This is a ten year old article which was written by a retired Pakistani Army Officer. He has analyzed why democracy works in India (cowardly and ineffective leadership notwithstanding) while it does not in Pakistan.
Democracy there and democracy here
Masud Akhtar Shaikh
The writer is a retired Colonel and freelance columnist
The latest Indian general elections have stunned not only the two main contesting political parties of India, namely, the BJP and the Indian National Congress, but also many Pakistani intellectuals and journalists who have been vainly trying to draw comparisons between the working of democracy in India and Pakistan. Their main emphasis has been on two points:
* Why the will of the Pakistani masses is never reflected in the results of elections held in this country the way it has been reflected in the Indian elections.
* Why democracy has failed in Pakistan whereas it has been quite successful in India, although that country won freedom at the same time as Pakistan did.
It is a pity that, while comparing Pakistan’s political milieu with that of India, some highly significant facts are generally overlooked, particularly by the post-Partition generation of Pakistani writers. Most of these writers, along with some very senior intellectuals attribute all our ills to frequent military interventions that, according to them, have been preventing the successful growth of democratic institutions in Pakistan. This may be true to some extent but there are certain basic facts of far greater significance that seldom receive the attention of Pakistani analysts.
The above assessment is not fair because it gives a distorted picture of the whole situation to the readers who are led to draw false conclusions. The aim of this article is to highlight certain missing links that would help the readers appreciate in a true historical perspective why our country is lagging far behind India as far as the growth and operation of healthy democratic institutions is concerned.
Firstly, while the Indian National Congress conducted a very bitter struggle for freedom against the British rulers, spread over a period of many decades, Muslim League got Pakistan within a short period of less than seven years. While Congress leaders had to undergo a lot of suffering in the process, including long terms in jail every now and then, Muslim League leaders, depending entirely on the political and legal acumen of a single person, remained quite content with just slogan mongering and periodical protest marches. The long political battle fought by Congress produced a crop of political personalities who provided a chain of leaders to India for decades after independence. In comparison, there was a total famine of leadership in Pakistan after the demise of the Quaid and Liaquat Ali Khan.
The rudderless ship of the Pakistani nation was left without direction in the absence of a captain during the most critical formative years of its existence. That deficiency remains the main cause of almost all our afflictions right up to this day.
Secondly, while independent India managed to frame its constitution within a few months after independence, Pakistan continued to be ruled without a constitution for full nine years.
Here again, apart from the lack of experienced and patriotic leadership, it was Muslim League that must be blamed for its failure to draft the newly-born country’s constitution. But how could Muslim League draft a constitution when its sole mission during the period preceding Partition had been the achievement of Pakistan and nothing beyond that. Once that aim was achieved, it did not know what to do next. In fact the very creation of Pakistan had come to it as a shock because it had never visualised this thing happening so soon. It was thus caught unprepared. Since it had failed to do its homework in time, it had absolutely no idea about the basic law under which the new country was going to be governed. The easiest way out for it was to go on ruling the country under the Government of India Act of 1935, a legacy of the British imperialists.
Thirdly, the inordinate delay in the framing of the constitution gave birth to a variety of complications with all the attendant maladies that have made it almost impossible for the growth of democratic institutions and the effective application of democracy in this country. Till the promulgation of the short-lived constitution of 1956, a liberal use was made of Presidential orders and ordinances for all conceivable political, legal, judicial, and administrative matters. The interregnum also provided an excellent opportunity to three major groups of vested interests to consolidate their position vis-a-vis democratic forces in the state. These groups consisted of the rulers of the states, the civil bureaucracy, and the military top brass. The rulers of the Pakistani states had been nervously watching how the democratic government of India had deprived the rulers of the Indian states of all their powers and privileges for all times to come. Naturally, the former did not want the same thing to happen to them here in Pakistan. Their best bet was to let the status quo continue in this country, and that was possible only if democracy was kept at bay as long as possible.
Similarly, the civil bureaucracy of Pakistan also felt terribly scared lest they too are treated as shabbily as their Indian counterparts had been treated by their democratically elected political masters in the government of their country. Hence they made up their mind to resist tooth and nail every attempt aimed at changing the status quo. Considering democracy and democratic institutions as their worst enemies, they joined hands with the top brass in the armed forces who had been nourishing similar fears after watching how the civilian members of the Indian cabinet used to lord over the Indian generals. The net result was the emergence of very strong anti-democracy alliance in Pakistan right from the day the 1956 constitution was enforced. It is this powerful trio that has been primarily responsible for frustrating all half-hearted attempts on the part of Pakistani politicians to have strong democracy in this country.
The question now is: will it be ever possible for the Pakistani politicians to break the unholy alliance among these deeply entrenched power groups? The answer is a plain NO. The reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, over a period of time, the trio has managed to convince many other small but powerful interest groups to join hands with them for the protection of their respective interests. In this way, they have by now attained a position of strength from where they can easily buy or bully into submission any politician who is considered either as a potential threat to the power group or prove an asset for them. Secondly, the Pakistani political cadre is still badly deficient of bold, dynamic, and selfless leaders who could take the risk of coming to a head-on clash with the anti-democratic forces in a bid to eliminate their strong hold on the corridors of power in the overall national interests.
In view of the badly tarnished image of a majority of the Pakistani politicians and the loss of people’s faith in the country’s present political leadership, there are very remote chances of a saviour emerging in the near future to salvage this country from the mire into which it has been sliding over the years and to put it on a pedestal from which it could boast of being a match for India in as far as the successful operation of democracy is concerned.
As far as the role of the Pakistani masses in the change of governments at the federal or provincial levels through the ballot boxes is concerned, we should not expect that to happen till such time as a completely independent election commission becomes part of our constitution and free and fair elections become the order of the day. This is not possible so long as the anti-democratic alliance of vested interests retains its tight grip over the reins of government. Also, unity among the masses, at least within a few recognised political groups, is a pre-requisite for the ballot box to play an effective role in the formation or removal of governments. This unity is badly lacking at the moment because of the absence of experienced political leadership that could weld the people together into sizeable political parties having common interests. Also, except for religion, we do not have any effective cementing bonds that go into the making of a nation. Even the religious bond has been badly shattered because of sectarian hatred and provincial prejudices at the behest of short-sighted politicians. Unity is going to remain a dream in this country till the masses are welded into one nation which we are not at the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment