The writer is a former ambassador to the UN and a former foreign secretary of Pakistan
Given the common history of the twin neighbours, everyone wants to know why India is democratic and Pakistan is not. For us to answer this question, it is not sufficient only to attribute our failure in democracy to our political breakdowns and military takeovers. There are deep-rooted historical, sociocultural and geopolitical factors that have been conditioning the post-independence democratic tradition in Pakistan. Surely, on their emergence as independent states through a political process, both India and Pakistan inherited a parliamentary tradition and began their statehood with a democratic path clearly charted out for them.
Unlike India’s Congress party, virtually a mini-parliament with habits of debate and discourse, the Muslim League, Pakistan’s founding party, was wholly dominated by a few feudal families, which the British had patronised before Partition and which remained powerful enough to control politics in the newly-independent Pakistan. Even after the Muslim League’s disintegration, the same feudalised oligarchy consisting of different men at different times under different political flags has remained in power with or without military collaboration.
The feudal power structure is indeed at the root of Pakistan’s political decay. It has always resisted reforms in the country which it sees will strike at its own roots. India, on the other hand, managed to forge a democratic constitution by 1950 and remained steadfast in its democratic experience, holding elections every five years, while we in Pakistan saw a continuing cycle of governmental changes by non-political means. India persisted with the basic norms of parliamentary democracy, whereas we found salvation in our own systemic aberrations with no parallel anywhere in the world.
Instead of reinforcing the unifying elements of our nationhood, our power-hungry politicians have always succumbed to narrowly-based, self-serving temptations. They rejected the popular will freely expressed in the December 1970 elections, and instead of exploring political remedies to the resultant crisis, went along with a military solution. It was the height of political opportunism and a humiliating military debacle that broke the country apart. Our crafty political rulers learnt no lessons and are repeating the same mistakes. The very reasons that precipitated the 1971 tragedy remained unaddressed in the new Constitution.
Ours is the story of a society that has been going round and round in aimless circles for 65 years. Besides the military and the civil bureaucracy, which wielded real authority, we saw a number of politicians being “cycled” through political and economic crises. Instead of remaining consistent in democracy, we have been experimenting with distorted forms of government at different times and sometimes, all at the same time. At the moment, we have neither a parliamentary nor presidential form of government. We only wear a parliamentary mask. In practice, it is the president who wields authority.
We still have not been able to evolve a political system that responds to the needs of an ethnically and linguistically diverse population. We don’t even seem to realise that, temperamentally, we are a presidential nation and are not fit for a parliamentary form of government. The problem is that the overbearing feudal, tribal and elitist power structure in Pakistan has been too deeply entrenched to let any systemic change take place. It doesn’t suit them. They have reduced parliament into wooden marionettes whose strings they control at their own will.
For our parliamentarians, “legislating” is a business beyond their capacity and alien to their temperament. The only laws they can make are those needed to serve the interests of their own fraternity, as was witnessed recently in the post-haste last minute adoption of life-long lavish perks and privileges for themselves at the cost of the state exchequer. Even the last three constitutional amendments were not without motivated political ends. As one links the loose ends in the caretaker prime minister’s selection drama, the picture becomes clear.
The Twentieth Amendment not only legitimised the election of 28 lawmakers in by-polls suspended by the apex Court for not being in conformity with the Eighteenth Amendment requirement for full composition of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), but also put in place a highly questionable and non-representative process for the selection process of a caretaker prime minister. The whole process smacked of politically-motivated ingenuity aimed at giving the ruling party an advantage in any voting within the ECP. The doubtful credentials of the ECP were abundantly visible in the final selection of the caretaker prime minister.
A petition has already been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the authority given under the Twentieth Amendment to the ECP to nominate federal and provincial caretaker set-ups in case the assemblies failed to do so. This authority under Article 9(3) of Article 224-A of the Constitution is repugnant to the Constitution itself because the National Assembly can neither abdicate nor delegate its authority to the ECP, which is not an elected body, nor can it transfer its supremacy or sovereignty to any other institution as all other institutions are non-elected with no popular mandate.
The fossilised ECP’s calibre and neutrality is writ large in its vacillating decisions, some being no less than antics. The scrutiny process is a big joke with uninstructed returning officers behaving like comedians. The hemming and hawing ECP could not even stand by one good decision it had taken in giving voters a democratic free choice to reject the entire slate of candidates by stamping the “none of the above” box on the ballot paper. This would have been a revolutionary step towards freeing the country of the same old known and tested “status-quo” politicians.
Interestingly, as if already there was not enough chaos created by a variety of “performers and jokers” on our political scene, we now find a recycled dictator being floated back into our turbulent political waters. Everyone knows who launched him and with what purpose. What an irony, the sixth largest country in the world and a veritable nuclear power is today being controlled from outside through a couple of our neighbourly kingdoms and sheikhdoms serving as their Trojan horses. One of these “brotherly” states is also a favourite sanctuary for our high profile fugitive absconders. Right now, facing corruption charges, two of them, a former federal minister and an Ogra chief, in defiance of judicial orders, are luxuriating in its regal benevolence.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2013.
COMMENTS (31)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Ali tanoli: Thank you Mr Ali Tanoli for your appreciation towards my comment.
Yes, I agree partially. If there are no Messiahs does not mean world is devoid of good people. In my opinion in this world there are Messiahs as well Satans. It is now upto people whom they elect or select. Bad governance owes bad, corrupt, dishonest persons & vice verse. Here I conclude & wrap up my argument.
Yes, Mr. Observer use your name & do not be anonymous. No body is asking you to quote your NIC. Thanks
@Humayun Mirza:
My view is no system can deliver to masses unless people at helm of affairs of running any given system are patriot,honest,capable, sincere having integrity.
Well, God has stopped creating any more Messiahs. And since ordinary human beings are not perfect, we need systems and rules and laws in place. With these even ordinary mortals can deliver. To give just one example, Richard Nixon did not have any of the qualities enumerated by you, it was the system and ordinary men that managed to rescue USA.
Let us hope systems, rules, institutions, in Pakistan, will evolve to such a stage soon.
It is with reference to the above reply. There are so many angles to view an argument. My view is no system can deliver to masses unless people at helm of affairs of running any given system are patriot,honest,capable, sincere having integrity. Minus these qualities can any system work efficiently? I do not want to discuss here merits & demerits of systems. First meet the prerequisites and then decide what system suits to a country considering various factors based on ground realities.
I have read this verY well written article by our famous retired bureaucrat followed by comments from some learned enlightened persons including friends from our neighbour India. To me each comment has its own value. The difference between Congress & Muslim League leaders as explained in the article is what the two nations inherited from their respective political parties. The big question for we Pakistanis is how to amend wrong doings of the past but how? Is there any leader of political stature who can guide and take this nation to its destiny. Even after 65 years of its existence we could not decide a from of Govt. conducive to our requirements. The form of Parliamentary system of Govt has been tried more than once & our politicians unfortunately failed miserably to deliver anything to the nation under this system. In my personal opinion this system can work successfully if our politicians follow the examples set by those who invented this system. Contrary, our politicians spent all their efforts to increase their wealth, properties by manifolds without being caught by the law of the land. Last 5 years of rule in this country has been the worst in history of Pakistan. Mega corruption scandals, selfish attitude of rulers have been hallmark of previous Govt. To end my comment I would like to emphasise that to deliver in any system you require honest, sincere, capable leaders with integrity. So no system is worth governing without qualities in its leaders I narrated above.
@Ali tanoli: thank you very much Ali Tanoli.
Joshi sahab very ell said it i agreed sir.
The formation of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan was a result of the Muslim sub nationalism that developed along with the Freedom Movement in India against the British rule and this sub nationalism was what culminated into the creation of Pakistan as an independent nation.. The Muslim League and their leadership lived with the apprehension that in a Secular India wherein the Hindus were in majority the influence of the Muslims would have got sequestrated which was perhaps not acceptable to this political group. The creators of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan had probably perceived the state to have been a Liberal Islamic state which it was not to be because of various reasons. One of the major reason was the lack of initial guidance that the state had required during the time of its creation in 1947. The untimely death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Nawab Liaqat Ali's assassination in 1948 and 1951 respectively created the leadership vacuum in Pakistan only to be filled in by the military rulers and thus started the long innings of marshal law in the nation only to be replaced by short spells of civilian rule. Thus democracy as a concept could not really evolve or take roots in Pakistan and it is now that after almost sixty six years one finds democracy trying to take a shape. The electorate in Pakistan has unfortunately suffered on account of a 'managed democracy' wherein their confidence in this system has been shaken to an extent that trying to really understand the spirit of democracy becomes difficult for them. This is has nothing to do with the fact as to which system should Pakistan go ahead with a Parliamentary Democracy or a Presidential Democracy or a blend of both. This is for Pakistan and their people to decide and evolve a system that suits their social, economic and political requirements and needs as one cannot really draw any parallels. The ethnic structure of Pakistan's society is different and despite the fact that it shares similarities with the Indian society and culture nevertheless during the last sixty six years there have been social, economic and cultural mutations which have made their society different from that of India. The task of the ruling groups in Pakistan as well as their people remains to strive towards achieving their goal of a Liberal, Democratic, Islamic state which is quite demanding and challenging. The next fifteen to twenty years will be most trying for The Islamic Republic of Pakistan if they desire to see democracy taking roots in their state and reaching a level of maturity. The political parties too shall have to work with a greater sense of responsibility and vision shedding away their narrow political interests.
@sabi: Kashmir underwent the most comprehensive "land to the tiller" reform program ever undertaken. The landlord system of Kashmir was completely dismantled and interestingly enough, our political leaders ( read Afzal Beg) demonstrated that charity must commence from home.
@sabi: Smartness has to be appreciated but freedom earned through struggle and incarceration, will enhance the value of the struggle and freedom. In India no usurper whether from the Military, Judiciary or Media has been able to capture Power --- they would have been thrown into the holy Ganges by the people. The critical difference between the two countries is that the Indian knows the value of his vote and the power it carries for transformational change, Pakistan in contrast has celebrated the overthrow of their own representatives by Dictators ever ready to save the country. No wonder Pakistan is in a critical state with the youth preferring the Guns of Dictators to self rule, which is Democracy --- as per a recent survey. When Pakistani citizens are mature enough to understand that their vote carries greater strength than any bullet, rapid change and progress will ensue. People must believe that tomorrow is better and work to make it better. To simply wish tomorrow is better and dream and pray for it, without walking the talk is meaningless.
The author has a established credential. All of this coming from a career diplomat is all the more worth pondering.
@sabi, "As of muslim league leaders not going to jails, shows their smartness to get what they wanted without puting them in trouble!"
Really, no dear it shows they were not from the masses, they were in the different echelons of the society where very few peoples were there.
Going to jail for the principled stand is different from dodging the rule of law.
@sabi: I assume right to property is fundamental right as per constitution of Pakistan. India abolished it too in due course of amendments. Thats why it looks weird to you.
For once, Mr Ahmed has been honest in his assessment and come clean. Good choice.
This masterly write-up is a good look at the history of our political life in the rear-view-mirror, and the description of the scene we can all vividly see in front of us with naked eyes. I too wonder, like @Mukhtar above, why the writer, who happens to be a senior bureaucrat, took all the trouble. He should have at least told us what he did in his official capacity when he could have made a difference, or what his waste experience points to the future course the nation should strive for.
In case the considerable wisdom put on display by the writer was only the result of hindsight, an honest admission of the same would not have been out of place.
Our problem is, we have started realizing that we have gone horribly wrong somewhere, and have started accepting our folly, albeit reluctantly, we are not any wiser about the path to follow in future. One thing is for sure; we shall not learn from India and listen to no Indian, even if he be Maulana Abul Kalaam Azad.
It is not going to be easy for us. We may need much more time to clean up the mess, than what we took to create it. We do not have even a moment to lose.
All this talk is about the old system of democracy, Elected Representative Democracy. The system has totally failed worldwide. The new system is Ultimate Direct Democracy, UDD. In this system the awam, the true masters of a republic, such as Pakistan instruct their paid servants to do as bid. Any employee paid by the state exchequer is a servant. It is the master's right to issue instructions and if he can do it directly then so much the better. The means to do this now exist in Pakistan and we should not waste time debating a failed system. Instead we should focus discussion on putting the awam in charge.
Ambassador Shamshad Ahmed has raised a very legitimate issue and then proceeded to provide logical and cogent answers based on his studies, observations, and vast experience as a senior officer of the civil service. The first step in curing a disease is to diagnose the ailment and then determine the prognosis. Only then, one can chart out a course of treatment and abatement. The general practice of writers on this issue is to suggest simplistic causes and put the blame singularly either on the military or the political class of Pakistan without providing sufficient discourse and historical basis of their conclusions. Amb. Ahmed’s article, on the other hand, is a very refreshing read that answers many questions, but at the same time raises many other questions, which probably could not have been addressed within the scope of this article. Nonetheless, it seems almost incumbent upon him now to go further back to the development of the Congress and the Muslim League as political parties from the beginning of the 20th century and their subsequent impact on the two countries in the post-independence period.
One important difference been India and us: culture and history.
India has perhaps the longest history of democracy of any country in the world, having invented a version of it at about 1000 BC, several centuries before the Athenian democracy. These democracies were the so casll lled Janapadas that stretched across what was then considered India- from Gandhara (todays Kandahar) in the north west to vanga (today's bengal) in the east.
Later, even when India reverted to monarchs, the actual local governing bodies were Democratic. For instance, around 1000 ad, when the cholas ruled over one of the largest empires in history, they mostly used the kodvolai system (literally ballot box of palm leaves) to elect their governing bodies.
So when Western democracy arrived in india, it was a good fit. Since our inspiration had always been our religious tradition thst is largely alien to our pre Islamic history , democracy is a much harder sell here.
This is a case of pot calling the kettle black! The first part of the article was truthfully interesting, and coming from someone who, if wanted to, was in a position to change the system when had the power rather than realizing it after leaving the key role in bureaucrancy. Better late than never! However, the second part of the article gave the true intent of the writer away - ECP bashing. After disastrous performance of the 5 years by the democratically elected parliamentarians (with no capacity and temperament to legislate), as the Election Commission of Pakistan, based on its interpretation of constitution, is wielding its power, the Establishment Division of Pakistan is uncomfortable with this. ECP's decisions are challenging the powers of Establishment Division (various news items on transfers, postings, resourcing for election issues in the news media), which if succesful will end up bringing people to fore who will have the capacity and temperament to legislate hence weakening the civil and military bureaucracy. The feudals in early days of Pakistan used the bureaucracy to survive, now bureaucrancy needs the feudal card to survive. That is how times have changed in Pakistan and that is why the bureaucracy is using media with all its current and past 'resouces' to malign anyone who could wield the power to change the status quo. Lastly, the new trend of the intelligentsia in Pakistan. About 5 years ago, we used to blame US and Russia for all our ills, now the focus is Saudi Arabia and UAE! Can the learned foreign secretary tell us why the foreign ministry never signed an extradition treaty with these countries during his time?
@sabi: As far as I know almost overnight Land reforms took place, so suddenly that most landlords were stranded because they got no time to shift Title to benami's. The Ceiling across all of India became twenty acres of agricultural land. India also had a fantastic Social movement led by late Gandhian Vinoba Bhave. His Bhoodan movement voluntarily coaxed most landlords to donate all their lands to his movement for free distribution to the landless tillers. Hundreds of thousands of acres he collected and distributed. Those were days of idealism and patriotism, almost all Indian Politicians of that era had fought for Independence, gone to jail for years and paid a heavy price. None of the Muslim League Politicians had that record, none had struggled and gone to jail. Pakistan had only one leader who had the grass root support and record of having struggled and gone to jail -- Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. He was such a threat to all they combined to neutralize him and paint him a villain. He is revered in India (highest honour of Bharat Ratna, sacrificing his life for Indian independence) and reviled in Pakistan because Indians know his achievements which have been suppressed in Pakistan. In English language there is a saying -- come easy, go easy.
All said and done what is the remedy?
@sabi: "Was there any land reform in India If yes then under which principle?."
Mr Sabi though the question is meant for" Punjabi from other side" another Indian would like to say on this point. . Of course land reform took place in India and its details along with the reasons and its justifications are amply available on the net. with zamindari system implemented by the British raj major land holdings were centralized. In this system tenant has least motivation to increase the crop yield and Zamindars too were least interested to adopt improved technologies and invest money in land( their motive was to maximize the earning without investing in land . The result was static or lower crop yield to feed the ever growing population. Moreover the social justice is served when the actual person farming the land gets the ownership. Zamindars too had got the lands while becoming a tool to serve the vested interest of the British rulers. On this principle Zamindari was abolished( leaving a small portion of land to them and the rest of the land got transferred to the actual tenants who were actually ploughing the land . Zanindars were compensated by the government by issuing them Zamindari bonds( land was valued by the government which may be on the lower side) payable over a period. Hope this will serve your equirements.
Was it feudal or fedualism fueling the basis on which the state was founded?
Waa jee, "feudal structure" is too blame more than military intervention. Sure, feudals line up to prop up military dictators and enable them to retain power.
@Punjabi from other side: Was there any land reform in India If yes then under which principle?.
Look it who is talking against feudal and dictators hahahah
Whole Pakistan Movement was funded by these feudals, who knew that in united India the first step taken by Congress will be land reforms.So when these feudals realised that Unionist Party will not be able to protect them they switched to Muslim League, "which the British had patronized before Partition". So Jinnah and Muslim League which didn't received even 3% votes (even when there was separate electorate) in 1937,not in single seat in Sindh out of >60,no seat in KPK out of 50 and 2 or 3 in Punjab, won 90% muslim vote in 1946 because these feudals then like today controlled the masses.
"The feudal power structure is indeed at the root of Pakistan’s political decay. It has always resisted reforms in the country which it sees will strike at its own roots".
The bigest feudal lords are not those living in rural areas with some land holding but our generals who are resisting reforms,destabalising economy hanging elected prim minister and other elected prime minister sending in exile.Politicians are not responsible for failure of democracy bot generals and their non representative civilions.This is now an open secret.