General Musharraf does not speak very often, but when he does he is fairly blunt and forthright. He rightly ticked off the conquerors of Delhi in his address to the National Seerat Conference. In a similar vein he has been quite straight in his views on democracy. He believes that it is unsuitable for a nation with low levels of literacy. The education factor comes into the equation because there is a presumption that only the literate can make the right choices. The illiterate cannot and this is a fatal flaw in the system.

No one can accuse him of being original at least on the issue of democracy. This particular analysis has been heard before. Every military government trying to institutionalise its role in national affairs uses it. Many others keen to enter politics but having no chance of ever getting elected take refuge behind it. Even some politicians, who consider themselves eminently qualified to run this country but cannot find any one to vote for them, ruefully mention it. An illiterate electorate is the favourite hobbyhorse of the ambitious whether they are trying to hold on to power or desperate to get it.

Let us be charitable however and look for other reasons. Perhaps, General Musharraf's thoughts were influenced by the results of the local body elections. PPP seems to be the party in ascendance not only in Sindh but also in Punjab. PML(Nawaz) has also done well in places. Certainly better than PML(L). This must have come as something of a surprise to the General and his team. When you are so totally convinced of someone's evil, you are amazed that others cannot see it.

These parties, the General believes and says so, have had their innings and were out for a zero. They also looted and plundered this nation. He has also declared that both Benazir and Nawaz would not be allowed to come back and are certainly out of electoral politics for a long, long time. Yet, the people keep electing candidates seeking votes in their name. There must be something wrong. He has concluded that it must be lack of education. Since, the illiterate cannot distinguish between right and wrong, they do not choose well.

His critics would have none of this. They see these ruminations of the General as self-serving. An attempt to justify his assumption of the Presidency and prepare public opinion for a change in the constitution. A change that would give greater power to the President and enshrine a National Security Council that would act as a principal watchdog over an unruly parliament. The basic purpose, say the critics, is to keep the politicians on a short leash and let the permanent establishment run the country.

All this may be true but the essential point he raises should not be brushed aside just because there is the possibility of a personal or an institutional angle. Agreed that it has been used to death in the past and should be buried deep under the porous clay of our troubled land. But, the only reason why it should be considered is because such thoughts are not only confined to military rulers or failed politicians. Many ordinary people, who have no personal stake in military rule, also see an illiterate electorate as a principle reason for the failure of democracy in Pakistan.

As an immediate counter to this kind of thinking, it is best to serve the Indian democracy masala. India has virtually the same levels of literacy as Pakistan yet democracy thrives there with a gusto rarely seen in the under developed world. Indeed, calling itself the largest democracy in the world is its principle selling point in the west. This may or may not be the reason why it is attracting so much foreign investment but it surely does not hurt to be seen as a land of freedom and rule of law.

Yet, this is the same India where the electorate has seen it fit to re-elect Jayalalitha as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. She has been convicted thrice of corruption and has twelve further cases pending against her in courts of law. The lurid publicity that her wardrobe and lifestyle attracted can only be compared to Imelda Marcos. This had no effect on the Tamil Nadu electorate who, believe it or not, see her as their collective mother.

She is not the only dubious character deeply loved by the electorate. The most colourful of Indian politicians, Laloo Prasad Yadav, has been accused of monumental corruption. The amount mentioned is in hundreds of millions of dollars, extracted from the poorest state in India. Yet, his party keeps winning elections in Bihar. When he was disqualified as Chief Minister, his wife, or housewife as we like to call women who rarely step out, was elected in his place. Good old Rabri Devi has no clue what is going on but she is into her second term.

There is no shortage of examples in the developing world of corrupt or dubious politicians being elected. Marcos family is not doing too badly in Philippine politics even though their name is an international symbol of corruption. Both Fujimori in Peru and Menem in Argentina had many black marks against them, yet they both won twice. Mahathir of Malaysia has been in office for a long time, elected many times over, yet his family has often been accused of corruption.

It appears from these examples that black marks against politicians hardly turn the electorate off. Incidentally, the literacy levels in Philippines, Malaysia, Argentina and Peru are higher than Pakistan but this seems to give no greater wisdom to its electorate. It may also come as a surprise to some people that Tamil Nadu, the state that continues to repose faith in Jayalalitha, has one of the highest levels of literacy in India. So the issue of education giving the electorate some kind of superior wisdom has a dubious foundation to stand on.

This is further illustrated if you look at the so-called developed world with its high literacy levels and strong democratic institutions. Italy has continued to produce politicians with dubious credentials. Many of their senior politicians have been indicted and some convicted of serious corruption. They were elected by the people. In the latest election the Italians have elected Mr Berlusconi, who has always been surrounded by controversy.

The situation in Pakistan's largest trading partner and biggest donor, Japan, has also been less than perfect. Many of their senior politicians including former Prime Ministers have been convicted of corruption. They all came from the same ruling party that has been elected again and again by the Japanese electorate. Nobody can accuse the Japanese electorate of illiteracy.

The situation in the United States is also interesting. President Bush has been accused of fronting for oil interests and other big corporations. He is also considered not particularly bright and has admitted to an alcohol problem in the past. Yet, he was preferred over Gore who is as strait laced as they come. Clinton, the most successful American politician of our time, has always been accused of corruption and womanising. Yet the Americans elected him twice as President and would have done so again if the constitution permitted, Monica Lewinsky or no Monica Lewinsky. No one can say that the American voter is uneducated.

The simple fact is that the issue of voter literacy has been overblown and often used as a pretext or an excuse for dubious projects. Those of us who come from the villages know that wisdom is not confined to the educated. In fact there is little nexus between wisdom and education. Yes, the educated would know more about issues of the world but the uneducated would know what is in their self-interest. The range of their thinking may be narrow, but within that framework it can be astute.

The people of Pakistan voted for Mr Bhutto because he promised them food, clothing and shelter. They continue to vote for his daughter because they think she is their best hope now after Bhutto's brutal hanging. They couldn't care less about charges of corruption which they in any case attribute to a hostile establishment.

What continues to motivate the voter is his or her self-interest. To understand the concept of food, clothing and shelter does not require a Master's degree. We may know better about many other issues but those do not figure into the thinking of people living on the edge, barely surviving.

This is the situation all over the world whatever the state of literacy in a country. People are voting their self-interest and for people who they think will get them there. They are often betrayed but that does not mean that they are stupid. Only that they make mistakes just as the best and the brightest often do.

To condemn democracy because voters sometimes make bad choices would be unfair. We all make bad choices. That is life. To invoke the literacy scarecrow to frighten the elite and deny the ordinary people their fundamental rights would be cynical in the extreme. Democracy can and does flourish in all climates. It may not be a perfect system but mankind has yet to devise a better one.