Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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.
-------------------