Pakistan's record, now 65 years old, of forcing its prime ministers out remains undisturbed.
Yousaf Raza Gilani was the 23rd consecutive Pakistani leader to be ejected before his time. This is a remarkable tribute to both Pakistan's desire to be a democracy and its incompetence at managing it.
If Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry continues to insist that the government send the Swiss letter and if the PPP insists it will not "prosecute the grave of Benazir Bhutto", Pakistan might lose its best chance to have an elected national assembly finish its full term.
Along with Nepal, which has been a republic for just four years, Pakistan is the only state in South Asia to never have a prime minister finish his term.
The man who served longest was Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, who was killed in 1951. This brought a chain of unelected leaders who fought among themselves while failing to produce a constitution.
Malik Ghulam Muhammad is mentioned in the records of Mahindra & Mahindra, where he was a partner, with great reverence, but Ayub Khan describes him in his autobiography as a wicked old man who cackled incomprehensibly (I was taken aback to learn that Ghulam Muhammad was only 61 when he died). He booted out Pakistan's first Bengali prime minister, Khawaja Nazimuddin. Iskandar Mirza got rid of the second and third Bengali prime ministers, Mohammad Ali Bogra (who might have kept Pakistan united) and HS Suhrawardy, who was disliked in India because of the carnage in Calcutta on Direct Action Day, but was probably a better leader than Liaquat.
The first Punjabi prime minister, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali lasted only a year and Pakistan's first and only Gujarati prime minister, II Chundrigar, lasted two months. Feroz Khan Noon was the last prime minister before the long intervention of Ayub Khan. Samuel Huntington was infamous for his clash of civilisations theory, but he was also an early enthusiast of Pakistani strongmen. He compared Ayub to the Athenian lawgiver Solon, because of his constitution, Pakistan's second, which brought "grassroots democracy", a claim that Musharraf would repeat.
Under General Yahya Khan, Pakistan's fourth and last Bengali prime minister Nurul Amin came and went as the country was partitioned in 1971.
The Baloch Bhutto was a very charismatic man and, therefore, loved or hated. He led the best cabinet in Pakistan's history. Even today, 40 years later, the best books about the working of Pakistan's politics are those written by Bhutto's men, Rafi Raza, Mubashir Hasan and later Khalid Hasan and Iqbal Akhund. Another very fine book is Sherbaz Mazari's memoir, in which he describes how Khair Buksh Marri, being the bigger wadero, humiliated Bhutto by repeatedly turning his face away from him when offered the job of governor.
History has been unkind to Bhutto even though he was hanged, but he did produce a very good constitution, Pakistan's third, later wrecked by amendments, including the infamous second one against Ahmadis.
The long night under Zia had one prime minister, the Sindhi Junejo. The dawn of Benazir (how young and fresh she looks in her photographs in those early years) was stained very soon. Would Pakistan be different today if she were alive? Saroop Ijaz spoke for many Pakistanis, when he wrote that “we live in the wreckage of her death”.
Nawaz Sharif wrote an embarrassingly fawning tribute to Zia in a book compiled after the general died, and he should be shown his words every so often. He is a difficult man to understand, sometimes pragmatic, other times stubborn. After the Osama incident and the attack on Karachi's naval base, he set about demanding accountability from General Kayani, but soon backed out as he understood the national consensus in favour of the army.
It is thought that Sharif has matured enough to be a good leader if he gets another chance.
In the years when he and Benazir rotated around the prime minister's chair also came the four caretaker prime ministers — Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Moeen Qureshi, Malik Meraj Khalid and Balkh Sher Mazari. One of them — I cannot remember which one — had a cabinet of professionals that included men of the stature of Najam Sethi.
Gen Musharraf called himself Chief Executive (he said that one of his lt-generals had suggested the title and he had liked it) to take the edge off his coup. His prime ministers were Zafarullah Jamali, who displayed very little energy, Chaudhry Shujaat as caretaker and then Shaukat Aziz. Someone — I think my friend Khalid Hasan — nicknamed him 'Shortcut'. Both he and Musharraf are gone, never to return despite the promises.
Muhammad Mian Soomro then became caretaker prime minister, by my count Pakistan's seventh, before the PPP took power. Yusuf Raza Gilani almost made it across the line before being tripped up by the Supreme Court and Raja Pervez Ashraf now must wait to see how long he will be in office.
Pakistan's prime ministers have always, and without exception, been removed through external intervention. What used to be a system where power was shared uneasily between army and civil society now has a third force. An energised judiciary is backed by a free media that insists on accountability only from the elected.
Pakistan's tradition of democratically elected leaders being ejected through undemocratic methods seems set to continue.
Published In The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2012.
COMMENTS (46)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Lala Gee: Democracy is better because other systems are worse. Also UAE and Kuwait, both are able to provide free education to their masses thanks to the petro dollars and not because of human capital. So please stop raving about them. I wish you had applied thought before posting your thoughts. Rgds P
@Naresh: @Critical:
I posted the replies of your comments which unfortunately didn't get through (hope this is posted)
@BruteForce:
I wanted to reply your comment but seeing the treatment of my previous two comments, I better not to waste time.
@Lala Gee:
Isn't it genius of India to force Pakistan into a competition it is doomed to lose; and, the stupidity of Pakistani establishment to go for a race it cannot win or surely will destroy it?
Does Russia today blame the US for making it spend more on defence than development, and hence, leading the USSR to breakup? No, right? Then why does Pakistan blame India for the same?
Does a Deer blame the Tiger for killing it when it chose not to run?
@Lala Gee: You are comparing India with UAE and Kuwait...Could you please tell me the achievements made by these countries in the past 100 years?? (Please note that camel race,belly dancing,building skyscrapers are not considered as achievements). What are the major exports of these countries other than Oil and Date Palms??Do they even have any industry other than oil refineries??
Both these countries have around 30% of expat Asians,the ones who actually work while the lazy Arab master sit on the huge supply of oil and sell it to other countries... In fact,they had Oil under them for around 1000 years and didnt know what to make out of it,until Rudolph Diesel and Karl Benz used it to run internal combustion engines..
Now,why being a Pakistani,you are talking about UAE and Kuwait,Oh yeah,Its your ummah which makes you think you're one of them...Why dont you apply for citizenship in those countries? I'm sure they would be glad to take a brother as one of them...
@Alami Musafir: You do not seem to learn lessons easily or your view shows how much out of touch you with your surroundings. No wonder Pakistan is in such a mess.At the end of the day, it is the citizens that hold responsibility. (Also what do you know about India that you comment that it was only mughals that were successful? silly! It has 15 successive civilisations of which mughals were the 13th. Just read man and write sense not arrogance of religion)
@mr. righty rightist:
"In fact I challenge you to show me one country ruled by Muslim rulers (not democracies like Turkey or Indonesia or Malausia), where there’s progress. Show me one country ruled by Muslim individuals (monarchs or dictators and not democratically elected) and I will show you nothing but oppression, misery, misrule, suppression of human rights."
There are no absolute freedoms in any aspect of life in any system of governance. Even in democratic system liberties are limited by the bounds of laws which are different in every democratic country. Moreover, not all the democracies are equal; some are better, some are good, and some not so good. In other systems of governance, the same is also true allowing varying degrees of freedoms. The more important thing is, if the system is working for the benefit and development of its masses. U.A.E. and Kuwait are good examples of welfare states run by monarchies where every citizen is provided with totally free education (including higher studies abroad) and the best of health facilities along with many other social benefits. Indians can only dream of having such facilities from their democratic government while the citizens of the west envy to have similar benefits provided by these two states.
@Alami Musafir
I agree with everything you said about choosing candidates and requirement of capital to prop up a candidate. I am not so big on AIPAC, but agree with you about Wall Street's stranglehold on the US Congress/President. But consider this. Obama raised $500 million last time through Wall Street, yet today he is disliked by most on the Street except perhaps Jamie Dimon. The anti-war president doubled down on Afghanistan. Big policy decisions are always subject to scrutiny and it changes governance. Healthcare reform is set to be diluted by the Supreme Court. Policy overreach gets checked through institutions. If the leaders of the US were to be chosen on merit, woe be it we would have had Harry Reid as the leader making the decisions. And then we would have seen the damage that a well-versed policy wonk can wreak on the world through terms like pork-barrel, bridge-to-nowhere and plane-that-cant-fly-in-rain. I dislike the simplistic way the american public judges its leaders (can I have a beer with this guy?). But the alternative? No one should not want Hu Jintao to be in charge of a country as consequential as the US.
@Lala Gee: . You stated : In the early days of independence, India withheld the Pakistan’s due share of the exchequer . 1. India was forced by Mahatma Gandhi to pay Pakistan the Amount of ₹ 550 Million. Yes, there was a Delay but it was paid before 30th January 1948. . 2. Pakistan - on the other hand - Still owes India ₹ 300 Crores i.e. ₹ 3,000 Million VALUE DATED 1947! . Lala Jee : Please check your History. . Here is a Link to the Article : . http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-07-06/india/281744431liabilities-total-external-debt-partition . Pakistan still owes India Rs 300 crore as pre-partition debt . Cheers
@Sinclair Democracy gives control over the hiring and firing of leaders ? But what about the selection of candidates ? The Achilles heel of democracy is that it needs capital and powerful backing for a person to become a candidate. So in actuality it is these powerful vested interests who really control the selection of leaders (eg the US Presidential race, the UK National election).
This is entirely BY DESIGN, not by accident. The vested interests (read Wall Street, AIPAC, etc) own ALL the horses and the public can bet on whichever one they fancy. Whoever wins the election is subservient to the same puppet masters (this is analogous to the economic concept of brand proliferation). Furthermore the candidates don't require training in government to be selected.
The Chinese system on the other hand has always been meritocratic. Here's a quote from Wiki:"For around 1300 years, from 605 to 1905, mandarins were selected by merit through the extremely rigorous imperial examination." They have a tradition of leadership training and selection so as to get the most out of what they have. Their track record in the economic, social & technological arenas over the past 3 decades is physical proof of the advantages of their system.
@Shyam:
"Blaming someone else for all your self created problems is the easiest way out. It is an indication of weakness and lack of self confidence"
It is too simplistic to say "self created problems" which were in fact the result of a chain reaction to the hostile actions of India to begin with. In the early days of independence, India withheld the Pakistan's due share of the exchequer and then later on she militarily occupied Kashmir along with Hyderabad, Bhopal, and Junagadh states. As a result, Pakistan has to spend a lot more on defense than it should have in to order to defend herself against 8 times bigger hostile neighbor. All the four India's major neighboring countries have troubles with India, India fought wars with China and Pakistan over the territorial disputes. She also fought a clandestine war in Sri Lanka by training and arming LTTE. Bangladesh also has border and water disputes with India. Currently India is trying to destabilize Pakistan by supporting TTP and BLA terrorists So, either all the four neighbors are at fault or there is something wrong with India as a neighbor.
@Alami Musafir
At the risk of getting a little philosophical here, the challenge of governance is that humans have to be ruled by other humans. In terms of probability, a leader can mess up / deliver on any issue depending on her principles and preconceptions, biases and greed. When it comes to government (economy, foreign policy) the leaders are playing with people's lives here. Democracy gives some sort of control on hiring/firing of these people at the top. Along with free media and a fair judiciary, all that we try to do is govern ourselves the best we can. Add to it the diversity of views in India, no "intelligent government" is possible here other than a messy, loud and chaotic Democracy. That is our boon as well as our curse. If Pakistan can do better, good luck and god speed. But I will bet my bottom dollar on Democracy any day. For me, even the corrupt democracy that we have in India is better than the managed capitalistic autocracy of China.
@Rajendra & Righty
Well said. But not thought through. While there was no electricity distribution prior to Tesla, Edison et al, there were alternatives, oil and town gas lamps for illumination, lower urban population density with better ventilated, more spacious homes to make hot weather bearable etc.
The point I was making is that democracy per se is not the answer to Pakistan's problems. It is efficient and intelligent government, which is NOT synonymous with democracy (eg the Peoples Republic of China & Monaco which have such efficient & intelligent government but within non-democratic frameworks).
Mughal administration was not confined to Muslims, the Hindu Rajput ruling caste (eg Raja Todar Mal, Rajkumari Hira Kunwari, Maharani Lalbai, Battle of Kanua) were essential to Mughal power.
Please refresh your memory of Indian history re the interdependence between Rajput and Mughal.
@Lala Gee & Shakir Lakhani, Indian MNAs & MPAs are no less or more corrupt then their counterparts in U.S., Europe or Pakistan. However in a democracy unlike a dictatorship, the corrupt can be kicked out. And nope even highly literate populace does not lead to perfect democracy (whatever that may be). Do not look down on those who are illiterate, many times they are more politically aware then educated folks. In fact in India it is the poor & so called illiterate who vote more then so called educated and affluent. Finally, no politician can bribe all voters. It is logistically impossible in countries like India (1.2 billion) and Pakistan (180 million). Even if a few get bribed during elections, that is still better then a dictatorship where nobody ever bothers about the poor. In a democracy the poor at least get some attention during elections. In a dictatorship nobody needs to bother about the poor.
@Bigboy: So-called Indian democracy has not been able to get rid of corruption despite elections being held every 5 years. You can buy the vote of an Indian or Pakistani voter for the price of a meal (something like half a dollar or even less). Democracy works only when the electorate is highly literate, and the people do not vote along caste or ethnic lines.
@Bigboy:
"Oh, don’t worry about the Indians. They have already found a way. Its been working there for the last 60+ years. Its called democracy and they do vote out corrupt leaders."
By now all the Indian MNA's and MPA's must be saint.
@Alam Musafir who writes "There’s nothing holy or magical about democracy. All through Indian history, from Mohenjodaro to 1947 we lived without it. Did the sky fall upon us ? Were there mass uprisings ? On the contrary, India was so prosperous that first the Muslims and then the British fought for a piece of the action. Perhaps the golden age of India was under the Mughals, relative to the rest of the world at the time. No democracy then was there ?"
Mughal era is one of the darkest in the history of Indian continent, where Non muslims were persecuted and ordinary Muslims also lived the lives of minions. I will not be surprised if your ancestors converted to Islam under force and threats.
In fact I challenge you to show me one country ruled by Muslim rulers (not democracies like Turkey or Indonesia or Malausia), where there's progress.
Show me one country ruled by Muslim individuals (monarchs or dictators and not democratically elected) and I will show you nothing but oppression, misery, misrule, suppression of human rights.
@Jpy: Never
@Alami Musafir : "There’s nothing holy or magical about democracy. All through Indian history, from Mohenjodaro to 1947 we lived without it. Did the sky fall upon us ? Were there mass uprisings ?"
Agreed. World has lived without electricity for thousands of years. Why then whole Pakistan is in streets burning vehicles and looting shops? History of electricity is not even 100 years in majority of towns and villages. How come people can not live without electricity ? Mughals did not have to face a population which went into streets agitating against load shedding and inflation. Do you think a guy living 100 km from Delhi in Mughal era knew what was happening inside red Fort? Were Mughals bothered about the problem of a common man? I fail to understand what you mean by Golden age during Mughal period? What did they do except having a good life for themselves and their stooges? Please note that when Mughals were busy having great time, Europe was investing in science and technology. India did hardly anything in the fields of education, medicine and scientific research.
Why do Indians insist on bringing ethnicity into everything?
Why are you commenting on Pakistani issues?
@Shakir Lakhani " I only hope that India too develops a mechanism to get rid of corrupt elected leaders" Oh, don't worry about the Indians. They have already found a way. Its been working there for the last 60+ years. Its called democracy and they do vote out corrupt leaders.
@Faraz Khan: . Z. A. Bhutto's Mother Lakhi Bai was from Maharashtra! . Cheers
Dear Aaker Patel,
Bhutto was not a Baloch, his clam originally came from Rajhistan during Auranzeb era, and was allotted land in Sindh. The other thing is, it was not exactly rocket science to come up with Pakistan constitution once there was no East Pakistan anymore.
"An energised judiciary is backed by a free media that insists on accountability only from the elected."...A very realistic conclusion and a comment on situation in Pakistan
You nailed it, your last lines say it all. We are falling behind even Sri Lanka and B. Desh!
@Lala Gee,
Blaming someone else for all your self created problems is the easiest way out. It is an indication of weakness and lack of self confidence
Had we had one different neighbor, the things must have been positively very different in Pakistan.
good observations.
ZAB was a Sindhi descendend of Haryana fore-fathers. How come Soomro was seventh prime minister, just before Gilani being twenty third ?
Mr Patel, please live up to your name and visit Pakistan to experience life under our democratically elected government. Please khud yehan Aakar dekhiyeh. You will then realise why we have such a rapid turnover in prime ministers. Perhaps the Pakistani population is more impatient than their stoic Bharati brothers, who it seems, patiently endure poverty and hardship without complaint.
There's nothing holy or magical about democracy. All through Indian history, from Mohenjodaro to 1947 we lived without it. Did the sky fall upon us ? Were there mass uprisings ? On the contrary, India was so prosperous that first the Muslims and then the British fought for a piece of the action. Perhaps the golden age of India was under the Mughals, relative to the rest of the world at the time. No democracy then was there ?
It is all very sad but it is all a fact.
This writer is angling himself to become a Pak expert for his country. Seems like he has read a few books about PK and hence a tutorial about a slice of our political history by an Indian. Just what I was looking for !!
Shaukat Aziz completed his term as prime minister........ so this Pervez Ashraf would not the first prime minister to complete his term.
Bengalis ruled Pakistan first as presidents and prime minsters
Excellent commentary on last 65 years tryst with democracy..
Mr. Patel, it is always worth its while to do some research about the "facts" being quoted before hitting the send button. FYI ZA Bhutto was a not a Baloch but a Sindhi of Rajput extraction.
How long Pakistan has to wait to see a democratic PM continues his full term without interference from Military & judiciary???
Nehru was right when he said i dinot changed that many Dhotis than pakistan has changed there prime ministers allready. except Mr Bhutto no one was able to do his job.
Correction: Bhutto was not a Baloch but a Sindhi. Pakistan's present mess is due to his autocratic policies. He dismissed the elected governments of NWFP & Baluchistan. He was the most hated leader in Pakistan's history (I think even Zardari is not hated as much as he was). As to the removal of a corrupt prime minister, don't you think it's a good thing the SC has taken the first step? Future elected prime ministers will now know that they are answerable to the courts if they loot the national coffers. I only hope that India too develops a mechanism to get rid of corrupt elected leaders.
I love the way Mr Aakar patel written today article its awsome and very informative ...... specialy chief exactive hahahahah
Chaos leads to turmoil, and turmoil to anarchy, tyranny, and withering away of institutions. Thank you for your analysis. None of the people that you mention were saints but at least institutions survived. Now the nation is on its brink.
Umm, Bhutto was Sindhi.