As the last four years of the roller-coaster ride of democracy have shown, there are four features of Pakistan’s politics that threaten the sustainability of democracy:
(1) At the formal level, the Constitution of Pakistan has always stipulated that the military is subordinate to elected civil authority. Yet actual practice has demonstrated that the military constitutes an important, perhaps pre-eminent faction in the power structure. Consequently, whenever the civilian structure is weakened through incompetent governance and internecine conflict, the military has historically taken over power in what it defines as the ‘national interest’. Over the years, the military has developed a large corporate domain and this has reinforced the tendency to influence political and economic decisions of even democratic governments.
(2) Partly because of long years of military rule and intermittent interventions to overthrow democratically elected governments, Pakistan’s political parties have not yet matured enough to either individually or in coalition run governments that are honest and demonstrate the ability to improve the economic conditions of the people. They have been unable even to deliver basic services such as hygienic drinking water, health care, education, public transport and protection of the life and property of citizens in terms of which a government seeks legitimacy, i.e. the right to rule. This combination of corruption and incompetence makes civilian governments vulnerable to military intervention. However, this is not to say that military governments have fared any better. Indeed they have committed a series of blunders which have undermined both the state and society. For example, the disastrous ‘Operation Grand Slam’ against Indian-occupied Kashmir in 1965 on the assumption that India would not attack the international border. It did, and it was only the heroism of Pakistan’s soldiers and young officers with the support of the people that saved the day. Then in March 1971 the catastrophic ‘Operation Search Light’ in which tanks and machine guns were used against street demonstrators in Dhaka, and which ultimately resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan; and fighting the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which involved organising, training and arming of militant extremist organisations which were to later launch terrorist attacks against Pakistan’s military installations and emerge as the principal threat to the state.
(3) A stratum of the political elite has emerged which benefited economically and socially from military rule. As Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi has pointed out, this stratum of the political elite tends to conspire for a return to dictatorship whenever an elected government performs badly.
(4) The emergence of armed extremist groups who appear to have formed a coalition that aims — through terrorist operations against Pakistan’s military, security installations and ‘soft’ targets in society together with ideological penetration of the status apparatus — to take over the Pakistani state.
These four features of Pakistan’s political landscape constitute a danger to democracy. The doorstep conditions to sustainable democracy are: neutralising the terrorist threat; an irreversible subordination of the military to elected civil authority; the institutionalised independence of the judiciary; and an executive that is able to establish a reasonably honest government that organises the professional skills available in the country to provide social and economic justice to the people and give them an economic stake in citizenship.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 9th, 2011.
COMMENTS (15)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Mirza: I agree with you. A smaller army and lower defense budget, for both India and Pakistan is necessary and achievable. However, India cannot be dissuaded because of its legitimate concerns regarding China. . This can only be done with Pakistan and India, signing a non-aggression pact and combining defense resources, to create deep cuts in defense expenditure. . They would, perhaps have to set the foundation of a South Asian Defense Confederation, where an attack on any of the constituent members by anyone from outside of the SAARC region will be an attack on each and all. This is the same as EU and NATO considerations and principles. . This will address adequately India's concern about Chinese threats. While at the same time achieving the common goals of all South Asian states.
@Max: There was no hint on my part that I was looking down on anyone. I wonder as a lot of others do too. If everyone reads this, when will they bring about change?
Blame the military!!!!. Wash of your sins all the bureaucrats, economists, politicians and businessmen. When are we going to realize that the educated of our our generation did not work for country or its people and ran after the perks, priviliges, and money.We still have time to make it better. Pakistan has the resilience to bounce back in 2 years.
Transition from authoritarianism to democracy is a long and tedious journey. Blaming any particular section of society including the traditional landed rural elites, the military, or any other group will not help. We are on the first doorstep of democracy and there is a long way to go.
No Sir, the real threat to the democracy system in Pakistan have been Feudal lords, Sardars, Nawabs, Peers, Mullahs, Mushaiqs and now some neo Industrialists. The real meaning of democracy has never been taught, talked and discussed in Pakistan. The worst possible dictatorships were called a
democratic structure, when in power, by the powerfuls, mentioned above and who call themselves asdemocratic forces. Politics in Pakistan isowned, played and enjoyed as a hobby by powerful families and it is a matter of money, influence and power bestowed upon them by some countries, mainly Americans. Civil society of middle men, educated youngsters, students and labours have a great responsibility to create awareness amongst the masses that what is happening in the country and what can happen in future if they keep silence and do not rise to serve and save the country from cruel hands; who are not approachable to their voters even for a moment to talk and even for a hand shake. How a real democracy can prosper in a country where power and money together have gone into wrong hands and masses being handled as slaves and bhikarees.A good insight into the complex web of political- military interaction/confrontation in pakistan. I think neither side has played their role and part honestly and efficiently. Given the historical animosity the two side are destined to remain conflictual and adverserial which is unfortunate and does not augur well for integrity and stability of the country
I do not think you can blame military for poor performance of civilian governments. The AKP in Turkey which came to power as a novice has done much better than any of the civilian governments. There is something else which is the reason for the poor performance. You may need to research this issue a little more.
Please read my above posted comment by adding word "ABSENCE" in the first sentence.Apologize for the mistake. It should read as under:
Let me add one more variable that constitutes a threat to democracy in Pakistan and it is the ABSENCE of national cohesion and social integration.
@Meekal Ahmed: Dr. Ahmed, Yes! People do read and understand. Let us not look down on an average Pakistani reader. That has been the tragedy of South Asian educated class. “We and they” is an old colonial metaphor if not mindset.
Let me add one more variable that constitutes a threat to democracy in Pakistan and it is the national cohesion and social integration. The following statement of Joseph Schumpeter raises some question about the success of democracy in Pakistan. “All the interests that matter are practically unanimous not only in their allegiance to the country but also to the structural principles of the existing society” (Joseph Schumpeter,. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Harper Collins,New York, 1975 (Reprint of 1942: pp. 294-296).
Dr Sahib,
I was hoping this essay was in two parts with more to come!
I would encourage you to expand on it and bring it 'up to date, so to speak'.
Yet, even in this truncated version (from my point of view!), you make valuable points.
But it leaves me wondering all the same. Do people read this? Do they understand and does it change their mind?
I hate to rain on your parade but it was not "the heroism of Pakistan’s soldiers and young officers with the support of the people that saved the day" but the utter cautiousness on the part of the indian generals and the willingness on the part of our leaders to accept a ceasefire from a winning position
Perhaps - the failure of the educated community to rise and do their civic duty is the biggest threat to democracy and good governance in Pakistan.
Pakistani bureaucracy too has the habit of blaming the politicians always for their own failures. NO governement can withstand a principled stand taken by even 5 secretaries of the GOP. Regretably, not so. They are interested in their perks and privialges. The bureaucracy is the biggest failure Sir.
What about feudalism: the biggest hurdle in democratisation of Pakistan. Democracy prevails in the societies where rule of law is equal for the haves and have nots. This is the dilemma of our society as a whole. The truth is we are not worthy of being a democratic state. This country is for the ruling elite not for those living in destitution.