Demo
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Demo as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,097
- Pages: 9
“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 nonelected 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 countrywide 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.
-------------------
“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 countrywide 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.
-------------------
