Fatima ibrahim.
Democracy is specific form of government. Even in those countries where
democracy is not “the only game in town“people are well aware of the
essence of democracy. We may summarize it in three elements a meaningful and
extensive competition among individuals and organized groups for all for all
effective positions of governments power, a highly inclusive level of political
participation in the selection of leaders and politics, at least through regular
free and fair elections, and a high level of civil and political liberties---
freedom of expression, freedom of press, and freedom to form and join
organizations. How these elements are organized individual in country is not so
relevant as long as they are recognized and realized in principle.
Democracy is a relevant issue. In practically all countries of the globe people
looking for democracy, because there is a natural and widespread wish to
participate in decisions which affect them directly. People want to speak openly
associate with others, comment on public affairs, and sometimes even criticize
their government and politicians, they want to act, to participate and vote
freely. This has not only been recognized by opinion polls but also by
governments and international organizations.
Pakistan has a troubled track record of democracy. The current efforts to renew
democratic governance and political management began with the February 2008
general elections and the establishment of elected governments at the federal
and provincial level in March .This political dispensation has withstood a
variety of social, economic religious and security challenges in 2008-2010.
However, it is not yet possible to suggest that democratic in situations and
processes have become non-reversible.
This is the fourth attempt to establish a viable and stable civilian democratic
political order in Pakistan. The three previous attempts were interrupted by the
military’s assumption of political power The first effort to install a
democratic political order was initiated in the immediate aftermath of
independence in August 1947 and lasted until October 1958, when the Army chief,
General Ayub Khan, assured power. During these years the political institutions
and processes degenerated and the bureaucracy and the military gained
ascendancy.
The second democratic phase was spread over December 1971 to July 1977, when
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto headed the civilian political order. His efforts to
consolidate civilian political order and constitutional rule came to an end when
military assumed power under General Zia-ul-Haq.
The third unsuccessful bid to stabilize democracy was made between December 1988
and October 1999. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif served two terms each as
elected prime ministers. The military top command wielded selective influence on
policy making from the sidelines. In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf
displaced Nawaz Sharif’s civilian government and returned the country to
military rule.
The fourth and present effort to return to a viable democracy is threatened by
growing social and political polarization and strife, a troubled economy, poor
governance, and religious extremism and terrorism. The devastation caused by the
floods in August 2010 increased the economic and political vulnerabilities of
the civilian political order. It is therefore not possible to argue that
democracy and civilian rule are well established. Their future is uncertain
although all major political parties undertake to protect and advance democracy.
• Why is democracy not delivering in Pakistan?
Democracy is a power process of power sharing, conflict management, collective
decision making and institution-building. It is a way of allowing all views to
be heard as it involves dialogue, discussion, debate, and analysis. Patience and
tolerance are the fundamental tools of any democratic nation. In Pakistan there
is lack of these fundamental ingredients. There is also interference from
certain institutions as well. And we are addicted to “Messiah worshiping”, where
we expect our problems to be resolved overnight by some savior.
in Pakistan, People lack patience and tolerance. They have never given chance to
democracy for its nurturing and grooming. Since It establishment we have always
looked towards the non democratic forces for the control of national regime.
Why India is democratic and Pakistan is not. What after all is wrong with
Pakistan?
The overbearing feudal power structure in Pakistan is the main cause of our
political decay. Unlike India’s congress party, the Muslim League, Pakistan’s
founding party was almost wholly dominated by few feudal families. Pakistan
failure in democracy is also attributed to its long American connection as ally
and friend. The issues of survival and security unsettled and hostile regional
location and its problems with India have been the intervening policy goals in
its relations with Washington. For Washington, however, Pakistan was solely a
strategic 'asset' and at times a 'fall guy' and occasionally an easy culprit for
its own failures and impediments in its regional and global outreach. In the
process, no wonder, Pakistan's military administrations and authoritarians
remained its most favorite conversers said by Shamshad Ahmad Former
foreign secretary.
Pakistan has always been an open ground for the global powers in seeking their
interest and aims and that’s the reason the establishment with its so called
strategic debt incurred into nation politics with blessings from super powers on
its dictators.
The persistence of feudal culture throughout the country after independence also
helped non democratic forces exert their influence and poses a continuing and
formidable challenge to the progress of democracy in Pakistan. In addition the
internal dimension the country faces enormous security pressure due to complex
problems with India. As we know state survival is the country’s main priority,
the military assumed a greater than average importance. One of the main reasons
for the military persistent and recurrent spells in the power is that military
rulers have managed to secure substantial external backing for them said by
Irshad Ahmad haqqani.
The nature of threat is always defined by security establishment and once they
set India as a rival,, there appeared the security dilemma issue in the national
politics, we became more India centric and our sympathized boost up with the
slogans of pak military by ignoring the politicians and their peace policies.
Whenever a dictator came into power, he was much warmly welcome by the people
and political forces.. we all owe this mistake for not letting democracy its
prime space in the country.
Democracy has returned, after numerous bouts of military interventions and
Democrats interrupts. But, Pakistan's political and civilian institutions lack
capacity and competence. While the military takes the blame for this, civilian
institutions always legitimize the coups. The Pakistani Supreme Court validates
the coup and the dictators' orders and even takes an oath to support him. Those
jurists who uphold their commitment to the Constitution are booted out and
replaced with compliant judicial lackeys. The military leader invariably
assembles a "King's Party," by copying the most self-serving politicians who put
personal power over principle. Finally, they are elected in flawed contests
which produces a weak parliament which rubber stamps the dictates of the
military leader.
Despite the problems with President Zardari, who is widely viewed as corrupt, an
important shift has taken place politically. Possibly under Army pressure,
Zardari began abandoning the sweeping presidential powershell inherited from
Musharraf. In April 2010, Zardari signed the 18th Amendment this returned
Pakistan to a parliamentary democracy more in line with its 1973 Constitution,
which remains the lodestone of democratic legitimacy in Pakistan. This is the
first time in recent history when a president "willingly" surrendered power to a
prime minister.Despite the problems with President Zardari, who is widely viewed
as corrupt, a significant shift has taken place politically. Perhaps under Army
pressure, Zardari began relinquishing the sweeping presidential powershell
inherited from Musharraf. In April 2010, Zardari signed the 18th Amendment which
returned Pakistan to a parliamentary democracy more in line with its 1973
Constitution, which remains the lodestone of democratic legitimacy in Pakistan.
This is the first time in recent history when a president "willingly" ceded
power to a prime minister. By C. Christine Fair, June 24, 2010 We can’t
fully assure ourselves that all the doors for military intervention has been
closed, the military now is not on the front foot but usually plays its role
through back door diplomacy.. the shifting of president's power to the
parliament is a positive sign for the future, it can Now be conclude that
president will act symbolically as the head of state regardless of his
interests.
“The Dilemma of Democracy in Pakistan “
“The weakness of the political institutions in Pakistan is – together with the
pre-modern, feudal and tribal socio-economic structures – one of the major
reasons for the weakness of Pakistani democracy”. said by Von Bettina Robotka.
Most of the politicians in the country belong to high class and usually term as
landlords and feudal. Since the money matters in running the election campaign,
as a reason the middle class people are out of the box of national politics in
this regard. Most of the tribal areas are still following their ancestor’s norms
and political and social structures which don’t allow the freedom of speech. And
the same time, benefits of the national schemes has never being enjoyed by the
common people. In support to democracy local government system should be
introduce so that issue could be resolved at grass root level.
“Why democracy failed in Pakistan”
That From the very beginning, the Muslim League lacked some Of the most
fundamental tenets of a well-structured political organization: (i) a genuine
Program for the welfare of the masses, (ii) members from the public, who elect
local and National leaders at regularly held intra-party elections, and (iii) a
grassroots following” said by Nasim Yousif .
Most of the national parties in the past lack vision and 5 years plan of action,
though they claim with their manifestos but they were failed in the program
implementation. Today things have changed, people are much aware now as compare
to past, they know about the challenges, so ultimately political parties are
coming up with plan of action in order to combat with challenges.
There is a wide discrepancy between democratic rhetoric and the ground political
realities in Pakistan. The politically active circles and societal groups
support democracy in principle. They acknowledge the rule of law, socio-economic
justice, accountability of the rulers and, above all, fair and free elections as
the characteristics of a desirable political system. They subscribe to these
principles in their speeches and statements and all political parties emphasize
these principles in their election manifestos. However, these principles are not
fully reflected in day-to-day politics. The political realities often negate
these principles. Most civilian and military rulers pursue personalization of
power and authoritarian political management. They assign a high premium to
loyalty on the part of party members and often use state patronage and resources
in a highly partisan manner. The wide gap between the professed democratic
values and the operational realities of authoritarianism and non-viable civilian
institutions can be described as an important feature of Pakistan’s political
experience. Consequently, neither has democracy become sustainable nor has
authoritarianism and military rule gained legitimacy as a credible alternative
to democracy.
Many people also scrutinize democracy on the basis of its quality. They monitor
if the rulers implement the basic principles of democracy in letter and spirit.
These principles include constitutional liberalism, the rule of law, an
independent judiciary, civil and political freedoms and socio-economic equity.
If a democratic order falters on these criteria, they question its genuineness
and dispute the legitimacy of the rulers.
The repeated failures to set up viable civilian and democratic institutions and
processes have not dampened the passions of the politically informed and active
people for democracy. One Pakistani writer has described this phenomenon in
these words:
“Despite democracy languishing for most of the past fifty years, despite being
in tantrums, in doldrums, and in utter disarray, the passion for democracy could
yet never be extinguished nor dislodged from the deepest recesses of the social
consciousness of the general Pakistani populace.”
Pakistan’s political history is characterized by frequent breakdowns of
constitutional and political arrangements, atrophy of political institutions and
processes, ascendancy of the bureaucracy and the military, and constitutional
and political engineering by military rulers to protect their power interests.
There are those who argue that western democracy has failed in Pakistan because
it does not suit Pakistan. This point of view was projected by the first
military regime led by General Ayub Khan, who claimed that he had evolved a
system of guided democracy that suited the “genius” of the people and that this
system would prepare the ordinary people for full democracy.
The other perspective on democracy in Pakistan rejects the notion that it has
failed.
The argument is that the military and the bureaucracy have dominated the
political scene for such a long time that democracy could not be really
practiced.
Ahmad Faruqui lamented that the democratic wave that swept the globe in the
eighties and the nineties had “bypassed Pakistan.”
Shamshad Ahmad thought that feudalism was the major obstacle to realization of
the ideals of democracy.
A former lieutenant general, Talat Masood, argued that a substantial reliance on
the military stifled the evolution of democratic institutions.
Syed Jaffar Ahmed thought that Pakistan’s emergence as a national security state
that assigned the highest priority to external security reinforced the military
and weakened the political institutions and the society.
These views are shared by Rasul B. Rais who argues that the decline of the
political institutions and the ascendancy of the military were linked with
Pakistan’s perceived external and internal insecurities.
While recognizing the weakness of the civil society, Marvin Weinbaum argues
that the societal forces “are hardly feeble” and that Pakistan could become
“both an
ideological (Islamic) and a democratic state.” He maintains that the
opportunities for the emergence of civil society and civic culture “will
be enhanced the longer the period
during which democratic practices are allowed to prevail,” and that economic
factors are also integral to “a sustainable democracy.” However, Asir
Ajmal maintains that democracy is inconsistent with the spirit of Islam. He
argues that Islam does not favor a system of government based on popular
sovereignty and equality.
Given Pakistan’s ethnic and regional diversity, democracy can be considered as a
natural political system. However, Pakistan has alternated between democracy and
military rule. There were four phases of democratic rule and four periods of
direct military rule.
We can add three phases of civilianized military rule when the military rulers
changed to elected governments but there was no meaningful shift in power from
the ruling generals and the major policies remained unchanged. A section of the
political elite were co-opted into the system and agreed to work within the
parameters set out by the generals.
Participatory political institutions and processes did not function long enough
to develop strong roots in society and become self-sustaining. Pakistan
experienced periodic constitutional and political breakdown, the rise of
the bureaucracy and the military and the assumption of power by the generals who
tampered with the political
system to sustain their primacy in the political system.
If the over ambitious generals did not allow the autonomous growth and sustain-
ability of democratic institutions and processes, the political leaders and
societal forces
Were equally responsible for the abysmal performance of civilian rulers and
setbacks to Democracy.
A number of factors contributed to the weakening of the political forces and the
Expansion of the role of the military. These include the poverty of civilian
leadership and weak and disparate political parties that could not create
a credible civilian alternative to military authoritarian rule. Poor governance
and failure to rise above narrow partisan interests weakened their capacity to
work together and create broad-based consensus on the basic features of the
political system.
The external security paranoia, a neglect of social development and
insensitivity to the imperative of a viable economy and good governance made it
difficult for civilian leaders to cultivate the voluntary support of the common
people. This made them vulnerable to manipulation by the military directly or
indirectly through intelligence agencies.
This does not mean that Pakistan is a lost case for democracy. The common people
as well as the politically active circles express strong commitment to
democracy, constitutionalism, independent judiciary and the rule of law.
The authoritarian or military-dominated rule has never been accepted as a normal
or desirable political system.
The return of political leaders and political parties in the February 2008
general elections was welcomed in Pakistan and it engendered the hope, once
again, that Pakistan would be able to sustain a participatory political system.
The growing role of the electronic and print media and greater activism on the
part of the civil society creates the hope that the latest experiment of
democracy may be
successful. However, the challenges to the revived democracy are numerous and
strong.
These challenges are posed not only by a self-confident military that wants to
protect its professional and corporate interests but also by the failings in the
civilian sector. The future of democracy is threatened by poor governance and
management by the federal and provincial governments, a troubled economy,
declining internal stability and harmony, religious and cultural
intolerance, and terrorism.
The future of democracy depends on the transformation of the Pakistani state and
society, which is not likely to take place in the near future. There are people
in Pakistan who think that the return of Pakistan to democracy will turn
Pakistan into a viable democratic state.
Others do not appear to be so optimistic and express doubts about whether
democracy can endure. Still others recognize flaws and deficiencies in the
present day democracy but want to carry on with this experiment: “..if Pakistan
has a future, it has got to be democratic. One must, of course hope for a far
better democracy, for governments more attuned to people’s needs and less
inclined to disregard the popular will. This goal cannot be furthered through
yet another military interlude.”
Democracy in Pakistan is on the brink. It can go either way. It can collapse and
Pakistan can return to political chaos or military rule of some kind. It can
shape up as a stable system through a gradual and sustained process.
If Pakistan’s political leadership can address its weaknesses and the
military shows patience, democracy has prospects in Pakistan. Pakistan can
move from “less” to “more” democracy.