“Cause of Failure of

democracy in
Pakistan”
History has shown us experimenting with various different
forms of government, with none of them being successful. The
primary cause of failure of democracy in Pakistan is that
democratically elected governments have not been allowed to
function and to serve out their tenures, which in turn leads to a lack
of strong democratic institutions. Another cause may be low
literacy rates amongst the masses. However, given that the situation
will not change dramatically in the near future, we should also
analyze another important factor that contributes to the failure of
democracy, that being the parliamentary form of government.
Under a parliamentary form of government, the masses vote for
their representatives, who are then elected to the various provincial
and the national assemblies. The parliamentarians from the
majority party then nominate an individual, usually the party
leader, as the leader of the house in the assembly. The nomination
of these individuals is then ratified by a simple majority vote in the
assembly and then they are elected Prime Minister and Chief
Ministers. The respective chief ministers and the Prime Minister
have the authority to appoint ministers to their respective cabinets
from within the elected members of the different houses. A non-
elected member may also be appointed a minister or even a Chief
or Prime Minister, but he/she will have to get elected to the
assembly within a specified period of time in order to maintain
his/her position. The Prime Minister essentially appoints the
President.
 “Major Causes of
Failure”
Non-democratic Practices
and Consequences:
It was because the democratic mind-set was so alien
to Pakistanis that it took nine years for the country to
have a constitution of its own, whereas India
achieved this end in just one year. It was not a
coincidence that the tradition of time-bound elections
took root in India from the very beginning, whereas it
took 23 years for Pakistan to hold its first country-
wide election — which, ironically, resulted in the
bifurcation of the country into Pakistan and
Bangladesh. In large part, the secessionist strain in
Bangladesh (then the East Pakistan province) was
encouraged by the non-democratic attitude of
political leaders from West Pakistan. These politicians
refused to accept the majority and its right to rule,
and instead tried to impose their writ by force,
inadvertently paving the way for the separation of
the entire region. These politicians had exhibited
similar behavior earlier. In the 1951 elections in
Punjab and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP),
the sanctity of the ballot box was sacrificed for the
sake of political interests and coming to power by any
means. In the 1954 elections in East Pakistan, the
Jagtu (United) Front won an overwhelming majority,
but its government was sacked within a few months
and governor rule imposed. It is an unfortunate
reality that those who came to rule the country from
the outset were not particularly fond of or trained in
democratic traditions. Jinnah only lived for about a
year after the creation of Pakistan. His towering
persona had overshadowed the weaknesses of local
politicians and the fledgling system, but these were
exposed with his passing.

Feudal Culture:
The existence of a feudal-like system in Pakistan
continues to present a formidable obstacle to the
progress of democracy in the country. In India,
feudalism and landlordism were brought to an end
soon after Independence. This ended the poor’s
financial dependence on feudal lords. The lower
classes tasted new freedoms, which in turn supported
the spread of democracy in the
country. The situation in Pakistan was quite the
opposite. Much of the Muslim League leadership,
especially from the areas that subsequently became
part of Pakistan, was composed of wealthy and
powerful landlords and feudal and tribal leaders.
Their interests lay in maintaining the status quo;
they neither had any particular affinity for democratic
values nor did they care about improving the lot of
the masses. Since local feudals and chieftains control
government machinery, in rural areas in particular,
law enforcement agencies take more interest in
enforcing the writ of the feudal than that of the law.
The feudal class not only still exists but has gained in
strength and influence in Pakistani politics. Many of
those who occupy prominent positions in political
parties, ruling and opposition alike, belong to this
class, and their interests lie in the perpetuation of the
present feudalistic system.It is an unfortunate fact
that feudal and tribal chiefs have frustrated efforts
toward improvement in the area of education. They
even opposed
the development of infrastructure for fear that this
would lead to people’s emancipation and progress —
the same people who had hitherto been their hapless
subjects. The incidence of violence and crime against
women in rural areas is a part of this larger picture.
Though not limited to women, a particularly ugly fact
is that they are often humiliated as a means of
subjugating and suppressing the men in the feudal’s
dominion. Politics has become a game for the rich
and this is a result of the power and influence that
feudals enjoy in the country. It is almost impossible
for a middle-class individual to consider standing in
elections. Thus has the feudal system impeded the
growth of democracy in Pakistan.

Military Intervention:
With a weak democratic culture and group of
politicians (in addition to Indian hostility against
Pakistan), the military’s top brass found an excuse to
meddle in national political affairs. The military has
ruled the country for more than half of Pakistan’s
existence. Even when it is not ruling, military leaders
call the shots from behind the scenes and play a
“guardian role” in the affairs of the government.
Military interference in Pakistani politics began in the
early 1950s when Army Chief General Ayub Khan
helped the President dislodge weak political leaders
one after another and ultimately assumed power
himself by imposing martial law in 1958. The seeds
for this had been sown when Khan was appointed
Defense Minister “in uniform” in 1954.The military’s
involvement in politics is a major reason why a
democratic political culture has not developed in
Pakistan. Weak political leadership, India’s hostility
toward Pakistan and the lingering problem in Jammu
and Kashmir have necessitated that Pakistan
maintain a large and powerful army.

External Support for Military

Juntas:
America’s patronage of Pakistan’s military rulers has also
contributed to the inability of democracy to take root in the
country. In the face of Indian hostility, Pakistan thought it could
best meet security needs by forming an alliance with America and
participating in U.S.-led Western treaties (SEATO and CENTO) in
the 1950s. Despite all its talk of democracy, the U.S. thinks its own
interests are better served when the military has a very prominent
role in Pakistan’s national matters. This is because the U.S. finds it
easy to deal with an unelected dictator — a single person
surrounded by sycophants — rather than an elected political
leadership that represents the whole nation. The history of external
powers’ interest and intervention in Pakistan’s internal matters is
long and sad. If we ignore it, we do so at our peril; the way to
overcome it is through the political process.
The U.S. patronized General Ayub Khan so that it would have an
ally in the region. It wanted to check the spread of communism, of
which Soviet Russia and China were the two main protagonists.
Also, India was leaning toward cooperation with the Soviets. The
U.S. fully backed General Zia-ul-Haq with respect to the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s support to the Afghan
resistance. This is the U.S. strategy even today. While the U.S. has
supported Pakistan’s military dictators, successive civilian rulers
were never in favor. For example, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in spite of
his secularist thinking, was not in America’s good graces because
he started a nuclear program. Then there were the crushing
sanctions the U.S. imposed against Pakistan throughout the period
of civilian rule from the late 1980s to the late 90s — a whole
decade — when Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were the elected
leaders of the country.

Role of the Judiciary:

A major factor for the frequent interruptions in the
democratic process is the tendency of military
governments to devise new constitutions and then
abrogation them. Those politicians who prosper under
the military’s umbrella do not consider the exercise of
constitution-making more than a game and play to
serve vested interests while adjusting to the mood of
the “high command.” This is one reason why the
constitution in Pakistan has not achieved the sanctity
that is its due, and which is accorded to it in civilized
societies. In this regard, the role of the judiciary is
very important. The judiciary, needless to say, plays
a vital role in the promotion and consolidation of
democracy in any country. But it has not been given
the freedom that it needs to play its due role in
Pakistan. If the judiciary is to play its due role in the
promotion of democracy in the country, then its
credibility must be restored. The government’s power
to appoint judges should be eliminated; it should be
the Supreme Judicial Council that reviews the cases
of judges’ appointment and promotion and then
refers them to the Prime Minister and President for
action. The judiciary’s autonomy
in economic matters is important so that it can
dispense justice among the people and the
government, between the Center and the Provinces,
and among the Provinces themselves. Judges’
tenures should be secure so that they can function
without insecurity, fear or outside influence. There
should be restrictions preventing judges’
appointment to a profitable post after retirement. The
government should desist from any overture that
gives the impression, no matter how slight, that it
seeks to influence or direct the Pakistan’s courts.Until
the government does this and the people see and
believe that this it is so, the dream of rule of law and
the prevalence of justice will remain elusive. The
absence of a democratic culture and tradition of rule
of law are Pakistan’s biggest problems. If we do not
address these issues directly, the state of Pakistan
will continue to suffer. The need of the hour is to
establish a rule of law that applies to all, the rulers
and the ruled, and that includes a prohibition against
military intervention.
Corruption:
Corruption is also a great cause of failure to develop democracy in
Pakistan, since the existence of Pakistan history is full of
corruption and corrupt people ,every politician thinks about his
personal interest people don’t care about national interest.

Internal & External Issues:

The country faced crises on both internal and
external fronts. Internally, it was weak and faced a
host of issues; externally it faced the hostility of its
much larger neighbor. But this is no excuse for
military intervention in politics. Observant people
agree that if the army had resisted the urge to jump
into the foray in 1958, there would have been no
subsequent periods of martial law because Pakistani
political
institutions would have gained in strength and
maturity, assumed their proper role and averted the
conditions under which the military intervened in
national affairs. Since democracy was effectively
killed in its infancy, the later stages of maturity and
experience could not be reached. This is how we
should view the flaws and weaknesses of political
leadership even now. Maturity will come with the
passage of time, as will political stability and
economic prosperity. Traditions need time to take
root,
but they will. Pakistan is not a special case in that
cannot be trusted and will therefore be barred from
evolving. In a free environment, we can express our
values and reflect these in our institutions. But we
must realize there is no escaping some degree of trial
and error. As far as the people of the country are
concerned, they have shown their confidence in the
democratic tradition time and again. When General
Yahya lifted the ban from political activities in January
1970, the whole country saw a great enthusiasm and
increased political activism — even though it had
been in the throes of chaos for five months in the
preceding year. The year-long political electoral
campaign remained peaceful. Similarly, the
electioneering of 1977 saw great tension and
agitation, yet elections were peaceful, as was the
PNA-led campaign against alleged electoral rigging. It
was similar in the 2002 elections. This shows that
Pakistanis are a normal political people and can go as
far on the road to democracy as any other nation
can. This road we must take; we cannot do without it.

-------------------