was not about the implementation of paranoid antisemitism but an attempt to gain control of more agricultural land as an alternative to using science to improve the natural environment. His argument did not find many supporters. What does he say in his latest tract?

On Tyranny is less an anatomy of tyranny itself than an essay about how we might stop it from happening. “Do not obey in advance,” he says. “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” After Hitler came to power, many if not most Germans voluntarily offered their obedience to his regime. We should heed this warning and refuse to do so ourselves. And certainly, the millions of state servants who ran Germany did indeed rush to join the Nazi party to save their jobs. Later on, few opposed the growing antisemitism of the regime or its genocidal outcome. But Snyder forgets the degree of coercion to which they were subjected. It was no easy thing to risk your job when over a third of the workforce was unemployed, as it was in 1933. Hundreds of thousands of Nazi stormtroopers were roaming the streets beating up and killing the Social Democrats and Communists who were the regime’s main opponents. Up to 200,000 people, overwhelmingly those on the political left, were thrown into concentration camps and brutally mistreated. The great mass of Germans did not obey in advance: they obeyed when tyranny had already set up its tent.

In Czechoslovakia in 1946, to take another example offered by Snyder, free elections resulted in 38% of the vote going to the Communists (by an interesting coincidence, roughly the same as the popular vote for the Nazis in 1932); within the next three years, democratic institutions were annihilated as people followed their drive to monopolise power. Here too, however, the driving force was the occupying Red Army, and even in other east-central European states such as Romania, Poland or East Germany, where support for communism was far weaker, the same thing happened: Stalinism came to power at the end of a Red Army bayonet. It’s not always easy to refuse to obey in such circumstances, and what we really need is to work out how to resist the imposition of a dictatorship when it’s not backed by massive violence against its opponents but claims to be establishing itself with popular consent and the validation of the law.

Snyder’s second lesson is to “defend institutions”, by which he means the courts, the constitution, the press, the trade unions, the parliament and so on. The example he gives, however, illustrates a different point: he shows German Jews underestimating the Nazis and assuming Hitler would be controlled by his conservative coalition partners, calm down and become more moderate once he got into power. We do not need the example of Nazi Germany to demonstrate the fallacy of these beliefs: Trump has already shown how mistaken they are in the first few weeks of his presidency. It is not at all clear, though, that people actually have underestimated Trump. He clearly is impulsive, ignorant about foreign policy and inconsistent in many of his statements – unlike Hitler, who arrived with clear purposes at home and abroad, and prepared everything he said carefully beforehand. The mistake some have made is to assume that Trump would be curbed by more moderate advisers. Even if he does submit to control, his choice of advisers has steered clear of moderation.

Snyder’s third lesson is “beware the one-party state”. As he rightly remarks, this is in a way unnecessary, because most people will realise that the suppression of oppositional political parties is a glaringly obvious step on the way to dictatorship. Here again, however, it is important not to ignore the element of coercion in this process. In Germany in 1933, most oppositional parties were suppressed by force or the threat of force; even the large Catholic Centre party was threatened with violence as well as bribed with false promises of Nazi respect for the institutions it held dear. And sometimes the preservation of a multi-party system can mask the creation of a dictatorship: Communist-run East Germany, for example, had a multiplicity of political parties right up to the end, including its own version of the Christian Democrats. But these parties were all kept rigidly in line, used by the regime as “transmission belts” for the communication of its ideology to areas of society – active Christians, former Nazis and so on – who might otherwise be impervious to it.

Snyder’s fourth lesson is “take responsibility for the face of the world” – in other words, be sceptical about propaganda. This lesson is essentially the same as various others he suggests: “be kind to our language”, “believe in truth”, “investigate”, “listen for dangerous words”. And indeed when Trump brands any criticism as “fake news” and proclaims blatant untruths as facts, we have entered the era of “post-truth” and “alternative facts”. No wonder sales of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four have surged in the US . We certainly need to be persistent and unyielding in nailing politicians’ lies, though it is doubtful whether Snyder’s recommendation, which involves reading that old authoritarian Fyodor Dostoevsky’s double-decker novel The Brothers Karamazov , will be of much use.

Snyder also tells us, somewhat unnecessarily, that we can survive tyranny by establishing a private life and staying calm when the unthinkable arrives. The creeping destruction of democracy can be stopped or reversed; it’s not inevitable, as his injunction to “be as courageous as you can” implies. In this book, as in his others, Snyder provokes us to think again about major issues of our time, as well as significant elements of the past, but he seems to have rushed it out rather too quickly. It could do with far greater depth of historical illustration, not to mention recourse to the many thinkers whose wisdom we might profit from in dealing with the issue of tyranny and how to combat it. Democracy dies in many different ways, and to help us in defending our rights we need a more thoughtful book than this.

• History books
• Book of the day
• Czechoslovakia
• Donald Trump

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Liberty, democracy, and the temptations to tyranny in the Dialogues of Plato

William altman . [email protected].

It is not unusual for a collection of papers originating in a conference to lack cohesion, but it is rare for such a collection to convey something of what it was like to attend the conference. Thanks to the evident amiability of Charlotte C. S. Thomas, the conference’s organizer and this volume’s editor, one gets a sense of how collegial and indeed fun the 2019 conference on “Liberty and Tyranny in Plato” at Mercer College (Macon, Georgia) must have been. In her introduction to the book, Thomas not only celebrates the eleven essays it contains but helpfully situates Plato in the context of Athens’ “mysterious success at Marathon” (xii), invoking in the process the distinction between liberty and libertinism (xv-xvi). The theme of “liberty” receives emphasis because the conference was sponsored by the McDonald Center for America’s Founding Principles, and, since the Straussian orientation of most of the conference participants reflects the continuing influence of Leo Strauss (who died in 1973), it should surprise nobody that the Plato who emerges from the collection is at best a qualified supporter of liberty in any recognizably American sense, or that liberalism, even in the broadest sense, is subjected to a Platonic critique, or at least a critique that is made to seem Platonic. In this context, Thomas’s amiable collegiality—epitomized by her decision to invite the distinctly non-Straussian scholar Nicholas Smith—combined with her emphasis on the Miracle of Marathon, mitigates a certain predictability of emphasis among those who address the conference’s theme effectively.

Unfortunately, not all of the papers do so, and thus the collection suffers from the lack of cohesion typical of such proceedings. This problem is most evident in the contributions that take a narrow focus, as does the paper of Alex Priou on Alcibiades —an essay which fascinates by revealing a scholar in transition between a first book on Parmenides and what is obviously a new book project—Devin Stauffer on the tripartite soul, Mary Townsend on the treatment of women by Protagoras in Protagoras and Gorgias in Meno , Keven Honeycutt on the scant information he can piece together about the otherwise unknown Callicles, Khalil Habib on the dubious connection between Plato and Machiavelli’s Mandragola , and Jennifer Baker’s interesting but out-of-place essay on the relevance of the Athenian Stranger’s preludes to the flaws of our own criminal justice system. Baker’s emphasis on Laws is salutary, but it comes too late; this dialogue should have played a much larger part in a conference devoted to “Liberty and Tyranny in Plato” that is otherwise almost exclusively dominated by attention to Gorgias and Republic . Perhaps the greatest offender in this regard is Peter Ahrensdorf’s otherwise fine and detailed essay on Socrates and Achilles, which relies on the Republic to discriminate between the two on the fear of death but does so without discussing Socrates’ comparison of himself to the son of Thetis in the Apology .

The collection gets off to a mixed start with Catherine Zuckert’s “Plato on the Connection between Liberty and Tyranny.” Zuckert is generous and repeatedly acknowledges her debts to Arlene Saxonhouse in particular. But even though this important and often innovative scholar also cites a broad array of sources in the notes, Zuckert falls into the practice of summarizing Plato’s Gorgias in a manner that inevitably emphasizes some passages at the expense of others, forcing the reader to decide what is being ignored as well as what is being emphasized. In the end, one comes away from reading such paraphrases with impatience, and I trust that every Straussian would agree that there are far better reasons to reread a Platonic dialogue than to discover which passages a scholar has “passed over in silence.” And as her penultimate footnote indicates (20n17), both Zuckert and the conference’s other participants—apart from Baker, that is—needed to be considerably less silent with regard to Plato’s Laws. A fair-minded assessment will discover more of value in Nick Smith’s well-argued “Pity the Tyrant” than in Zuckert’s coy defense of at least some measure of tyranny.

The most provocative essay in this collection is Richard S. Ruderman’s “Plato on the Tyrannical Temptation,” and it deserves careful attention. Its power can be detected first in the addition of “temptations” to the book’s title, and its core claim is to establish a close connection between the tyrannical and philosophical impulses, predictably linked by the kind of ἔρως that tends to become indistinguishable from Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht . Ruderman’s most interesting notion is that there is a connection between the lawlessness of philosophical dialectic and the tyrant’s political subversion of law. What makes this essay so important is that Ruderman imagines the first step in a philosopher’s education as overcoming what he calls “the lure of the noble” (68), a process that culminates in “the refutation of the noble” (68n13 and 72). The way he introduces “the noble” therefore deserves to be quoted: “If the noble attracts us with its promise to offer something that transcends our mere self-concern—that appeals to our desire to act for others or the common good, even at a cost to ourselves—then the law and justice would seem to be the paramount exemplars of the noble” (67). Ruderman needs to link “the noble” to law in order to join dialectic to lawless tyranny; he ignores the fact that the law of Callipolis—indeed the existence of Callipolis—depends on the philosopher’s obedience to the demands of “the common good” ( Republic 519e), explicitly linked to justice just a few lines later ( Republic 520d). There are other treasures here, as when Ruderman states that Strauss “simply passes over in silence the passage on dialectic” that is the foundation of the essay’s characteristic ambivalence on tyranny, and his single reference to the master’s On Tyranny (71) points in an even more illuminating direction. After reading Smith’s essay, it is likewise enlightening to consider Ruderman’s claim that Socrates’ description of the tyrant “contains within it the troubling concession that the life of tyranny is the alternative to the best life, the life of philosophy” (72; emphasis in the original). In short, particularly with respect to “the refutation of the noble,” Ruderman’s essay should be required reading.

But the collection’s crown jewel is Jeffrey Dirk Wilson’s “ Gorgias as Reductio ad absurdum Argument: Socrates as True Politician but Failed Teacher.” Wilson’s is a unique scholarly voice: he has published little but has thought deeply, and his exuberant seriousness is evident in his engagement with Plato, the secondary literature, and the other conference participants. As delivered at Mercer, Wilson’s paper was a more or less standard “insufficiency of reason” reading of Gorgias , and he is scarcely unique in supplying the dialogue with an inexorably unpersuaded Callicles, the ending which Plato himself “passes over in silence.” [1] Wilson’s thesis is that Plato turns to myth at the end of Gorgias because reason has failed, for it is Socrates’ failure as a teacher that performs a reductio on his claim to being a true politician (174). What makes Wilson’s paper unique is that he supplemented it after delivery with an excited and exciting coda calling for “De-Cartesianizing Our Reading of Plato” that would make room for “an appeal to the imagination” embodied in the eschatological myth. He explains the addition of this section in a fascinating footnote (179n15): “After the conclusion of the formal session, Smith, along with Catherine Zuckert, Alex Priou, and one or two others and I walked together from the room where our formal sessions were held to the hotel. Smith and I continued the conversation, the dialogue, continuing as Socrates [in the Q&A immediately following Wilson’s talk, ‘Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates-like, rose from his seat’] with a chief interlocutor and others along the way.” Even if he misconstrued Smith’s position as based on something more profound than a neo-Aristotelian distinction between an intellectualist Socrates and a more ἀκρασία-friendly Plato, it is most refreshing to hear Wilson describe this dialogue as “an epiphanic moment for me, for which I thank Professor Smith” (180n15). Like any number of other scholars, this reviewer has found a silver lining in the replacement of the in-person conference by means of Zoom: it is free, easy, and less psychologically draining. Wilson’s words are a timely and eloquent reminder of the gold that goes missing when there are no such conversations on the way back to the hotel.

Table of Contents

Introduction, Charlotte C. S. Thomas (xi-xx) Catherine Zuckert, “Plato on the Connection between Liberty and Tyranny” (1-21) Alex Priou, “The Socratic Turn to Alcibiades” (22-41) Nicholas D. Smith, “Pity the Tyrant” (42-58) Richard Ruderman, “Plato on the Tyrannical Temptation” (59-79) Devin Stauffer, “The Myth of the Tripartite Soul in Plato’s Republic ” (80-97) Peter Ahrensdorf, “Socrates’ Critique of Homer’s Education in the Republic ” (98-120) Mary Townsend, “Sophistry, Rhetoric, and the Critique of Women: Plato’s Gorgias and Protagoras on Female Injustice” (121-145) Kevin Honeycutt, “Notes on the Character of Callicles” (146-170) Jeffrey Dirk Wilson, “ Gorgias as Reductio ad absurdum Argument: Socrates as True Politician but Failed Teacher” (171-193) Khalil Habib, “Liberty, Tyranny, and the Family in Plato and Machiavelli” (194-218) Jennifer Baker, “The Worst and Less Humane Way: The Platonic Condemnation of a Criminal Justice System Like Ours” (219-235)

[1] Only Kevin Honeycutt, Thomas’s colleague at Mercer, mentions Werner Jaeger’s suggestion “that Callicles is Plato himself, or, rather, a Presocratic Plato” (147n5). I am grateful to Nick Smith for his helpful comments.

Man Is Born Free But Everywhere He Is In Chains | for CSS & PMS aspirants

• December 20, 2020
• CSS , CSS Solved Essays , Daily Write-Ups , Featured , Opinions
• 39089 Views

Iqra Ali, a student of Sir Kazim, has attempted the essay “ Man Is Born Free, But Everywhere He Is In Chains ” on the given pattern, which Sir  Syed Kazim Ali  teaches his students. Sir Syed Kazim Ali has been Pakistan’s top English writing and CSS, PMS essay and precis coach with the highest success rate of his students. The essay is uploaded to help other competitive aspirants learn and practice essay writing techniques and patterns to qualify for the essay paper.

Introduction

• Freedom is a prerequisite for a peaceful life.
• By Birth, man is free, but as soon as he reaches his consciousness, he now and again gets blows to his freedom.
• Since the fetters cannot be broken free, they must be balanced to ensure righteous life.

Historical Background of the axiom: Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

• Social Contract Theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Understanding the Concept of Freedom and Slavery

• Freedom can think, speak, act or react as one wants.
• Slavery is when one human being is owned by another mentally, physically, or emotionally.

How is the innate freedom of a man compromised?

• The burden of fulfilling living essentials
• The lust for high living standards
• The societal inequalities
• The passion for patriotism
• Social, religious, and legal restrictions

What are the impacts of imprisonment on human life?

• The positive impact of chains
• Chains of laws preventing man from becoming an offender
• Chains of spirituality help a man achieve self-realization
• Chains of relations and friendship beautifying man’s life
• The negative impacts of chains
• Chains of struggle robbing a man of his peaceful career
• Chains of unrighteous nationalism create the fear of war
• Chains of competition perpetuating evils and chaos in society

How can the ongoing chains be balanced if they cannot be broken free?

• To encourage the collaborative and coordinating work system
• To bridge the gap between socioeconomic inequalities
• To make the people decide on the basis of rationality
• To promote the inclusive concept of patriotism
• To strengthen the democratic norms in society
• To help to form the just and peaceful community
• To ensure quality education

Critical Analysis Conclusion

Freedom- having the power to think, speak, act or react as one wants – is a prerequisite of a peaceful life. There is no denying the fact that man is born free without fetters regardless of class, race, creed, and nation. However, as he initiates his social interaction, he starts feeling shackled in the chains of the dictatorship of his parents, the burdens of his living essentials, the lust of his desires, and the responsibilities of his family and relations. Moreover, his socioeconomic life makes him face the inequalities in daily life, thus plaguing his physical-psychological status. As it is aptly demonstrated in the famous words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau- a philosopher from the time of Enlightenment, “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” Although he said that given the circumstances in which people were chained in the kingships of aristocrats and there was an ongoing race to acquire property, the statement fits itself in every era, including the most revolutionized today. All the chains, ultimately, lead a person to be either a civilized man- as the chains of the law, spirituality, and emotional attachments do- or even worse than a beast- as the economic disparities that perpetrate evil instincts in him in the competition with his other Sapien mates. Thus, he always strives for the freedom with which he was sent to this world. So, liberty can only be ensured if measures like encouraging the coordinative and collaborative work system, bridging the gap of socioeconomic inequalities, strengthening democratic norms in society, and providing quality education are adapted at individual and societal levels so that the negative shackles can be broken, and the positives could help to make a community with perpetual peace, growth, and happiness.

Considering the evolution of the hypothesis mentioned above, one must dive into the times of Jean- Jacques Rousseau. He was a Genevan philosopher of the midst of the eighteenth century when the torch of Enlightenment shone firmly, and decadent Parisian elites and stultifying old regime authorities clashed to form an uneasy powder keg of an environment in France during the years preceding the tumultuous French Revolution. He, being an anti-authoritarian and libertarian, put forward his magnum opus- called the social contract theory or the theory of general will- with an immortal opening,  “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others and remains a greater slave than they.”  Thus, to break the constraints of slavery, Rousseau believed in the supremacy of democracy, equality, and freedom. Although the theory was given based on the then circumstances, it is still valid in its full essence that needs updated transformation to be implemented to today’s globalized imprisonment.

In general perspectives, both freedom and slavery mean different for different people. However, from the literature point of view, freedom is defined as the absence of coercion, necessity, or constraint in thoughts, words, actions, or reactions. In other words, it is an opportunity to be what one thinks to be. Contrarily, slavery is the antithesis of freedom, a state of not being free. It means when someone or something owns one’s thoughts, words, emotions, or actions like a property. Hence, where slavery exists, freedom vanishes and vice versa. As it is rightly said by Ernestine Rose, a nineteenth-century pro-suffrage, anti-slavery orator in the United States,  “Freedom and Slavery cannot exist together.”

Although a newly born takes his breath as an unrestricted mortal, and his consciousness is free from the thought that he is an enslaved person or free citizen, a prince or penniless, it is compromised as soon as he initiates his social interaction. Certain factors are responsible for his shackled life. First, the burden of fulfilling essentials from a very early age binds the little man. He can do nothing but cry for food and protection. Then, as a child’s consciousness develops, he starts confronting others’ authority over him, from being trained to use the toilet to suppress his cry for unaddressed demands. Likewise, in his youth, when he encounters the public for his livelihood, he, having no other option, has to face all the hurdles in the way of his earnings to survive in this world.

Moving forward, when a person starts grooming, his living standards are raised. As a result, he, in his lust, cages himself in self-made chains. For instance, the daily routine of Mughal rulers used to be fully documented, and every moment of the day was a part of their disciplined schedule. Likewise, in modern times, political leaders and the elite are chained by protocol and restricted movements. These are, in fact, the golden chains, which the rulers happily accepted as a price of their power and authority.

Looking into the life of an ordinary man, his shackles are limited to bringing up his family and keeping cordial relations with his relatives and friends. Although it seems interesting, living from hand to mouth with many responsibilities curtails his freedom. As the elites, on the one hand, having everything in abundance, are tied in the chains of maintaining their status, the socioeconomic disparities, on the other hand, do not let the poor prosper in any field of life. As a result, a poor person has to work harder than others to make ends meet. It not only overburdens him but also hinders his happiness and peace. Compromising all his desires, from enjoying a vacation to getting an opportunity to study abroad, he learns to live in the given circumstances, and his lack becomes an obstacle in the way of his likes and dislikes.

Apart from personal factors, patriotism also limits man’s freedom. A person gets trapped in the chains of nationalism and jingoism, keeping aside the supremacy of human rights. He is not allowed to indulge in actions against his country’s reputation. Although the chains in the masses of a state build its image in the international arena, they have to compromise on their wants and hopes for this.

“To be proud of one’s country for what it does is to enslave oneself.” Sydney J. Haris

Likewise, religious, social, and legal bindings are the most prominent chains for man. Because religion is a complete code of life, one may be told that he can do what he wants, but if there are certain things he must do or face eternal punishment from the religious perspective, he is not free to do them. Thus, saying, “ You are free to disbelieve; you are free to choose to burn forever,”  is nonsense. It is neither a choice nor freedom. The same is the case with social norms and customs. If an individual tries to eliminate these shackles, he is isolated from society. Considering the legal imprisonment, a person is bound to travel, work, or even speak within the limits of the law of the land. Therefore, most people willingly or unwillingly accept these laws and religious and social practices that bind the person so that they cannot release themselves from the relentless grip.

Undoubtedly, as time passes, the chains become so heavy and influential that they impact every second of a person’s life, either positively or negatively. For instance, the chain of laws preventing man from becoming an offender is one of the most constructive outcomes. Without laws, man could be even worse than a beast. Moreover, human society could present the picture of a jungle where the rule of ‘might is right’ prevails. Consequently, fundamental human rights are compromised. Likewise, chains of spirituality help a man achieve self-realization. Religious limitations and the fear of punishment for indulging in morally wrong acts make him a responsible and tamed citizen. Also, self-actualization helps him achieve the most superior position in both worlds, which he is granted with. Above all, the chains of relations and friendship beautify man’s life. Having the responsibilities of parents, spouse, and children, he acts on the dictum “look before leap’. Once a man realizes that he is essential not only as an individual but also an integral part of human society, and he takes any step that can darken or enlighten the life of the people he loves, he thinks sagaciously before moving even a step forward.

On the other hand, the negative impacts of slavery- either physical or mental- are numerous that overpower the positives. As a result, the words like chains, slavery, and imprisonment are always taken negatively. First, the endless struggle to achieve the maximum robs a man of his peaceful career. It is like a mark of horror on the face of the beautiful world, which has been chasing mankind since the stone stage. Second, the chains of unrighteous nationalism create the fear of war. When the passion of patriotism exceeds the limits, it injures the sense of righteousness of nations. Likewise, the chain of jingoism hurts the feelings of other countries. As it is aptly said by Charles De Gaulle, a French army officer and statesman who led Free France against Nazi Germany in World War II,  “Patriotism is when the love of your people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”  We live in an age of ceaseless competition that perpetuates societal evils and chaos. Since his existence, man has looked more into the plate of others than his own. As a result, he strives to achieve it, either through right or wrong means, which would not only drives him to darkness and many other social evils but also results in the exploitation of the dependent class of society. To sum up, despite reaching the epoch of free speech and expression, man is in shackles everywhere that cannot be broken free in any way.

Nonetheless, balancing the constraints, rather than striving to break them, in a way that the constructive chains are stringed more forcefully and destructive chains are loosened can help form a peaceful world. Although various measures have been taken gradually with time, a lot is yet to be done. In this regard, a competition-free collaborative and coordinating work system must be encouraged because the fierce competition yields oligopolies or monopolies, whereas coordinated interaction fosters productivity and creativity. Further, the gap of socioeconomic inequalities must be bridged. Broadly the global south and particularly the poor of today are being exploited by the global north and the elite, respectively. When the gap is reduced, society will be more inclusive and tranquil. Also, awareness campaigns and seminars must make people aware of what freedom is and what kind of slavery must not be accepted. Various feminist, anti-racist, and equality for all movements are worth mentioning in this respect. All the steps help people reason about the dos and don’ts.

Promoting an inclusive concept of patriotism would also be one of the giant leaps in formulating a peaceful society. Patriotism, although itself is considered a chain to the freedom of mankind, it frees him from many other chains like nationalism, sectarianism, racial discrimination, and extremism, thus, building a productive society. Adding more to it, since freedom of speech is the fundamental right of man, it must be ensured that every man in society can express his thoughts and do what he wants without any constraint. In sum, democratic norms must be strengthened, and a society must be formed where a person considers himself free enough to spend his life according to his whims and wishes and where the representatives are his servants, not masters. It is also the most stressed objective of the general will of Rousseau, who believes a man is born free. But everywhere, he is in chains. Last but not least, quality education must be ensured so that all must have equal knowledge of their rights and duties, and none could be exploited; thus if all the above-mentioned reforms are made under the umbrella of law, a just and peaceful community can be accomplished.

Although it is depicted that, at some points, a man must be shackled so that it might not harm the peace of society, what the concept of liberty remains. If Rousseau has stated, “A man is born free,” he means that the criteria of freedom are being free from the strings of thoughts, care, respect, law, religion, and everything that starts bounding a child as he grows up. Hence, every binding, either constructive or destructive, impedes to the way of free life. As a result, the essence of his words dies. Thus, if, on the one hand, it is an evergreen statement, on the other hand, it does not fit anywhere in its complete form.

A newborn is a free creature when sent to the earth. However, with age, he gets repetitive blows to his personal and societal liberty. Although some chains are integral to tame him as a responsible citizen and form a peaceful society, many are fabricated to satisfy the baseless superstitions of culture, religion, and competition, resulting in the prevalence of chaos in society. Thus, reforms should be made to balance the chains of this imprisoned world. On the one hand, the shackles that help form an ideal society must be made stiff. But, on the other hand, the chains compromising man’s fundamental freedom must be made ineffective. Only then perpetual peace and harmony in the world could be maintained.

PMS Solved Past Papers’ Essays

Looking for the last years’ solved PMS essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the PMS Solved Essays to start reading them. PMS Solved Essays

PMS 2022 Solved Essays

Are you searching for PMS 2022 solved essays? All the essays are attempted by Sir Kazim’s students, who either qualified for the CSS or PMS examination or scored the highest marks in the essay paper. Click on any of the following essays to start reading.

CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers

Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by  Miss Iqra Ali  &  Dr Nishat Baloch , Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students.  General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers

Articles Might Interest You!

The following are some of the most important articles for CSS and PMS aspirants. Click on any to start reading.

Recent Posts

Top Categories

Cssprepforum, education company.

cssprepforum.com

Welcome to Cssprepforum, Pakistan’s largest learning management system (LMS) with millions of questions along with their logical explanations educating millions of learners, students, aspirants, teachers, professors, and parents preparing for a successful future. 

Founder:   Syed Kazim Ali Founded:  2020 Phone: +92-332-6105-842 +92-300-6322-446 Email:  [email protected] Students Served:  10 Million Daily Learners:  50,000 Offered Courses: Visit Courses  

More Courses

Basic English Grammar and Writing Course

Extensive English Essay & Precis Course for CSS and PMS

CSS English Essay and Precis Crash Course for 2023

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox.

• CSS Solved Essays
• CSS Solved GSA
• CSS Solved PA
• CSS Solved Islamiat
• Current Affairs
• All Courses
• Writers Club
• All Authors
• All Members
• All Teachers
• Become an Author
• Who is Sir Syed Kazim Ali?
• Privacy Policy

CssPrepForum is Pakistan’s largest and greatest platform for CSS, PMS, FPSC, PPSC, SPSC, KPPSC, AJKPSC, BPSC, GBPSC, NTS, and other One Paper 100 Marks MCQs exams’ students. It has become Pakistan’s most trusted website among CSS, PMS students for their exams’ preparation because of its high-quality preparation material.

@ 2023 Cssprepforum. All RightsReserved.

Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, and PMS

• January 24, 2022
• Essay for CSS PMS and Judiciary Exam

This is an Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, PMS, and Judiciary Examinations. Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation, or to choose governing officials to do so.” Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives. As Democracy is a very popular topic so, here is a complete Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, PMS, and judiciary examinations.

What is democracy? Essentials of democracy Democracy in Pakistan

A brief history

• The early period from 1947-58
• Period of General Ayub and General Zia
• Political turmoil and General Pervaiz Musharraf

Causes of failure of democracy in Pakistan

• Delayed Framing of the Constitution
• Leadership Crisis
• Lack of education
• No independence of the judiciary
• Weak political parties and their infighting
• Delayed elections and rigging
• Corruption and nepotism
• Quasi-Federalism and Conflict between Eastern and Western Wings
• Terrorism and extremism

Pakistani Democracy Vs. Western Democracy

Suggestions

• Effective accountability of the politicians
•  Reforming judiciary
• Abolish feudalism
• Eliminate corruption
• Two parties system on the pattern of the USA, UK
• Amendment in the constitution
• Fair and free election
• Increase the education budget to educate people
• Uninterrupted democratic process
• Strengthening the institutions

Essay on “Democracy in Pakistan” for CSS, PMS, and Judiciary Examinations

“You have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice, and the equality of manhood in your own native soil.” -Muhammad Ali Jinnah,

To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy. – Bertrand Russell

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development, and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic, and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.

For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

Many people use the term “democracy” as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the Jaw; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights ; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained).

In other cases, “democracy” is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term “democracy” is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.

Democracy in Pakistan

Democracy in its true spirit has never been allowed to take root in Pakistan. Since its independence in 1947, a military-bureaucratic establishment has always governed the country. Army generals usurp power at their own convenience and quit only when they are forced to quit by mass political movements or by sudden unexpected death. When forced by external or internal pressures, democracy is given a chance but in reality, a group of army generals keeps controlling the decision-making.

This direct or indirect military influence is the greatest impediment to the evolution of a stable governing system in Pakistan. Besides, the army is not solely responsible for this mass but it is our inefficient politicians who provide an opportunity for to army to take over.

A brief history of Democracy in Pakistan

Recalling the last 62 years of Pakistan, democracy is found only as an interval before the next military general comes to the scene. The future of democracy was doomed from the start when Liaquat Ali Khan, the first elected Prime Minister, was shot at a public gathering. Nobody knows to this day who did it and why. From now on, the balance of power was to shift in the favor of the military. A comparison tells us how this shift came up. From 1951-57 India had one Prime Minister and several army chiefs while during the same period Pakistan had one army chief and several Prime ministers.

The same army chief, the Sandhurst-trained general, Ayub Khan was to announce the first martial law in the country in 1958 and then a series of military rules were to follow.

General Ayub Khan could not withstand a popular national movement against him and transferred power to General Yahya Khan in March 1969. Under him, Pakistan lost its half which is now Bangladesh. Power was then transferred to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as the first civilian martial law administrator. Bhutto pursued an independent policy, which was against what generals and the US wanted, and he had to pay with his life.

Charged for compliance in murder, Bhutto was hanged by the next martial law administrator, General Zia ul Haq. The hanging of an elected Prime Minister was shocking news to the world and Pakistan was to have the effects years later. The general died in a mysterious plane crash.

Then came a ten years gap of experimentation with democracy and every two years each elected government was ousted by the special discretionary powers of the president . An end to this ten-year spell came with a new general coming to power ousting the incumbent elected government of Mian Nawaz Sharif. This time the Prime Minister was charged with conspiring against the state and was ousted from the country.

The immediate and foremost requirement of the Constituent Assembly was to frame a democratic constitution for the country. The constitution had to lay down the form of government, and the role of the judiciary, military, and bureaucracy. It had to decide the basic issues about provincial autonomy, religion and the state, the joint or separate electorate, representation of minorities and women in assemblies, fundamental rights, and civil liberties.

The debate over the representation of eastern and western wings of the country and religion versus secularism were the two main hindrances in the way of framing the constitution. As against India, which was able to frame the constitution of the country within two years of independence in 1949, Pakistan took nine years to finalize the constitution in 1956, which did not work for more than two years and was abrogated.

The second constitution was framed by a military ruler General Ayub in 1962 which could last as long as he was in power. Finally, it was after the separation of East Pakistan and a lapse of more than a quarter of a century (1947-1973) that the elected representatives of the people under the leadership of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto framed a consensus constitution envisaging a  federal, democratic structure for the country and a parliamentary form of government.

This constitution has survived in spite of the breakdown of democracy twice in 1978 and 1999 and hopefully has come to stay. But the delay in framing the constitution harmed the growth of political democracy, as it allowed the authoritarian rule of the Governor-General to continue for seven long years (1947-56), which set this inglorious tradition in the country.

The second obstacle in the way of democracy is the culture of feudalism. Democracy cannot develop in the suffocating atmosphere of feudalism. The history of feudalism in the subcontinent is not very old. It owes its origin to the war of independence in 1857 when different people were awarded large swathes of land by the British government because of their treacherous cooperation with the latter. Those feudal families joined Muslim League when they saw that Pakistan was going to be a reality and inherited power after the death of the founding father. Feudalism has now become a severe migraine for the nation. Democracy and feudalism are incompatible.

Change of faces at the wheel has not served any purpose. Even these feudal lords occupy more than 70 % of our land leaving the people to lead a miserable life. They are senators, ministers, MPAs, MNAs, and also the owners of major industries in Pakistan. There is a crying need to bring some structural changes in order to strengthen the political system. Industrialization has also played a significant role in the strengthening of democracy across the world. Great Britain is considered the mother of democracies on this planet.

Some analysts are of the view that democracy has its origin in the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, etc. But even after these developments very mighty rulers have ruled Great Britain. In fact, the invention of the steam engine led to the industrial revolution which eradicated the roots of feudalism and the evil of absolute monarchy. All this resulted in the development of democracy. In Pakistan, there is everything from adult franchises to the separation of powers between the three organs of government but no plan for that kind of industrial revolution.

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the father of the nation and the first Governor-General, died just one year after the establishment of Pakistan on September 11, 1948, and his right-hand lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan, who was the first Prime Minister, was assassinated on October 16, 1951. About the capability of other leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), the party which had successfully piloted the movement for Pakistan, Jinnah had ruefully remarked that “he had false coins in his pocket”.

Consequently, several ministers appointed initially were not politicians and did not have a seat in the Assembly. Similarly, in 1954, there were several members of the Prime Minister’s cabinet without a seat in Parliament. “The cabinet and other high political appointments reflected a paucity of talent among the politicians.”

It is indeed a sad commentary on the elected members of the first Legislature and Constituent Assembly of Pakistan that they could not find a suitable head of state from among their own ranks. Most of them came from the civil bureaucracy or the military. The civil-military bureaucracy did not have a favorable opinion about the competence of political leaders and often took decisions without consulting them. This adversely affected their political training, development, and growth.

The inability to control the Anti-Ahmadiya Movement in Punjab in 1953 was blamed on inept political leadership. This religious movement was spearheaded by the religious Ahrar Party which had opposed the establishment of Pakistan and now wanted again to come into the limelight. They were supported by other religious parties, i.e., Jamaat-i-Islami, JamiatuiUlema-i-Pakistan, and JamiatulUlerna-i-Islam. The movement was exploited by politicians in their own political interests.

But the civil-military bureaucracy was against the religious parties dominating the power structure either in the provinces or the center. To rescue the city of Lahore where Ahmadis were in a “virtual state of siege” and their properties were being “burned or looted”, General Azam Khan, the Area Commander, was ordered by the Defense Secretary, to impose martial law in Lahore. It was met with the general approval of the people.

It was demonstrated that the civil-military bureaucracy “would not let politicians or religious ideologues lead the country to anarchy”. This also laid down the foundations of the supremacy of the military and orchestrated the initial rehearsal for the recurring imposition of Martial Law in the country and its acceptance by the people.

Lack of education has remained an important impediment to the democratization of countries. This is not just a problem for Pakistan but of the whole Third world. Laski, a famous political thinker said that education is the backbone of democracy. Democracy is a system of governance in which the people choose their representatives through elections. Their strength lies in the ballot box. If people are not vigilant and educated enough to make a better choice, democracy will not flourish in that country.

This is the main reason that even in the countries apparently practicing democracy but the majority of uneducated people are among the under-developed nations. Masses in Pakistan have not found ways of compelling their rulers to be mindful of their duty. Their failures in this regard result from insufficiency of experience and training in operating modem democratic politics. Democracy puts the highest premium on constitutionalism, which is possible only with the predominant majority of people. Pakistan’s democracy can neither improve nor become viable as long as the majority of the population remains uneducated.

Judiciary is one of the most important pillars of a state and in a country where the judiciary is not imparting justice , democracy cannot develop. During the Second World War, someone asked British Prime Minister Winston Churchill whether the British would win the war. The Prime Minister laughed and replied that if the British courts were dispensing justice, no one would trounce the United Kingdom. In Pakistan since 1954 judiciary has remained docile to the wishes of the executive. As Shelley says, “If the winter comes; can spring be far behind”.

In fact, since its birth, Pakistan has been governed by bureaucratic, military, and political elites. The bureaucratic elite generally became more assertive, steadily increasing their power at the expense of the political elite. Ayub’s term of office (1958-69) was the golden era for the bureaucracy, which exercised its powers, unbridled by any political interference. The weakness of political elites can be demonstrated by the fact that during seven years from 1951 to 1958, as many as seven Prime Ministers had been changed.

From 1988 to 1999, four democratically elected governments were replaced on charges of corruption, inefficiency, security risk, etc. The civil-military bureaucracy has dominated governance owing to the inherent weakness of the political parties and their incompetent leadership, resulting in the derailment of democracy thrice in the history of Pakistan, i.e., in 1958, 1977, and 1999.

Pakistan was not created as a theocracy but as a place where an economically marginalized minority could operate a democracy independently. It was to save the people from religious discrimination and domination by an overwhelming religious majority. Moreover, it emerged as a territorial state in the Muslim majority areas of the subcontinent. But the religious and secular groups soon started making conflicting demands while formulating the constitution of Pakistan.

The speech of Mr. Jinnah on August 11, 1947, addressed to the first legislative and constituent assembly of Pakistan, advocated political pluralism and declared that the “religion or caste or creed has nothing to do with the business of the State”. This has not adhered to the Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly in 1949, which pacified the demands of Muslim religious parties and elements but was not supported by religious minorities.

The compromise solution attempted to balance the values and the spirit of Islam with the requirements of secularism. Due to a lack of competent and visionary political leadership , and the fact that Muslims constituted 98 percent of the population, the conservative religious leaders, partly due to their conviction and partly owing to their parochial interests, advocated and preached the establishment of a religiopolitical system based on Al-Quran and Sunnah.

They were skeptical of the politico-social development of modem times and western political institutions and forms of government. Their dogmatic theology clashed with the democratic culture envisioned by the founding fathers. Another adverse impact of the adoption of religion as a guiding principle in the constitution, was the promotion of religious sectarianism, especially between the two major sects inhabiting Pakistan, i.e., Sunnis and Shi’as. Some sections of these sects, instead of peaceful negotiations to overcome their differences, often resort to violence, which is against the spirit of both Islam and democracy. These rivalries fostered reliance on the security forces for the maintenance of law and order, which eroded the hold of democratic institutions in governance.

For any healthy constitutional and political system to function smoothly, strong and well-entrenched political parties are essential. Unfortunately, political parties in Pakistan have failed to develop into strong vehicles of national political will. The main responsibility for safeguarding democracy in a country falls on political parties. Pakistan, since its inception, was lacking well-organized and well-established political parties that could carry the representative system of governance forward.

The All-India Muslim League, which had piloted the movement of Pakistan from 1940 to 47, was not a well-organized political party, but it was primarily a movement. Leading a movement and organizing a political party are two different things. Most of its leaders belonged to areas that became part of the Indian Union and their majority did not come to Pakistan. Those who were in Pakistan, barring a few exceptions, belonged to feudal and landowning classes that in their nature were in conflict with the democratic dispensation. In fact “the leadership of the Pakistan movement had few roots in the land that became Pakistan.”

Their incompetence and constant wrangling for power in the initial nine years (1947-1956) were also responsible for the delay in constitution-making. Instead of cooperation and mutual accommodation, there was ceaseless infighting. For instance, as early as 1953, a clash between the leadership of Punjab and the central government led to intense communal riots and the imposition of Martial Law in Lahore, the provincial capital. Even as late as the decade 1988-99 of civil supremacy, the fight between the PML and the PPP led to the repeated dissolution of national and provincial assemblies and the dismissal of prime ministers and their cabinets. Finally, it ended with the military takeover in 1999.

The representative character of the civilian parliamentary government during the first decade of Pakistan’s existence was eroded because the country was governed under the Government of India Act of 1935. The purpose of the Act was “to make the appointed governor-general exert dominance over the elected prime minister.” The Act introduced a representative and centralized system of bureaucratic governance, which was an imperative requirement of the colonial government but not of democratic governance. The first general elections in the country should have been held in 1951, i.e., five years after the previous elections in 1946, but this could not happen till 1970.

The reasons for the delay were that the ruling elite, i.e., civil bureaucrats, migrant political leadership, and weak political parties, had few roots in the masses. As a consequence, general elections could not be held for 23 years (1947-1970) of the country’s initial history. On the expiry of the five years term of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1972-1977), the second general elections on the basis of the adult franchise were held on March 7, 1977, which the PPP won with a vast majority.

The opposition parties alleged that the elections had been “rigged on a massive scale”. It has been commented: Elections in Pakistan had been rigged before, notably the presidential election in 1965 and the Provincial Assembly,y elections in the early 1950s, but rigging in these instances did not arouse the mass uprising as it did in 1977. The people of Pakistan were evidently not of the same mind now as they were in those earlier periods.

Corruption in bureaucracy and among political leaders poses a grave threat to good democratic governance. Quaid-i-Azam had termed corruption as “poison” and asked to put that down with an “iron hand”. Now that the international Reconciliation Ordinance, .vnich had withdrawn from prosecution any person “falsely involved for political reasons or through political victimization” between 1986 and 1999, has lapsed on November 28, 2009, the concerned individuals should get themselves cleared in a court of law in a transparent manner. The tribal nature of society in Pakistan is susceptible to nepotism. As an antidote, accountability and transparency are necessary. It is a challenge to the people to reject those leaders and political parties which indulge in corruption and nepotism.

One of the main bottlenecks in constitutional development in Pakistan was that its two wings were separated by about 1000 miles of hostile territory. The eastern wing consisted of one province but was more populous’ than the western wing which was much larger in the area and had as many as four provinces.

The western wing was not prepared to concede majority representation to the eastern wing in the parliament. After a confrontation of nine years between the two wings, the solution was evolved in the l956 constitution in the shape of parity of representation in a quasi-federal structure, neutralizing the majority of the eastern wing and paving the way for the manipulated domination of the western wing.

The domination of the western wing in governance led to an insurgency in the eastern wing which culminated in the separation and independence of Bangladesh in 1971. In post-1971 Pakistan, it came to be realized that ideological moorings alone could not easily overcome ethnic and economic differences. Yet the anti-ethnic attitude and anti-modem thinking prevalent in certain segments of society lean toward a unitary or quasi-federal state as against a true federation.

The latest threat is emanating from extremism and terrorism, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). This is the spillover effect of the conflict in Afghanistan and is spreading to Pakistan. It is likely to continue as long as there is no peace and stability in that country. However, the military enjoying the support of the nation is successfully combating the extremists and terrorists under the supremacy of the civilian democratic government. It is hoped that the process would continue to its logical conclusion.

Due to the migration of literate Hindus and Sikhs to India, the literacy rate in Pakistan sharply declined. There was about 95 percent illiteracy in Pakistan in 1947, which acted as a hindrance to the growth of civil and democratic society. Feudalism and economic constraint did not permit any Pakistani government to launch a “crash course to expand literacy and grow higher standards.

The national economy has gone bankrupt and the national budget has become all foreign aid-dependent. Islam was the ideology that gave life to the Pakistan movement and later Pakistan itself but is now infested with sectarianism. Military policies gifted the country with cross-border terrorism and three million internally displaced people. Despite having the largest chunk of the national budget and being the seventh-largest army in the world, the Pakistan army is now in a mess of its own creation with little of its hard-earned prestige left to its credit.

The distorted face of the national system as a whole and the failure of the judiciary to guard the constitution of Pakistan are the major factors contributing to the change in the national mindset. The events of the last two years have clearly shown the preference of the people of Pakistan. The masses want democracy as a political and governing system for the country and a judiciary that guard the rights of the people. The military would be respected more if it stays in the barracks or guarded the national borders. The murder of Benazir Bhutto has taught new lessons.

If one compares Pakistani democracy with Western democracy it is said that for over 50 years, Pakistan remains occupied by three major interest groups in the time, opportunities, and resources of the besieged nation. The army, civil service, and the neo-colonial appointed landlords. If there was any rational tolerance scale, the Pakistani nation would certainly secure high marks on its standard of tolerance and survival under most unfavorable circumstances.

One of the pivotal factors supporting the notion of Western liberal democracies is that it provides opportunities for participation to ordinary citizens, right or wrong to culminate a sense of legitimacy for the election exercise and chose people of their interest to manage public affairs for a specified term. But the principles and standards for evil and good vary between the West and the Islamic world . Strange as is, in Pakistan, those who come to occupy the political offices never intend to quit the political power on their own except implication of military force through a coup.

Comparatively, on occasions, western democracies do” encourage educated and competent citizens to strive for their high ideas and ideals and come to the front stage and demonstrate their intentions and will power to seek the goal of ideal public service agendas. E.H. Carr defines the teaching-learning role of history and its value must not be ignored but preserved. Recall the Pakistani military dictators for the last forty-plus years, they each consumed a decade or more to relinquish power, that was not theirs in any systematic and logical context. Ayub Khan was ousted by Yahya Khan.

General Yahya with the complacency of Z.A. Bhutto surrendered East Pakistan to India (now Bangladesh) to share power with Bhutto but was put under house arrest as Bhutto assumed the power that did not belong to him based on the verdict of the people. Rightfully, it was Sheikh MujiburRehman, leader of the East Pakistan Awami League who should have been sworn in as the new leader of united Pakistan but it was treacherously undone by Yahya and Bhutto.

Both should have been tried as traitors in a court of law and punished. Not so, they were rewarded and Bhutto became the first civilian martial law administrator and self-made president of defeated Pakistan in December 1971. Dr.Ishtiaq Qureshi, editor of the Urdu Digest recorded for the history (“Sukoot-e-Dacca seyPurdhautha Hay”- Facts are revealed after the Dacca Surrender) that “in the quest for its survival Pakistan lost its destiny. Yahya and Mujib stabbed the body of Pakistan with one dagger and Bhutto will stab Pakistan with another dagger.”

Suggestions for Democracy in Pakistan

Fo1lowing are the suggestions for improving democracy in Pakistan:

An impartial system of accountability enhances public trust in the political system. It provides enormous strength to the democratic process. Moreover, it compels thousand who are charged with governance, to transparently discharge their official responsibilities. It ensures good governance and strengthens the political setup. In spite of facing innumerable challenges and showing unsatisfactory performance, Pakistanis have the capability to emerge as a democratic and progressive nation. Pakistan can road to democracy with the dedication, determination, commitment, courage, and patriotism of its political leaders.

Reforming the judiciary and incorporating Islamic laws can also soothe the deprived and poor masses who have been manipulated by the extremists due to the sheer negligence of the elected governments and ruling elite. This natura11y causes bitterness toward the present form of political setup.

Moving on, corruption and selfish attitudes are eating away at the institutional structure of our country and such practices never allow democracy to flourish. There is also a need for mature political leadership, which can think above its own gains. All this can only emerge after the formulation and implementation of strict accountability.

On the contrary, weak public institutions can be made strong and productive if the power and authority seep down. The example of many European countries is in front of us, where institutions are powerful and not politicians. Democracy in actuality can only be achieved through such measures.

Our constitution has been a source of constant controversy. Be it the realization of Islamic laws or the concentration of power in the head of the state, the constitution has served as a tool for the legitimization of alien changes and policies. Keeping the constitution intact has been long overdue. No one in power should be allowed to change it for prolongation of rule or appeasing any particular section. The Pakistani movement envisaged a democratic country with a federal structure.

In all Constitutions of Pakistan (1956, 1962, and 1973) the objectives of governance, in the words of Dr. Ainslie T. Embree, Professor Emeritus of Columbia University, are democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam, giving Muslims freedom to live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Islam, but with minorities having full freedom to profess their own religions.

Islam lays emphasis on the concept of Shura, i.e., consultation among people, which is the essence of democratic culture. Quaid-i-Azam, the founder of Pakistan had stated:

“We leamed democracy 1300 years ago. Democracy is i11 our blood. It is ill our marrows. Dilly centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold. It has got frozen, and our arteries are not functioning. But thank God, the blood is circulating again, thanks to the Muslim League’s efforts. It will be a People’s government. Culturally, ill the region of Pakistan, there is a concept of Jirga or Panchayat, i.e., an assembly of elders, to settle issues and disputes involving two or more two persons. This system has, been prevalent for ages, much before the advent of Islam. Thus, both religion and age-old tradition advocate the concept of consultation in decision-making through all assembly of people, which is the essence of democracy.”

During the period of British supremacy in the subcontinent, the practice of elections to assemblies (local, provincial and central) was introduced through various enactments. Finally, it was the Government of India Act 1935 under which the dominions of India and Pakistan functioned after independence till they framed their own constitutions. These enactments provided the groundwork for democratic governance. It may be of interest to note that even when the democratic rule was suspended by the armed forces, the military rulers always came with the promise to restore democratic governance .

For instance, in 1970, General Yahya Khan is credited with organizing the first-ever general elections in the country, which led to the establishment of democratic governments both in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Besides holding general elections in 2002 and 2007, General Musharraf’s introduction of a local government system introduced in 2001 is considered a “laudable model of governance” because of its principle that whatever can be done at the local level should not be done at a higher tier of governance.

The country is on the path to achieving full literacy and progress towards a higher standard of education in important disciplines. This is strengthening the civil society in ensuring the prevalence of democratic culture at the lower and higher level of governance. Secondly, the print and electronic media in Pakistan are vibrant and independent. A responsible media educates the masses, raises political consciousness, and thus promotes democratic values, norms, and culture. In addition, a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are playing an active role in the field of education and contributing to the growth of a vibrant civil society and good governance.

The essential step seems to stop interruption in the democratic process so that we may see more than promos. To judge something, it has to be allowed a chance to survive and act. The elected government must be allowed to complete its tenure in any case. The military has to play a positive role here and not interfere in the smooth democratic process.

As mentioned before, a part of the population wants greater Islamic character in the Govt. and laws. If we analyze this demand, it will be apparent that the enforcement of Sharia is more related to lawmaking. Therefore, what is immediately required is a change in the judicial setup, which has been unable to gain the trust of people until recently. Encouraging steps have already started in this case, but much more needs to be done.

Sadly, the same corrupted pool of thought keeps appearing with new faces and the deceived masses blindly follow them. This is due to the absence of any kind of accountability. Political compromises enhance this trend. Such practices are against moral, democratic as well as Islamic principles and should end immediately.

Next, the all-powerful bureaucracy and feudal politicians should be stripped of their unwarranted authority. It has been a slow evil that has weakened the country like nothing else. They are elected for serving people not to control them. The criteria of merit; the right to freedom and equal progress for common people have become a joke due to such an autocratic setup.

The people of Pakistan in general lack political psyche and consciousness. This is largely due to poor literacy and a never-ending feudalistic rule over 60% of the country. Therefore, it is necessary to educate the masses and make them aware of their political rights. This can begin with greater political socialization by political parties and media.

In a democratic state, media has rightly been called the fourth pillar of the state. It can play a most important role in the present age for creating awareness. Our media has risen from the ashes like a phoenix. It, however, needs to play a positive constructive role and not become another compromised institution as well.

Finally, the strategic position and now the war against terror call forth unwanted attention from the international community sometimes. In the past, military rule has been covertly or openly supported by many countries to gain their own benefits in this region. The international powers must stop interfering in the democratic process and for that to happen, our own government, people and media need to be equally strong.

Politicians may have learned lessons from their past mistakes and are more mature politically. Consensus politics seem to be emerging in the country. In the past, the constant infighting amongst political parties had often led to interference and take-over by the armed forces.

Now a culture of reconciliation, accommodation, and dialogue is emerging. The ideological polarization is diminishing. After the general elections of February 2008, four major political parties, i.e., Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), PML – Nawaz (PML-N), Awami National Party (ANP), Jamiat-ulUlema-i-Islam – Fazalur Rahman (JUI-Fl and MuttahidaQaumi Movement (MQM) have joined hands to govern the country and re-establish the supremacy of the Parliament in accordance with the Constitution of 1973.

Our youth constitute 30% of the society they are representative of a new generation. Their participation may ensure structural improvements in the national paradigm. It has been witnessed that during the Pakistan movement youth played a vital role in opinion formation and mass awareness and so is the time now. There is a need to guide our youth to take responsibility for our tomorrow.

To sum up, it is the political leadership that can ensure the permanence of democratic governance. The prospects are, however, not as dismal as sometimes portrayed. Already, the literacy rate in Pakistan has increased to more than fifty-five percent. Efforts are afoot to improve the standard of higher education. Economic growth and industrialization have given birth to a vocal urban society and middle class, which is growing. and gradually lessening the influence of the feudal class.

The vibrant electronic and print media is playing an effective role in constructive criticism of the government and in educating the masses. Elections are being held regularly, representative political leadership and political parties are getting stronger and a peaceful mode of transfer of power is becoming the norm. The bureaucracy (both civil and military), though still powerful, may retreat gradually and submit to the people’s power and will and concede to democratic governance. The democratic process is progressing and, hopefully, will be obstructed and derailed, as in the past.

Expected question about this Essay:

• Why has democracy failed in Pakistan?
• What practical measures do you suggest for strengthening democracy in Pakistan?

You may also like these:

• View other Relevant Essay Topics
• CSS Guide for Beginners for 2022
• PMS Guide: Syllabus, Paper Pattern Compulsory & Optional Subjects
• CSS Past Paper Subject Wise 
• LLB Past Papers

I am interested in writing content for educational purpose.

Most relevant ▼

• Essay on “Innovations are Never-ending Headways” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Pave the Way for the Desired Ideological Integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Paving the Way for the desired ideological integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Inflation – A Result of Poor Economic Policies or a Part of Global Economic Woes” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Democracy without Justice is Tyranny” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Man is Born Free but Everywhere he is in Chains” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Power Corrupts: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on the “Role of Social Media in the Modern World” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on “Terrorism and its Socioeconomic Implications” for CSS, and PMS