Towards Real Democracy

Abraham Lincoln defined Democracy as “Government of the people by the people for the people”. What these words enshrine is that it is the people who run a democratic government. Considering that the people are invariably at loggerheads with each other, democracy presupposes the existence of an atmosphere where tolerance prevails and due regard is given to dissenting opinions. It also sets down a form of implementation of the system that is through elections and expects that once a group of people are elected to govern, those in opposition would give them the opportunity to do so and would not forever be involved in pulling the rug from beneath them. This then is the democratic culture that must be sustained for democracy to flourish in a country.

Unfortunately the Muslims, except for the period when Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) governed the city state of Madina and a few years thereafter, have been deprived of a democratic culture. Most rulers amongst early Muslims, with a few exceptions, were autocratic and authoritarian and had no time for dissent. The Indian Muslims of course carried on the same tradition which they inherited from their forebearers, that is the Arabs, Persians and the Turks and bequeathed these to the part of India that later became Pakistan. Such being our traditional mindset, democracy in the true sense of the word never really took root in Pakistan.

The creation of Pakistan was indeed a phenomenal achievement of one man, Jinnah, who virtually willed the new state into existence and need it be said that it was the ingrained authoritarian persona of the man that made it possible. In the creation of Pakistan, unlike that of India, there was very little debate or consultation amongst the leaders of the Muslim League. No disagreement was ever tolerated by Jinnah, perhaps because if it had been allowed it would have led to serious dissension amongst the representatives of various nationalities, which the new state comprised and thus would have confounded Jinnah’s efforts to carve out a homeland for the Indian Muslims in the face of unrelenting opposition by the colonials and the Hindus. Jinnah carried this inherent or perhaps cultivated authoritarianism in his character into office upon Partition when he opted to become the Governor General, as opposed to the Indians who accepted Lord Mountbatten as the Governor General and thus allowed the British Indian Government to wash its hands off the responsibility of acting as a nursemaid for the birth of a new state, Pakistan thereby contributed towards the future misfortunes of the nascent country.

The first manifestation of shedding their responsibility by the British Indian Government was seen when a British General, Douglas Gracey, commanding the ragtag Pakistan Army, refused to support the Kashmir misadventure of the ill-prepared Establishment of the new country and also when it stayed away from alleviating the misery of the populace during the massacre that followed during migration of the people in the aftermath of the Partition. Even Jinnah, while surveying the long caravans of miserable refugees from the air in an aeroplane is said to have reacted by saying “My God what have I done”. But there was another by-product of shedding of the responsibility by the British and of bringing authoritarianism to office by Jinnah as Governor General as it led to confounding of all dissent in governance of the country. Jinnah decided everything, even the language of a united Pakistan, which decision started the process of the alienation of Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan that eventually led to the second partition of the country in1971.

Democracy was thus repudiated in Pakistan by the ruling classes from the very beginning. As long as Jinnah was alive it was due to the force of his personality that Pakistan held together in spite of the machinations of Lord Mountbatten and Vallabhai Patel. But once Jinnah died it was a free for all in the ragtag government of Pakistan. There was a new Prime Minister and a new cabinet in office virtually every month. Politicians, desperate to outdo each other, began to look for succour and support from a source of power beyond the political sphere. This they found through Iskandar Mirza with Army connections, who in turn found a willing supporter in Ayub Khan, the Army Chief. What happened thereafter is a part of our hybrid history. Entry of the Army in the political field invariably resulted in beginning of sabre-rattling between India and Pakistan which then led to war in 1965 and thereafter perpetual enmity between the two countries. All wars between neighbours invariably lead to building up of arsenals beyond their actual requirement and hence result in the Army swallowing the major part of country’s budget, thereby strengthening the Establishment. Pakistan thus was transformed from an aspiring democratic state as Jinnah wanted it to be, into a “Security State”. Thereafter, pushed by the Establishment every sign of dissent, an essential hallmark of democracy, began to be regarded as sedition and more and more power was ceded to the military by the civilian governments, which then, in order to perpetuate themselves and subjugate their political opponents, adopted the posture of handmaiden of the Establishment and were at their beck and call.

The first attempt to break through this syndrome was made by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who, ironically enough was himself a creation of the Establishment. Bhutto came to power after 1971 on a socialist slogan but followed the principle of socialism only to the extent of nationalization of major financial institutions. But for the introduction of true democracy he had nothing to offer since he too, as his predecessors, harboured a streak of authoritarianism and abhorred dissent. Once consolidated in power, again with the help of the Establishment, his authoritarianism came into full play when he began to hound his political opponents and later when he tried to perpetuate himself in power at all costs. Thus the country was propelled into a chaos and wily General Ziaul Haq took full advantage of it and bid farewell to whatever pretence of democracy that the country could lay claim to. It was only a freak of fortune that Gen Zia’s plane exploded in midair in 1988 and a democracy of sorts returned to the country. But unfortunately even the so-called democrats that followed Bhutto were no different to the autocrat general and democracy became a dirty word. Thus, soon thereafter yet another general, that is General Musharraf, eased himself into power and the security state received a fresh breath of life.

It has always been the desire of all political actors, especially the ones in the government, to have a positive relationship with the military establishment with the high hope that the military will never intervene in state affairs. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for more than sixty years. When it comes from the high ranks of the military that there will not be any intervention in the future, it seems like a good gesture from the military. However, it needs at least a decade of assurance to corroborate the non-intervention intentions.

To make the parliamentary system of the government strong and effective, all those people who seriously believe that the parliamentary system should have its supremacy in Pakistan have to seriously make the rule of law mandatory for all state actors, as without reward and punishment no nation can go forward. Therefore, the supremacy of law is the most essential part in developing the country, and making it easier for its people to move forward.

Of course, there has to be a restrain and discipline in the institutions that run the country, which cannot afford any more military rule in the country, either in the open or behind the scenes. Being the main player in the democratic process, the people of Pakistan should be able to decide their future.

We are a nation of more than 52 per cent women population, while the country’s 70 per cent population comprises the young people below the age of 40. Thus, there is no way to stop us from going forward and become a strong country in the comity of nations.

There is no other option left for those who believe in the strength of our people that no one can deter Pakistanis to become a strong nation.

All political stakeholders will now have to decide once and for all that Pakistanis must be given the much-needed space and confidence which they deserve as a nation.

It has now become the most urgent matter to revamp the existing judicial system and enhance the performance of governance and implementation of public service networks by using the democratic means only.

But the greatest damage to democracy was when the Establishment, having been castigated for its military adventures, decided to run the country from behind the scenes and thus, in the garb of getting rid of corruption and bringing in accountability. it proceeded to build the image of a new comer to politics, Imran Khan during the period 2013 onwards and encouraged his protests against the ruling government till its final departure in 2018. Once Imran Khan was brought into office, he towed the Establishment line. However, a time came when Imran Khan began to assert himself, particularly when the appointment of a new DG ISI approached. Things t hen became uncomfortable for the military which then pulled the rug from beneath Imran Khan’s feet, resulting in his fall. However, the military had not counted on Imran Khan’s sudden break of popularity and cult-following amongst the new urban youth, adept in manipulation of the social media. This led to Imran Khan becoming a nuisance for the Establishment. Coupled with it the economy crashed in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and a feeling of helplessness pervaded the country. The Establishment then found itself in a quandary, conscious that everyone was looking at them to do something but they were at a loss to know what to do.

What then does the future behold in this unfortunate land of ours, over populated, with insufficient food to feed its populace, burdened with foreign loans, widespread lawlessness, massive unemployment, a moribund judicial system, an ineffective parliament, recalcitrant religious elements, ineffective administration and above all constantly being baited by unscrupulous politicians only interested in bolstering their egos or filling up their coffers.

In hindsight, one can say that perhaps what went wrong from the very beginning is the lack of ability or willingness of the founders to choose an appropriate system of government. Jinnah, being a lawyer and imbued in British traditions, straightaway opted for a parliamentary system of government without realizing that a Parliamentary system succeeds in a unitary state and and not in a federal state. As Pakistan was. Imposing a parliamentary system, which of necessity wields executive power as well, over a federal infrastructure, it invariably resulted in instability and confrontational divisiveness because no government can find sufficient support in the parliament to enable it to complete its term. It was thereby looking towards the Establishment for support.

Perhaps if Jinnah had opted for the American model where a President is elected and is difficult to be removed while the bicameral legislature only makes laws and each part of the federation has adequate autonomy and its own centre of lower in the person of state governor, the Establishment would not be so sought after by politicians to keep themselves in power and hence would contribute towards bringing about stability. Perhaps that is the answer for our woes in these crucial times, that is the introduction of a presidential from of government based on the American model but with direct elections i.e. one man-one-vote. But ironically enough such is the state of polarization in our politics that at this point even a solution of the kind being suggested will have to be brought about by a nudge, if not a push and a shove from the same Establishment that we hold responsible for our misfortunes in the first place. Perhaps if the Establishment rises to the occasion at this juncture and does take upon itself this task in the national interest, it will at last finally and we hope abidingly, vindicate itself in the eyes of history.

Indeed, the military has played a central role in Pakistan’s political history. Over the past few years, the military’s role was seen to have strengthened under the government of former prime minister Imran Khan. Currently, the military stands at a critical juncture; its legitimacy and reputation has been called into question and it has been forced to admit its role in politics, as was seen from their own admission to scale back its interventions in state governance. Whether this ‘scaling back’ actually happens will depend upon the military’s ability to reach a consensus with the next civilian leadership. The appointment of the next army chief will be critical in this regard as the military leadership will seek to have a good working relationship with the next government in order to buy time to regain its lost legitimacy. But it does not mean that the military will be subservient to its civilian counterparts. This will also not mean that the military does not return into the realm of civilian politics and state governance a few years later, once the dust is settled. At the moment it is hard to predict the long-term effects of the current political disorder and discord in civil-military relations. While the military’s role may not be disconnected from the country’s governance entirely, it may very well be redefined.