Global Political

This article aims to explore what democracy is and what

are the key tools for the success of democracy.
Democracy is a famous form of government in contemporary world
politics. There are few key characteristics of true democracy, for instance;
free and fair elections, the role of media, education, judiciary, political
parties, and religious tolerance, etc. Pakistan has experienced
authoritative and democratic forms of government since independence.
Many democratic governments have governed the country but despite
that politicians in Pakistan could not provide the basic facilities of life to the
general public. Lack of timely, free and fair elections, the gap between
political elite and public, martial-laws, civil-military relations, lack of
education and awareness in the general public are some key hurdles in
the success of democracy. Therefore, for the success of democracy in
Pakistan, it is also necessary to improve these tools.
Headings
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Democracy through the lens of
Constructivism
• Core Democratic
Characteristics
• Literature Review
• Democracy and Pakistan
• Recommendations and
Conclusion
• References
Key Words: Democracy, Education, Media, Judiciary, Religious Freedom, Tolerance.
Introduction
In a democracy, people elect their representatives to govern them or the citizens govern
themselves.
Although, it is believed that ancient Greece was the origin of this form of
government. However, the notion
of democracy basically stemmed after the treaty of Westphalia (1648). Democracy
became socially more
favorable after the French revolution in 1789 and thinkers like Rousseau also
advocated and wrote about
democracy as the justifiable form of government. On the other hand, monarchy
and the supremacy of the
Church were challenged and attracted widespread criticism. Since then, these ruthless
forms of government
were started relocating with a democratic form of government in many countries of
Europe and the West.
Despite such a sparking entry into the system of the world’s government system, the
concept of
democracy in Europe, especially after 1648, did not prevent the penetration of
nationalism; thereby leading
to the distortion of the genuine concept of democracy. Therefore, until the mid-20th-
century democracy
did not have smooth sailing. Partly because democracy had to compete with the
challenges of Nazism,
Fascism and totalitarianism till the end of the Second World War. Eventually, after
1945 the norms of
democracy became more famous and spread across the world. The word,
democracy
derives from the
Greek word a demo which means people. In this form of government, the supreme
powers are vested in
people. Moreover, in large societies democracy can be exercised by the people of
that society/state directly
or it can be exercised through the elected representatives of citizens. According to
President Abraham
Lincoln,
“
Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people
( Pitkin,2004)”.
Democracy is more than just a set of some government institutions; it depends on
some well-
understood set of norms, values, mindset, and practices. However, all these may take
different types and
*
PhD scholar, National Defence University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Email:
[email protected]
†
Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, Abdul Wali Khan University,
Mardan, KP, Pakistan.
‡
MPhil Scholar, Department of Political Sciences, University of Peshawar, KP,
Pakistan.
Abstract
What is Democracy? Challenges for Democracy in Pakistan
Page | 67
Global Political Review (GPR)
interpretations amongst diverse traditions and civilizations throughout the globe.
Democracies rest upon
some essential values and, not identical practices.
Literature Review
The literature found on the subject can be categorized into three main sections; where
each serves the
purpose of highlighting the fundamental tenets of democracy with prospects of
success and failure.
The first category is based on the literature which emphasized the importance of
democracy. In this
regard, Philippe C. Schmitter, Terry Lynn Karl (1991) argues that in democracy rulers
are accountable for
their actions to the general public and this is the major difference between the
democratic and no-
democratic system of governments. However, previously severe restrictions were
imposed in partial
democracies and only a few people were eligible for vote. While in contemporary
world politics different
types of democracy are prevailing. On the other hand, Lisa Müller argues the role of
vibrant media is very
vital. As free media help to promote democratic norms in a society which further
encourages public
participation in politics. Media also helps in the promotion of election as
candidates advertise their manifesto
and policies in newspapers, social media and on television.
In this regard, the second group argues that democracy is not the only system that
guaranteed the
welfare of States. In this regard, the most important views are presented by Aristotle.
Aristotle’s states that
democracy is the worst form of government and he was not in favor of democracy.
Furthermore, the
Muslim thinker Allama Iqbal was also not in favor of the western style of democracy.
This is, however,
important to note that Iqbal dislikes democracy and not the representative
government. As a western
version of democracy, all powers are to be vested which is contradict the Islamic
concept of Sovereignty.
As in Islam all powers and sovereignty belong to Allah Almighty alone and the
people and leaders are
answerable to Allah. Adam Przeworski, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub,
analyzed that during the
1950s economy of Romania progressed speedily and it was a communist state. During
the 1970s, a steady
economic Progress and developed was recorded in Brazil under a military rule. In the
same way during the
1980s the economic growth of the economic tigers including China, Singapore and
South Korea reveals
the rest of the story; where and all these countries hosted autocratic regimes and were
far from not
democratic practices. (Halperin, Siegle, & Weinstein, 2009). The third group
highlights democracy in the
context of Pakistan. In this regard, Hassan Askar Rizvi (1974) states that since
independence, Pakistan is
suffering due to political instability and civil and military both have ruled over the
country. Furthermore,
Pakistan has experienced a parliamentary system of government under the
constitution of 1956 and 1973
and a presidential form of government under the constitution of 1962. Moreover,
the country also
experienced a number of martial law periods but the law and order situation
remained poor. Therefore,
Pakistan is still facing a serious problem due to the undemocratic norms of politicians.
However, Ahmed
Hussain Shah (2013), states that Benazir Bhutto struggled a lot for the development of
democracy in
Pakistan. He further analyzed that Benazir Bhutto fought against military dictator Zia-
ul-Haq for the
restoration of democracy. In her whole life, she tried to provide basic facilities and
to ensure the welfare of
the people of Pakistan.
Research Questions
• What are the key characteristics of Democracy?
• What democracy is and is not?
• What is the role of politicians in the development of democracy in Pakistan?
Does democracy remain
a successful form of government in Pakistan?
Aims and Objective
The aim of this study is to explore the concept of democracy and define the key features
of democracy.
Fozia Bibi, Sumbal Jameel and Syed Umair Jalal
Vol. III, No. I (Spring 2018)
Page | 68
This study is also highlighting what democracy is and what is not. The one key aim is to
critically analyze the
democracy in Pakistan.
Democracy through the Lens of Constructivism
Social constructivism states that norms, identities, and ideas help to understand the
world. This view is
presented that all worldly affairs are socially constructed (Ruggie, 1998).
Furthermore, Wendt argued that
“a global normative structure shapes the identities and interests of states, and thorough
their practices and
interactions states re-create that very structure (John, Steve, Patricia, 2011).” Social
Constructivism helps
to understand the concept of democracy. After world war two and particularly after the
end of the cold
war democracy becomes the famous form of government in many countries. In the
contemporary world
politics, U.S is the major dominant power is a democratic State. Mostly, American
leaders President
Reagon, George W.Bush claimed that the spread of democracy in the world is the
keystone of their foreign
policy. On the name of democracy, the U.S invaded war on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Though, the U.S
leadership could not get real success in this objective. After American withdrawal
from Iraq, sectarianism is
on the peak which has destroyed the law and order situation.
Three decades ago hardly few countries were democratic states. India is also among the
world’s largest
democratic states. However, many people are still living below the poverty line.
The Indian governments
could not provide the basic facilities of life to many citizens (Gupta, Sankhe,Dobbs,
Woetzel, Madgavkar,
Hasyagar, 2014).. Though, it is assumed that a real democratic state should grant
basic facilities to its general
public. Therefore, a real democratic state means a welfare state. On the other hand,
many scholars like
Aristotle stated that democracy is the worst form of government and he had
supported the monarchy. In
the contemporary world, China is a non-democratic State, is progressing speedily.
Therefore, it is a
constructed reality that only a democratic State can progress well.
Core Democratic Characteristics
There are some key characteristics of democracy, for instance, free and fair elections,
the role of media,
education, the role of the judiciary, freedom of express and religious freedom and
tolerance.
Free and Fair Elections
For the success and progress of democracy, free and fair elections are
prerequisites.Free and fair elections
mean that all citizens have equal access to the electoral process and ballots which are
secret and free.
Additionally, fair elections will help citizens to elect the representatives of their own
choice and if they do
not work for the welfare of citizens than voters can reject them in the next elections.
Role of Media and Democracy
In the Modern States, the role of media, newspaper and television is very important to
create awareness
among the public as free media will encourage citizens to take part in politics.
Moreover, highly public
participation in politics has been observed in those countries where media is free.
For the success of
democracy and good governance, the role of mass media is vital. Media shapes
public opinion creates
awareness and provides a platform for discussions on political and social issues, helps to
educate voters and
also encourages tolerance for others which can play a positive role in the progress of
democracy.
Furthermore, for the election campaigns and coverage, the media can play both
positive and negative roles.
Though, even in the U.S, the presidential candidates spend a huge amount on their
advertisement on
television and in newspapers. (Müller, 2014).
What is Democracy? Challenges for Democracy in Pakistan
Page | 69
Global Political Review (GPR)
Education and Democracy
Democracy has never been a natural phenomenon emerged out of nowhere. It has
certainly been
cultivated through a number of forces. One of the key forces includes education as
educated citizens can
play an active and positive role in state affairs. Benjamin Barbar, a political scientist
from the University of
Maryland argues that “democracy is not a natural form of association. It is an
extraordinary and rare
contrivance of cultivated imagination.” Also, humans are not born as democrats rather
they have engaged
for centuries in war and conflicts with no sign of democracy. They strived to
achieve the values of
democracy only after educating themselves and their generations. Therefore,
education lies at the heart of
democracy and is vital to its survival in human society (Coronel, 2003).
Role of Judiciary
Judiciary is regarded as one of the fundamental essentials of democracy. It ensures
timely and fair justice to
each and every citizen of the society irrespective of any status or privileges. The
pressure is often hurled
upon the judges, even in the democratic societies, but the judges are ought to ‘withstand’
such pressure
with no ‘depart from the rule of law.’ Fair judicial practices are vital for peace and
economic progress
because it establishes the rule of law and prevents the exploitation of the poor. Carl
Gershman explains
that there are two distinct variables that enhance economic growth which includes
institutions and policies
that are characterized by the ‘rule of law enforced with fairness and justice (Cook
&Westheimer, 2006).
Alexis de Tocqueville called the American Jury as the pre-eminently a political institution,
partly because it
plays a vital role in social governance. However, the role of the judiciary should
not cross the boundaries
set by the constitution but be limited to fact-finding. This is because the judiciary is to
determine any
particular happening based on factual pieces of evidence (Muñoz, 2006). This adds to
the beauty of
democracy as it demoralizes illegitimacy with no concession for unfair means.
Freedom of Speech
One of the key essences of democracy is freedom of speech and expression,
particularly on societal and
political issues. A democratic government supposed not to restrict the different
voices, opinions and
contrary ideas on public and political issues. However, democracy depends on
educated, well aware and
knowledgeable citizens who help them , and they criticize the oppressive and unfair
policies. Besides the
fact that freedom of expression and speech is the basic right of all citizens in
democracy but the governments
cannot allow anyone to use this freedom for negative purposes or against the State.
Therefore, many
democratic governments ban hate speech against any community, religion or
group. Therefore, this is the
challenge for all democratic countries to deal with freedom of speech carefully.
Religious Freedom and Tolerance
In a democracy, all citizens should be free to follow the religion of their own
choice. It also includes that all
citizens have the right to worship publically or in private or not to worship. The
citizens should not be the
fear of harassment from the government or any other community or group. While
religious freedom is not
created by the State, but a democratic country must protect this right of its citizens
without any
discrimination. In the 17th and 18th centuries, many American colonies developed
the concept of secular
democracy and religious freedom. On the other hand, many totalitarian dictators in
the 20th century had
wiped out religion from State, for instance, Mussolini in Italy (1922-1943) did this
during his regime (Millon,
1993).
What Democracy is not?
Democracy has become successful in many countries around the world. However;
we cannot say that
democracy is the only solution to all societal, economic and political problems. Different
democratic States
Fozia Bibi, Sumbal Jameel and Syed Umair Jalal
Vol. III, No. I (Spring 2018)
Page | 70
could not bring the same outcome due to differences in their culture, values, literacy and
public participation
in politics. Therefore, one cannot assume that democracy is the only solution to
all problems at the state
level. Unfortunately, "all good things do not necessarily go together (Maier,
2004).
Firstly
, a democratic state may not be successful and proficient economically more than
other types
of government. A non-democratic State may be much better from a democratic
State in its policies,
investments and economic growth. For instance, China a communist state has
initiated the One Belt One
Road is the major project of the 21st century. According to Parag Khanna “It is the
largest coordinated
infrastructure investment plan in human history.
Secondly,
a non-democratic State can be better in
administration than a democracy. In a democracy, a leader has to make decisions with
the support of
legislation which takes time. On the other hand, in non-democratic regimes, a leader
has all powers of
legislation, the executive which may help him to take sudden decisions for the
betterment of his/her nation
(Kirchheimer, 1965).
Thirdly, good governance is the key challenge for all kinds of governments not only for
democracy.
Historically it has been proved that in many countries. democracy could not prove a
sustainable
government. For instance, since independence (1947), Pakistan has experienced
democracy under the
constitution of 1956 and 1973 but the general public remained to dissatisfy due to
poor governance (Karl,
1990). Moreover, a democratic State may have broader societal and political setup
than autocracies but
may not have a more open economy (Przeworski, Alvarez, Alvarez, Cheibub,&
Limongi, 2000).
Democracy may not bring positive changes in a country where it replaces autocracy.
For instance, the Arab
Spring in the Middle East could not bring real democracy. Tunisia is the only single
example of success.
Since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt (2011) there was the hope of
democracy in the
country. However, the new rules and laws also imposed restrictions on public protests.
Elections in these
countries also give way to the rise of extremist groups in politics. Egypt and Tunisia
are key examples of it.
Moreover, in Libya after Col Muammar Gaddafi their situation is not satisfactory. On
the other hand,
in Iraq sectarianism has become a major phenomenon even after Saddam Hussain.
The country’s
circumstances are getting worse and extremist group Islamic State (IS) has abolished
the law and order
situation. Therefore, western-style democratic norms could not develop in the Gulf
region. Moreover,
China is a non-democratic country and its tremendous economic development and
progress over the last
few decades is the major example that only democracy is not the key to
development. Therefore,
authoritarian leaders in the Middle East and Asia are increasingly justifying autocratic
politics, arguing that
pressure to democratize their political systems may endanger economic growth
and other vital objectives
(Rakner, Menocal, & Fritz, 2007).
Promotion of Democracy and U.S
Many leaders of the United States claimed that they are struggling for democracy to
make the globe safer
since World War One. For instance, President Reagon, George W. Bush, Clinton
and President Barack
Obama also claimed that the promotion of democracy is the keystone of their
foreign policy. Moreover,
President George W. Bush administration initially stated that the main reason behind
the invasion of Iraq is
weapons of mass destruction. Besides this Bush government used the tool of
democracy to invade Iraq and
Afghanistan and presented it as an instrument to end autocracy and terrorism around
the world.
Furthermore, the policy of regime change was also included in the form of
promoting freedom in Iraq.
Consequently, the concept of the promotion of democracy got badly affected
particularly in the case of
Iraq. In Iraq, the Bush administration had failed to maintain stability and peace post-
American invasion era.
Therefore, sectarian violence has been increased in Iraq, following the execution of the
Saddam Hussain.
Moreover, various terrorist groups including Daesh was successful in gaining control
of the main cities of
Iraq and Syria (Fortin, 2013).
What is Democracy? Challenges for Democracy in Pakistan
Page | 71
Global Political Review (GPR)
Democracy and Pakistan
Jinnah believed that Islam taught us about the values of democracy such as
equality, justice, and tolerance
almost fourteen hundred years ago.“Democracy is in the blood of Musalmans who look
upon complete
equality of manhood and believe in fraternity and liberty” (ibid, p. 12), “Brotherhood,
equality and fraternity
of man, these are all the basic points of our religion, culture and civilization”(ibid, p.
29). Islam teaches its
followers to be tolerant, kind and passionate. “The tenets of Islam enjoin upon
every Muslim to give
protection to his neighbors and to the minorities regardless of caste and creed
(Zarrin, 2013).
Since independence Pakistan has experienced different forms of government which
include
Parliamentary, Presidential systems, martial law, and democracy. Under the
constitution of 1956 Pakistan
had experienced a parliamentary system but within two years, the constitution was
suspended, and martial
law had been imposed by General Ayub Khan in 1958. In 1962 Ayub Khan
introduced the presidential
system under the constitution of 1962 in which he launched the system of basic
democracies in Pakistan.
However, due to corruption, rigging in elections and nepotism this system also could not
succeed in
Pakistan (Pardesi,2012). After the martial law regime, the new civilian government
introduced the new
constitution in 1973. Under the 1973s constitution Parliamentary form of government
has been
implemented again. Moreover, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the first elected Premier
of Pakistan who had
completed his five years tenure. However, this democratic process was again distorted by
Zia-ul-Haq, who
imposed martial law in Pakistan in July 1977. Therefore, Pakistan again remained
under the control of an
undemocratic government from 1977 to 1988. After the death of Zia-ul-Haq, the
election had been
conducted in 1988 and Benazir Bhutto became the premier of Pakistan. However, in
1990 the Pakistan
people party (PPP) government was suspended under the allegation of corruption
and poor governance.
From 1993 to 1996 PPP again remained as a ruling party but could not complete its
tenure and got
dismissed due to corruption charges. On the other hand, the Pakistan Muslim
League (PMLN) ruled from
1991 to 1993 and 1997-1999. Here again, the elected government of PMLN could not
complete its tenure
and in October 1999 General Musharraf had imposed Martial law in the country. The
process of democracy
was again and again derailed in Pakistan. However, President Musharraf had claimed
that he will leave a
sustainable democracy set-up in Pakistan which will stop military takeover in the
future. He also claimed
that his government will create enough job opportunities, human resources, alleviate
poverty and will
improve the basic facilities of life but he also did not fulfill all these promises.
Moreover, before elections, almost all political leaders promised that they will work for
the welfare of
the country when they came into power. However, still, all governments could not
cope with the basic
issues of common citizens. Therefore, the general public is still suffering from
basic facilities of life, food and
water shortage, energy crisis and poor health facilities. The former Prime Minister of
Pakistan Mian Nawaz
Shareef claimed that through our policies and hard work we will make Pakistan a real
welfare state.
However, like the previous government, his government could not fulfill their
promises.
Lack of Democratic Norms
Despite the fact that almost all political parties struggle for the restoration of
democracy whenever the
country faced dictatorships. However, in Pakistan real democratic norms could not
be prevailing due to
many factors: such as clashes and conflicts between governments are very common in
Pakistani politics.
Therefore, the contradictory and undemocratic behaviors of political elites are the major
problem in the
development of true democracy in Pakistan. From 1988 to 1999 and 2008 to 2013
PPP and PMLN have
ruled. In May 2013 elections, PMLN made the government again. Though both
parties under the
leadership of Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Shareef had struggled for the
restoration of democracy both
paid little attention to the rights of the common public especially the rights of
minorities, basic facilities of life
and rule of law. Consequently, both have encouraged undemocratic norms at the
societal and political level
(Shafqat, 1998). So, in the case of Pakistan, the real problem is not in the democratic
form of government
but in the autocratic attitude of the governments and leaders. As mostly politician
does not bother about
Fozia Bibi, Sumbal Jameel and Syed Umair Jalal
Vol. III, No. I (Spring 2018)
Page | 72
their promises when they came into power. Premier Nawaz Sharif also claimed his real
purpose is the
restoration of democracy but his government could not address the issues of a common
citizen such as
poverty, unemployment, energy crisis etc.
Constitutions and Ruling Parties
Since independence, Pakistan has experienced three constitutions in 1956, 1962 and
1973. Which also
includes two acting constitutional arrangements (in 1947 and 1972), and two foremost
attempts of
constitutional engineering (in 1985 and in 2002). Most importantly, all these attempts
were to swing the
power pendulum towards the government.
Role of Political Parties and Democracy
For the progress and development of democracy, the role of political parties is
important. The political
parties are a tool of mass mobilization and patronage in Pakistan. However, the
major challenge for political
leadership is to alter the role of political parties to interest representation and
advocacy in the legislature.
Unfortunately, the politicians adopt authoritarian policies and attitudes rather than
encouraging and
promoting democratic values, policies, behaviors, rule of law and tolerance for
opposition parties. In
November 1997, the supporters of PMLN attacked the premised of the Supreme Court
of Pakistan but
the leadership did not discourage their supporters.
Role of State Institutions in Protecting Citizens
In a democracy, the role of a State is to protect the lives and assets of its citizens. In
this regard, the role of
the police and the judiciary is also very important. However, all democratic
governments failed to maintain
peace and law and order in the country. Therefore, terrorism and extremism have
been increased in
Pakistan. Even, many innocent citizens are dying in the targeted killing and police
failed to protect citizens
from such crimes. Though, the government and Pakistan army has initiated
operation Zarb-e-azab to
eliminate terrorist groups from Pakistan and getting triumph in this operation. As a
result, the image of
Pakistan is restoring at national and international levels.
Lack of Credibility of Elections
Free, fair and regular elections are the real essence of true democracy. However, the
record of Pakistan’s
elections in this regard is a bit poor. Therefore, after elections, all defeated parties
blamed the winning side
of allegedly rigging and terms the elections unfair. Furthermore; the parties also
manipulate election results
when they came into government. It is hard for a party to get a clear majority due to the
multi-party system
in Pakistan. As a result, mostly a coalition government has to be established and
many parties remained in
government despite their fewer seats in elections. For instance, in May 2013
elections PMLN got majority
votes and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has emerged as a second major party in the
country. After 2013
elections PTI chairman Imran Khan blamed that the elections were rigged; thereby raising
serious questions
over the transparency in this vital political activity.
The Communication Gap between Political Leaders and the General Public
In Pakistan, Civil and military leaders have ruled. Despite the fact the almost all
political leaders are in favor
of democracy they find little interest in the development and progress of the genuine
democratic norms
and behaviors in this democratically deprived country. Political leaders come in public
to get votes but once
they came in power they try keeping themselves at distance from common citizens.
What is Democracy? Challenges for Democracy in Pakistan
Page | 73
Global Political Review (GPR)
Findings
The diversity in the system’s pattern of understanding has challenged the idea of
democracy as a solution
to everywhere. Rather, it is growingly becoming evident that western democracy is
hardly surviving in the
West including the US. The backsliding of democracy in the US is more visible with
the US President
Donald Trump’s arrival in the White House and his attacks on media while calling
it ‘enemy of the people’
and the associated democratic instruments. Similarly, the Hungarian President is
snubbing his own country’s
democratic institutions which widely suggest a wave of democratic backsliding in the
Western Hemisphere.
The sensitivities regarding culture, geography, political, religious and social make-up of a
state is of vital
importance to introducing any particular system within a state. Eastern states,
especially Pakistan and the
rest of the Asian region are witnessing a volatile democracy which is an outgrowth of
the western liberal
democracy imposed with no address to the aforementioned analysis.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Having explored the positive and negative aspects of democracy, it can still be termed
the famous form of
government due to its concept of the welfare state. However, a truly democratic
State has to follow the
basic norms for the success of democracy. For instance, a democratic state has to
provide basic facilities of
life to its citizens, education, food, health facilities and freedom of speech. On one hand,
democracy is
successful in many countries like in the U.S, U.K, and India etc. On the other hand, a
democratic form of
government could not flourish in many countries like in Pakistan. The major
reason behind this is the
differences in norms and identities of these countries. Constructivism helps to
understand the concept of
democracy and its tenets at the national and international levels.
• For the success of democracy, the role of government institutions such as the
legislature, executive
and judiciary are important. The role of elected politicians is to work for the welfare of
their citizens.
Free, fair and timely elections are necessary for the peaceful transition of power.
The fair role of the
judiciary is significant to build public trust in their institutions.
• The role of politicians is also important in this regard, as basic facilities of life,
basic human right,
justice, and economic progress is the right of every citizen. Democracy is famous
because its works
for their citizens and a real democratic state is a welfare state who works for their
public.
• The role and influence of big money donors should be controlled and decreased.
Some people also
criticize the monopoly of two political parties in the US and the UK. As more than
two political
parties can provide more choices for the public to elect their representatives.
• For the success of democracy in Pakistan, there is a need to bring merit in all
institutions and eliminate
corruption, especially among politicians. The only merit can help to bring talented
people in all fields
of life particularly in politics.
• The cooperation between civil-military leadership is also important to deal with
poverty, terrorism,
corruption at the domestic level and will also helpful for our foreign policy.
• Education is vital to create awareness among citizens for their rights and to
elect honest leaders in
elections. Only education can bring true change in society and also beneficial for the
success of
democracy. Through education, the general public would be able to learn about
true democratic
norms, values, and tolerance.
• The date of elections after five years should be decided once and all parties must
follow that like in
the US the date of the election has been decided and after every four years, both
political parties
have to follow that. In Pakistan, economic growth and progress is prerequisite for real
change. The
betterment in the socio-economic and political setup will enhance the public trust in
democracy.

uccessive events and activities have taken place that make it crystal clear that there are hopes as well as
hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. One the one hand, the imposition of martial law by the military
has become a distant dream now. Democratic leaders have turned mature. The democratic governments
have not only shown distinguish performance, but also smoothly transferred power to another government
as per election results for the first time in the history of Pakistan. The ECP has also improved its performance
and the citizens have become aware of their rights to rule. These all events have created hopes for the
democracy in Pakistan. One the other hand, indirect military interference in the democratic governments,
feudal lord system, corruption of democratic leaders, poor literacy rate and ailing economy of the country,
these all events act as hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Thus, it is established that the
democracy in Pakistan encounters both hopes and hurdles.

Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947, democracy in the country has been witnessing both hopes and
hurdles. The founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was keen to introduce democratic
system in Pakistan. However, his sudden death impeded its proper imposition. Liaquat Ali Khan, afterward,
carried the vision of Jinnah, but he also failed to give it a practical shape. Imposition of martial law by
dictator Ayub khan closed all the door of democracy. Zulifqar ali Bhuttto appeared on the political screen and
injected a new blood of hope for democracy in Pakistan. He pressurized General Yahya to hold elections.
Consequently, he won the elections with a great margin in the West Pakistan and took an oath as the first
democratic leader of the country. However, the hope could not sustained for a long time as General Zia
imposed martial law and blocked the road of democratic progress. After Zia, democracy was seen, but it
remained fragile and weak and gave green signal to another dictator General Pervez Musharraf, who ruled till
2008. After Musharraf, the democracy in Pakistan has been witnessing good days because it continues till
today without any hurdle. Hence, Democracy in Pakistan witnessed both hopes and hurdles in Past.

A major hope for democracy in Pakistan lies in the fact the military will not come forward to impose its direct
rule by dismantling the democratic system, as it did in past, because of two major reasons: Firstly, the
military government is not recognized by the international community and is subject to various economic
sanctions. Pakistan, is currently in the process of development because of the initiation of CPEC, cannot
afford sanctions at this critical stage. Our sensible and well-trained army knows this fact very well. Secondly,
martial law is often imposed under the patronage of a super power. At present, Pakistan’s relations with the
USA remain abysmal. Therefore, the army will avoid taking rein of the government directly. As such, martial
law is now obsolete and the democratic government will continue to rule Pakistan.

Another hope for democracy in Pakistan is created in the form of maturity among the democratic leaders. In
past, one Democratic Party conspired against another ruling party and stalled democratic progress. For
example, Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) staged protest against Zulifqar Ali Bhutto after 1977 general
elections claiming the elections being rigged. The issue could have been resolved through political
settlement, but they demanded the removal of Bhutto and imposition of Islamic rule. Consequently, the
military got an opportunity to impose martial law under Zia in 1977 and obstructed the path of democracy.
Besides, Nawaz Sharif, while Chief Minister of Punjab, created problems for Benazir Bhutto and tried hard to
remove her government. Similarly, Benazir Bhutto played a role to remove Nawaz Sharif in 1993. The both
democratic leader celebrated ouster of each other from the government and distributed sweets among their
supporters. At present, the democratic leaders avoid taking such actions that could impede the democratic
progress. For example, during 2008 PPP government, Nawaz Sharif was engaged in verbal war with Zardari,
but did not stage protest to remove him. On the other hand, Zardari got an opportunity to remove Nawaz
government during Imran Khan continuous protest in Islamabad. However, he realized that it would play in
the hand of anti-democratic elements. Thus, the democratic leaders have now turned mature and avoiding
taking any step that could harm the civilian rule.

The good performance of successive democratic governments has also contributed towards the well being of
the democracy in Pakistan. The democratic governments are heading towards betterment. For instance, the
existing government is better than previous government and the upcoming will have undergone even more
improvement. The democratic government of Pakistan Peoples Party, from 2008 to 2013, faced numerous
challenges of extremism and terrorism. However, the next democratic government under Nawaz Sharif
successfully resolved those challenges and brought peace. The existing government under PTI is facing
daunting economic challenges but is taking stringent measures to overcome them. Thus, the better
performance of the governments has proved that fact that civilian can also run the country effectively and
has left no room for the army to interfere in the administration directly.

The smooth transfer of power by two democratic parties to another one has enhanced the chances of
democracy to flourish in the country too. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, two democratic parties
have completed and transferred their power to the third one. It has created a proper line for power transfer
in the future, which is fundamental pre-requisite for the glory of democracy in any country. Before, it was
witnessed that the transfer was not smooth and created room for the anti-democratic elements. For instance,
as mentioned above, had the democratic leader, after the elections of 1977, not created problems for power
transfer, the military would have not imposed martial law. It was because of non-agreement on the transfer
of power in past, democracy could not survive for a long time. Thus, the smooth transfer of power, now, will
ensure the continuation of democracy in Pakistan.

The reform in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and its improved performance is another ingredient
that creates a hope for democracy in Pakistan. At present, the prime minister with the consultation of leader
of opposition appoints the chief election commissioner. The ruling government cannot appoint its own
commissioner to get the election rigged. Besides, a proper mechanism for the appointment of the members
has also been devised to ensure the transparent elections. It can be proved from the recent appointment of
the two members of the ECP. In 2019, the two vacant seats of the members of the ECP could not been filled
since eight months despite the constitutional provision for filling the seats in 45 days. It was because the
federal government under Imran Khan and opposition could not reach a consensus on the names. In a
surprise move, the government appointed the members without consultation, but the chief election
commissioner refused to administer the oath of office to these appointees and claimed that the appointment
was not based in accordance with the provision of constitution. Thus, it is reached that the reforms in the
ECP is playing a vital role in promoting the democracy by conducting smooth and transparent elections.

The citizen of Pakistan have, now, turned aware about their rights to rule the country and it is a good sign
for the development of democracy. Before, many citizens welcomed the dictator because the democratic
leaders failed to improve their lifestyle. However, the people in uniform could not satisfy their needs as well.
As a result, they have turned against dictators too. At present, almost all the citizens speak against the
martial law and blame the military for their present poor conditions. Now, instead of welcoming their rule,
they will stand against them in the same way the people of turkey blocked the prospects of military rule by
lying before the tanks. Thus, the local citizen, now, loathes martial law and it is a good for the prosperity of
democracy in the country.

A major hurdle, of course, is the indirect interference of the military in the democratic government. The
military not only frame foreign policy of Pakistan, but also implement it. The civilian has no say in the policies
towards India, Afghanistan and the US. Besides, the head of Intelligence bureau or other sensitive
institutions like defense is always retired military officer. It means that the civilians are not trusted with the
sensitive policies. Currently, many retired military officers are occupying some important posts. For instance,
the federal Interior minister is Ijaz Ahmed Shah. He is a former head of Intelligence bureau and a retired
army officer. Besides, Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa is serving as the Special Assistant to the Prime
Minister on Information and Broadcasting. He is retired Pakistani three-star general. Thus, the indirect rule of
the military does not bode well for the democracy in Pakistan.

The feudal lord system is acting as the stumbling rock in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Democracy relies
on the votes of the local citizens. However, in Pakistan, some feudal lords enjoy full control over the
authority and decisions of people in their respective areas. Normally, these feudal lords own thousands of
acres agriculture lands and almost all the people living in the villages act as their farmers. These people rely
on them economically. It is, therefore, during elections, they vote only a candidate told by their feudal lords.
They do not act on their own interest, but over the command of their superiors. In many cases, these feudal
lords contest elections themselves. Consequently, they win the elections no matter how corrupt they are and
from which political party they contest. Thus, the system of feudal lord is the basic hurdle in the way of
democracy in Pakistan.

The fact that, almost all the democratic leaders are corrupt, also contributes to the fragility of the democracy
in Pakistan. They mostly work for the wider self-interest rather than the interest of the country and its
citizens after being elected. They also favor the non-transparent appointment of the government servants to
fill the institutions with their own people. Besides, they use the public funds for their personal expenditure
and deem it below their dignity to not make piles of illegal money. They use the same money to win the
elections. It was proved by the recent accountability campaign of PM Imran Khan. Under his drive, the main
leaders of the two main democratic parties were arrested on the account of corruptions. The panama leaks
also revealed some names of the democratic leaders including farmer PM Nawaz Sharif. Because of their
corruption, the local people dislike democracy and some time talk in the favor of the authoritarian rule.
Hence, the corruption of the democratic leaders is blocking the route of democracy in the country.

The poor literacy rate of Pakistan is negatively affecting the performance of the democratic governments
very badly. It is known fact that the democratic system is successful in the countries where the literacy rate
is good. It is because; a person with good education background, knows the importance of his vote and uses
it properly for the betterment of the country. As a result, efficient democratic leaders are elected that grab
the rein of the country. Because of this reason, democracies are bearing fruitful results in the developed
countries like the US and is completely collapsing in those countries where the literacy rate is poor. In
Pakistan, with around 50 per cent illiterate people, democracy has failed to improve the lifestyle of the
people and solve the existing crisis faced by the country. Thus, it is not wrong to say that inadequate literacy
rate is causing damage to democracy in Pakistan.

The cripple economy of Pakistan also hampers the democratic progress. The better economic position of any
country is directly proportional to the prosperity of democracy. The democratic system evolved from Greece
because the export of the wine improved its economic position and thus a demand was raised for the civilian
rule. The system remained successful. However, democracy has performed poorly in the countries facing the
economic crisis. Take a classical example of Pakistan. The biggest hurdle faced by the PM Imran Khan is the
major economic challenges faced by the country. These crises have not only made it difficult for his
democratic government to focus on the other issues, but also created bad feelings among the citizen
regarding the system. As such, the poor economy of Pakistan is acting as a biggest hurdle in the way of
democracy.

An association of democratic nations must be formed to protect young democracies around the world
including Pakistan from the threat of the dictators. The strong democratic nations like the US and European
countries should extend their support to the civilian rules during crisis. Democracy needs support and the
best support for democracy can come from other democracies. Had there been an association of democratic
nations, it would have been difficult for the dictators like Zia and Musharraf to impose martial law in
Pakistan. Alarmingly, in Pakistan, the military rule received generous financial support from the US, while the
civilians were sidelined every time. Thus, the only way to sustain democracy in Pakistan is to form an
association of democratic nations at the global level.

It is imperative for the indigenous democratic leaders to improve their performance and work hard for the
betterment of the civilian to win their support. Democracy needs the cooperation of the local citizens to
flourish in any country. However, the most of the democratic leaders are corrupt in Pakistan and has failed to
show distinguish performance. As a result, democracy has become infamous in the country. Had they worked
with faithfulness and honesty to improve the lifestyle of the people, it would have been nearly impossible for
the dictators to impose direct rule. It was because of the inefficient of the democratic leaders that the
citizens never resisted the military. Otherwise, they would have lay before the tanks the same way the
citizens did in Turkey when a dictator tried to impose martial law there. Thus, the democratic leaders need to
improve their performance to block all the route of anti democratic elements.

As such, it is reached that there is hopes as well as hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Some
events like inability of the military to impose direct rule under current circumstances, mature leadership as
compared to past, better performance of successive democratic governments, smooth transfer of powers by
the democratic parties, improvement in the performance of the ECP and awareness among the people
regarding the civilian rule, have created hope for democracy in Pakistan. In the contrast, some other events
like, indirect interference of the military in the democratic governments, feudal lords system, corruption of
democratic leaders, alarming literacy rate and poor economy of the country, have caused hurdles in the way
of democracy in Pakistan. Keeping in view this situation, an association of democratic nations must be
formed to save democracy from the anti-democratic elements. Besides, it is imperative for the democratic
leaders to strive for improving the lifestyle of the local citizens to win their cooperation. Thus, democracy in
Pakistan faces both hopes and hu
One of the most perplexing debates around is on the subject of democracy, where it is easy to confuse
concept with practice, form with substance and illusion with reality.

There is another problem. Countries at varying stages of democratic evolution are all called a
democracy, which adds to the confusion, as we, in our mind, expect all these models to be equally
responsive in meeting the needs of society. That makes us tolerate and endure a system that is not quite
democratic and may never become so.

In Pakistan, democracy remains both illusive and elusive. What we have is something that looks like
democracy, but does not work like one. Democracy is a dynamic, not static, process but Pakistan’s
“democracy” is stuck.

If any “good” has come out of the current crisis, it is hopefully the realisation that the conventional
wisdom that Pakistan’s problems are due to a lack of civilian supremacy, or because the “democratic
system” has faced repeated interruptions by the military rule, or that elected governments have not
been allowed to complete their full term may not be quite true.

Has the current crisis — and the way politicians’ brazen preoccupation with the struggle for power is
ripping the country apart while it burns — left any doubt that the “democracy” we have has been part of
the problem, not the solution? In fact, it is this very “democracy” that has provided legitimacy to bad
governance, produced weak governments opposed to reforms for fear of losing elections, and has kept
recycling. Above all, it has lacked substance.

Form and substance

True democracy has both form and substance. The form manifests itself in electoral democracy, sustained by a
process of free and fair elections, and peaceful and orderly change of governments. But the form must embody
good governance to empower people, and it can do so only by resting on free and representative institutions,
constitutional liberalism or any other value-based system, strong rule of law, and a just and equitable social order.
That is the substance. Without substance, democracy remains hollow. It has no soul.

The intelligentsia in Pakistan, especially the liberal/secularist segment, is most passionate about the Western liberal
model focusing on freedom of choice, free speech, civil liberties, independent judiciary, and of course elections.

Much of this class lives emotionally disconnected from the rest of the population and their harsh challenges of
survival and means to cope with them. It feels that all you need is elections, free media, independent judiciary, and
the Constitution.

Voila! You have democracy — and it will take care of the nation’s problems, including those of the poor.

Democracy and progress

The secular/liberal class as a whole, and Western-oriented sections of it in particular, are right in seeing a causal
connection between democracy and progress in advanced industrialised countries. They are, therefore, justified in
emulating a similar democratic political system and having high expectations from it.

Where they are at fault is that they do not grasp the full picture. Most of them forget that democracy, which
ostensibly brought progress in the West, was more than a political system. It was also a society’s organising idea,
whose substance was equality of opportunity, fairness, rule of law, accountability, safeguarding of basic human
rights and freedoms, gender equality and protection of minorities.

In sum, democracy’s core idea was humanism. And the whole objective of giving people the right to choose who
will govern them on their behalf was to ensure the implementation of this very ideal.
Otherwise, what is the purpose of self governance? Given the chance to self govern, would people like to bring
themselves to grief with their own policies? Certainly this was not the intent.

Unless a nation shows this fundamental understanding of democracy and takes steps to put itself on the road to
democracy, it will never get there. It will keep moving in circles or going backwards.

The poor cannot ‘feed’ on democracy

For much of the liberal class in Pakistan, especially its more affluent stratum, the form is the substance. It looks at
democracy as simply black and white — there can be no gradation.

The fact is that Pakistan is, and is not, democratic.

Pakistan’s “democracy” is advanced enough to satisfy the liberals’ love of liberty and enjoyment of certain human
freedoms, but regressed enough to be exploited by the elite for their purposes at the expense of the people.

In her book, ‘Thieves of State’, Sarah Chayes focuses on corruption in Afghanistan. Sarah, who spent a decade in
Kandahar, concludes that the concerns of most people did not have much to do with democracy. Pakistan is, of
course, no Afghanistan but the book has a message that applies here as well.

Democracy is no doubt the best form of government but go and ask the masses in societies that are grappling with
serious state and nation-building challenges what is most important in their lives. What is important for them, they
will tell you, is social and economic justice, human security and dignity and the hope for a better future. And they
will like any government that provides this kind of life.

A USAID official once asked me what the people of Pakistan want. Development or democracy? Prompt came my
reply — if democracy brings development, they want democracy; if it does not, they want development.

Basically, you need a democracy that satisfies the human aspirations for freedom as well as improves the quality of
life for citizens at large.

Freedoms are meaningless if they do not provide for the whole society’s welfare and progress.

Pakistan’s ‘democracy’ a political tool for power

In Pakistan’s case, “democracy” is just a political tool for the dominant social groups to maintain their wealth and
status. The other instrument is military rule.

But the beneficiaries are roughly the same in both models — the whole panoply of power comprising the top tier
of politicians, bureaucrats, the military and judiciary, “business folk and the landed”, who among them monopolise
the country’s economic resources.

The civil and military leaderships may compete for power, but eventually cooperate to maintain the status quo.
Both use each other — the military using the failure of the politicians as a pretext to come to power or to dominate
it, and politicians using the alibi of military interruption or dominance for their own failure. They are allies as well
as rivals.

In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson trace the evolution of political and economic
institutions around the globe and argue that nations are not destined to succeed or fail due to geography or culture,
but because of the emergence of extractive or inclusive institutions within them.

They write:

“Extractive political institutions concentrate power in the hands of a narrow elite and place few constraints on the
exercise of this power. Economic institutions are then often structured by this elite to extract resources from the
rest of the society. Extractive economic institutions thus naturally accompany extractive political institutions. In
fact, they must inherently depend on extractive political institutions for their survival … political institutions
enable elites controlling political power to choose economic institutions with few constraints of opposing forces.
They also enable the elites to structure future political institutions and their evolution.”

In light of their thesis, we can see how powerful groups or institutions have long dominated Pakistan’s body politic
by taking advantage of its security issues, place of religion in its national makeup and its feudal social structure.
The political system that emerges from this body politic is designed to empower only the powerful and privileged
and does little to foster the rule of law.

Musical chairs
Civilians and the military have taken turns to rule Pakistan, but the system, arguably, has remained the same,
‘unscathed’ by democracy. There was no fear of accountability, and no obstacle to electability. They did not need
the people, so they did very little for them. And neither of them faced the full wrath of the public as each deflected
the blame on to the other.

When the cost of maintaining a “democracy” led by civilians would become unbearable, we would tolerate the
army’s intervention to help us get rid of them. But instead of returning to the barracks, the military would stay on.
Then we’d long for democracy, which would let us down yet again. The fact is that no institution is solely
responsible for democracy’s misfortunes in Pakistan. They all provided opportunity to each other to come to power
and supported the system.

In the civilian edition that now comprises the ruling coalition, politicians may be divided into political parties but
are united by the elites. Henceforth, whichever party comes to power when the ongoing bloody struggle for power
is over, it will likely be no different from others in being invested in the system. It may disrupt the system, but will
not threaten it.

Liberty and order

Even if Pakistan had a fully functional Western liberal democracy, it was not going to solve the country’s
fundamental challenges. The fact is the Western liberal democratic model has become too competitive. In their
book, ‘Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century’, Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels challenge the view
that the liberal democratic model is intrinsic to good governance. Examining this in relation to widely varying
political and cultural contexts, especially the Chinese system, the authors advocate a mix of order and liberty.

When asked once on the Charlie Rose Show what he thought of Western democracy, Lee Kuan Yew — the
inaugural prime minister of Singapore — replied that the system had become so competitive and combative that in
order to come to power, the opposition spent all its time planning to undermine the incumbent government by
misrepresenting or distorting issues and thus misleading the public. “It would be a sad day when this kind of
democracy comes to Singapore,” he said.

In his classic, The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria states that Singapore follows its own brand of liberal
constitutionalism, where there are limits on political freedoms — and it happens to be one of the most self-content
countries in the world.

It boggles one’s mind that we in Pakistan tolerate the civil-military led political and governance structure, which is
rigged in favour of the elite, while using the full freedom of a democratic system to play the game of politics at
people’s expense. We put up with it as if this behaviour is an acceptable price to be a “democracy”, which
incidentally does not quite happen to be a democracy. Indeed, there are institutions that one finds in a democratic
system, but they lack autonomy and integrity. They have failed in the moral strength to serve the people, but not in
the capacity to sustain the system.

You can see how millions of good Pakistanis are glued to TV or their phones every day following the comings and
goings of politicians as if they were going to solve the country’s problems. We forget that their fights are about
themselves, among themselves.

Democratisation is a revolutionary struggle

You cannot change what you do not know. The creation of a true democracy is a revolutionary struggle. And it
must begin with the realisation that the “democracy” we have will not solve our problems regardless of who is in
power. We cannot also bank on this “democracy” to become democracy by itself.

Countries change not because they have become democratic. They become democratic because they have changed.
In many ways, democratisation is a painstaking struggle, indistinguishable from state and nation-building.
Progressive movements and the civil rights campaign in America, political and social movements in Europe and
the Meiji Restoration in Japan are a few such instances.

How will this change occur in Pakistan?

That is the subject of a much wider and complex debate. Briefly, one can say the following: Pakistan has enormous
strengths — remarkable resilience, faith-based optimism, a sense of exceptionalism, a vibrant media and a
promising civil society.

There is enormous talent available within the country — academics, journalists, authors (many of them
internationally acclaimed), political activists, retired public servants — both civil and military — who all have
shown extraordinary knowledge and commitment to Pakistan. They can inspire and mobilise the young generation
yearning for true change that could provide stimulus and critical mass for social movements.

I am not advocating for military rule or a technocratic government. Let the current political
process for all its flaws continue. It cannot or should not be overthrown but can be
undermined over time.

That will be the purpose of social movements — to remove the obstacles to a genuine democracy in Pakistan.
These include a misplaced focus on faith that has fostered extremism and hindered openness and tolerance, and a
feudal dominance that has inhibited education, gender equality, openness to modern ideas and a credible political
process.

Not to mention the military’s pre-eminence that has led to the dominance of security over development. The latter
has skewed national priorities and resource allocation. All this is hardly a life-supporting environment for
democracy.

Can Pakistan truly become democratic? Yes, it can. Whether it will remains to be seen.

Pakistan adopted, or ‘inherited’, a democratic system of government at the time of the partition. The term ‘the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan’ signifies the rule or government of the common masses within defined Islamic injunctions or
fences. Nevertheless, since the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, democracy in Pakistan remained in shambles until
today. The democratic governments have not only demonstrated distinguish accomplishment and performance but also
smoothly altered capability to another government as per election conclusions for the first time in the history of Pakistan.
The ECP has too enhanced its performance and the citizens have become conscious of their privileges to rule. These all
episodes have developed hopes for democracy in Pakistan. On the other hand, the feudal lord system, corruption of
democratic rulers, impoverished literacy rate and suffering economy of the country, all affairs act as hurdles in the path of
democracy in Pakistan. Therefore, it is defined that the democracy in Pakistan confronts hopes as well as hurdles.

Firstly for thousands of years, philosophers and political leaders have invariably acknowledged that with the existence of
extreme economic imbalance in a nation, democracy cannot win. In an unequal society, either the affluent would
persecute the underprivileged and democracy would get transformed into an oligarchy, or the masses would overthrow
the rich as an aftermath of class struggle. Hence economic egalitarianism is indispensable for democracy to flourish.

However, according to a report, the income and wealth unevenness in Pakistan is from top to bottom. Only 22 persons in
the country have billions of wealth and reserves. The rest spend their life in misery, hunger and poverty. Therefore, with
such a deep gap between rich and poor, no democracy can succeed or tolerate the desired fruits in Pakistan. In a
democratic nation, people make determinations for themselves. They select their diplomats who then perform legislation.
Certainly, one desires to be well conscious of his/her privileges and literate enough to bring nicer decisions in a
democratic nation. However, in Pakistan, where the overall literacy rate stands at approximately 58%, one can
effortlessly picture the grim circumstance of the democratic significance in the country. Most of the people are unaware
of their rights and the role of the elected people. Thus, such people are invariably exploited by those in power.

Secondly Besides, owing to illiteracy, feudalism is too deeply rooted in some parts of the country. The feudal lords do not
permit their subjects to get an education. Similarly, these subjects of the landlords, as evident in a maximum of the rural
regions of Sindh and Baluchistan, are under compulsion to cast their votes according to the intentions of their masters.
Hence, genuine democratic culture and system last elusive.

Thirdly Furthermore, when a community is distributed by culture, theology, sects, lineages, and clans, it comes to be
arduous for a democracy to nourish. As democracy needs the masses to determine one civil destiny, with the division
among masses, people desire toward contrary future objectives. As Lincoln had rightly said, “A house divided against
itself cannot stand.”

Nevertheless, in Pakistan, people are mainly distributed provincially, linguistically, and based on sects, lineages, and
groups, this eventually hinders democracy from winning because the entirety of disconnected nation lacks a mutual goal.
Therefore, a united democracy is vital to the functioning of democracy.

Fourthly Education and democracy are ingredients and parcel of each other. The more people are educated, the higher the
standards of democracy would be. In Pakistan, the education sector has constantly been ignored in the past. The
difficulties related to the education system were never talked about. Nonetheless, the current government is making
struggles to deal with the problems with the education system. In this concern, the ‘Single National Curriculum’ has been
initiated and the policy is being followed with enormous vigour. This plan intends to eliminate the disparity in the
accomplishment of education. It would assist to combine the gap between the three different tiers of classes in the nation.
When all the people would achieve the same education, it would give rise to egalitarianism or equity among the public by
subtracting economic imbalance among the masses in the extended run. Ultimately, this would enhance democracy in
Pakistan.

Lastly, To attain a practical democratic system of government in Pakistan, some urgent and pragmatic efforts are needed
to deal with the hurdles already discussed above. More and more people from the lower class and middle class should be
educated and motivated to join politics. Common people should be made conscious of their rights and accountabilities.
Across-the-board responsibility of all the elected members of the government should be assured. The state organizations
should be made entirely self-reliant. Last, but not least, the media must play its diaphanous and impartial role in
examining the action and performances of the incumbent government, broadcasting the information, and highlighting the
social problems.

Since the dawn of independence in 1947 Pakistan has been ruled by elected governments and
military rulers time and again. The first constitution of Pakistan was discarded in 1958 and
then the second constitution of 1962 enacted by a military ruler was again thrown in the dust
bin by another dictator in 1969. The third constitution enacted in 1973 by the first elected
Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto fortunately has withstood the test of time and along with many
amendments has survived to this day. For most of its existence the country has been ruled
directly or indirectly by the military and as the nation has just elected a new govt. after the
8th February elections we are again faced with hopes, fears and hurdles in the way of
democracy in Pakistan.

Martial law or rule of the military does not seem possible now and it is now believed that our
political leaders are now more sensible and mature, Democratic governments have performed
relatively well and have managed an orderly and smooth transfer of power as well. The
Election Commission has performed in a very professional and constitutional manner and the
general public is now more aware of their rights and responsibilities. All these recent
happenings augur well for the future of democracy in Pakistan while at the same time political
engineering, feudal system, corruption of political leaders, low rates of literacy and poverty
can prove to be impediments in the way of our democratic journey so we can expect a lot of
hopes, barriers hurdles and difficulties in future.

The founding fathers of Pakistan led by Mohd. Ali Jinnah introduced secular democracy in
Pakistan but the sudden death of Jinnah impeded the progress of democracy and then Liaquat
Ali Khan could not implement the vision of Jinnah before he met a tragic end at the hands of
an assassin. Ayub Khan derailed democracy in 1958 and then Bhutto appeared on the scene
with renewed hopes for democracy. Yahiya Khan held the 1970 elections in which Sheikh
Mujeeb-ur- Rehman won the majority in West Pakistan yet he was decided to rule and that
resulted in the tragedy of the 1971 war and the breakup of the country. The Bhutto regime
was short-lived when general Zia clamped martial law and Bhutto was sent to the gallows.
After the death of Zia Pakistan again witnessed the spectacle of political musical chairs and
the rule of the PMLN and PPP one after the other until the Nawaz Sharif Govt. was sent
packing by General Musharraf and Pakistan was once again under military rule. Fortunately
during the Zia and Musharraf regimes the 1977 constitution was not abrogated and has
survived to this day.

Fortunately for the country democracy can move forward and flourish because the powerful
military establishment will not impose direct military rule and dismantle the edifice of
democracy. In the present times and age the international community of today is in no mood
to accept military rule they would rather impose sanctions on any country under military rule.
Pakistan today is in an advanced stage of developments with projects like CPEC going full
steam and the establishment is fully aware of the ground realities. Pakistan’s relations with
the sole superpower the USA are now rather strained and we have hostile neighbors in the
East and West also namely India and Afghanistan so the idea of martial law is now obsolete
and Pakistan has to be governed by a democratic govt. Fortunately for us the senior political
leaders are now more sensible and mature unlike the past when one democratic party
conspired against the party in power and derailed democracy. In 1977 the PNA launched a
protest movement against the ruling Govt. of Z A Bhutto after the 1977 elections and instead
of solving the issue through dialogue the demanded the ouster of the Bhutto Govt. facilitating
the second martial law of general Zia Ul Haque that lasted for eleven long years. Nawaz Sharif
as CM Punjab was daggers drawn with the Federal Govt. led by Benazir Bhutto and tried his
best to topple her govt.Consequently Benazir adopted the same tactics to remove Nawaz
Sharif in 1993. Both Nawaz and Benazir expressed joy and glee and distributed sweets at the
misfortune of the other. Political leaders of today have perhaps learnt their lesson and they do
not adopt such tactics against their political rivals. In 2008 during the rule of the PPP Nawaz
and Zardari were engaged in a verbal battle but did not resort to the tactics of the old days
and democracy was not derailed at that time. On the other hand, Zardari got an opportunity to
remove Nawaz government during Imran Khan continuous protest in Islamabad. However, he
realized that it would play in the hand of anti-democratic elements. Thus, the democratic
leaders have now turned mature and avoiding taking any step that could harm the civilian
rule.

Ad powered by advergic.com
Fortunately during the recent past successive democratic Governments in the country have
performed fairly well and that augers well for the future of democracy. Every existing govt.
has by and large been better than the previous govt. by performance and the next one will
prove to be even better. The democratically elected govt. of the PPP from 2008 to 2013 faced
the multiple horrors religious extremism, obscurantism and intolerance and the next elected
govt. was able to meet these challenges and restore peace in the land. Thus the performance
of many governments has proved that the country can be governed by elected govt. ironically
democracy in Pakistan is still in a fragile state and it is imperative for our political leaders to
show maturity and political wisdom. Leaders have to strive for improving the socio economic
conditions of the people they represent and to win their trust cooperation and love.
Democracy in Pakistan faces both hopes and impediments and it is vital to remove such
hurdles to ensure civilian rule and the long life of democracy in the country.
cpf