FORMAN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE

LAHORE

(A Chartered University)

Department of
Political Science
Make Up
Paper
Course Title: Introduction to political science

Topic: Failure of Democracy in Pakistan

Submitted To: Prof. DR. Younas

Submitted By: M.jahanzeb

Roll Number: 12-10190

Due Date: May 19, 2010

FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN:

Democracy has been an elusive dream for Pakistan. Pakistan’s chequered
history since gaining freedom in 1947 is marked with tumultuous
antidemocratic events which have wreaked havoc with the fabric of Pakistan’s
society. Instead of becoming an integrated nation over the decades after
independence it has degenerated into a highly fragmented society on many
grounds. Above all, Pakistan failed to uphold the dominant form of
government in the world.

Why did democracy fail in Pakistan? Historians and experts in Pakistan

studies have many accounts to offer. I agree with many of them and partially
disagree with others. I believe there are many historical, political, cultural and
economic factors for the failure of democracy in Pakistan. A combination of
historical circumstances and policy choices exercised by the elite groups, have
produced, what can be summarized as obstacles to democratic transformation
in Pakistan.

In view of the compulsion to restrict this essay to a mere fifteen hundred

words, I will briefly discuss the different factors responsible for failure of
democracy in Pakistan.

HISTORICAL FACTORS:

Since Paksitan’s inception in 1947, the military has been in power for almost
24 years. This history persistent military rule has undermined democratic
values, norms and institutions that promote democracy, for example, political
parties’ autonomous groups and a free and responsible press. Besides, uneven
economic development under the first military regime enhanced state power
and weakened the democratic norms and institutions each military
intervention met the needs of particular interest groups at a given moment
(under Ayub, big business, the military, and the bureaucracy gained strength,
while under Ziaul Haq in 80s, traders, merchants and religious groups, under
Musharaaf opportunist politician-cum-businessmen gained momentum). In
return, over the long run, these particular spawned a powerful groups within
the government that threatened democratic norms and values, and violated
the legal and constitutional procedures.

POLITICAL FACTORS:

There is a general lack of consensus among the elite groups on how to promote
democratic process. After independence division among the elite has
increased regional and ethnic conflicts have intensified partisan antagonism is
also upswing and in recent years hostilities between political families have also
risen. Even processes of state building national consolidation and
industrialization have not fostered elite cohesion thus division among the elite
continues to hamper the process of democratic consolidation.

Big political parties and dynastic, personality-centred parties have either

developed or grown as opposition movements to the government.
Consequently the political parties have a mobilization character but find it
difficult to act as channels of interest representation. Most political parties are
non democratic in their structure, character and outlook. There is no process
of leadership selection. It is not by election but rather nomination through
which party leaders are chosen within the political parties. Religious or ethnic
parties are closed groups. In such groups, ideology or ethnic factors determine
the leadership selection process. Political parties have no links with policy
process. Personalities rather than issue matters.

Since military rule ahs been persistent and democratic government remain
illusion, the political elites have little experience with democratic rule. In the
1970s, although Bhutto assumed power through the electoral process and
framed a constitution, he found it difficult to rule through democratic means.
Even though, Mohammad Khan Junejo, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif
governments, and current experience reveal unwillingness among our elite
groups to uphold the democratic norms.
Political leaders are not only inexperienced in a democratic tradition but also
find it difficult to hold democratic values. Tolerance, compromise and
bargaining are absent. Vendetta and suppression of opponents is the norm
rather then the exception.

CULTURAL FACTORS:

Is Islam hostile to democracy? The experience of Pakistan reveals Islam has

been used as an instrument of centralisation and social control by elites in
power or otherwise. Consequently, the politics of islamisation have promoted
intolerance, rather then the politics of bargain and compromise with other
groups. On the other hand, religious groups have become influential quite
disproportionately to the size of their real support base. The politics of
islamisation has given new life to various sects. Sectarian politics are
undermining the spirit of Muslim brotherhood, and are in turn promoting
tolerance and weakening the politics of accommodation and consensus. Thus,
state-sponsored islamisation has hampered democratisation.

However, the biggest challenge to democratisation is the rising demand of

ethnic groups. The demand of the ethnic groups for greater political
participation, autonomy, and sharing of economic resources are causing
tensions between the elites (who are well entrenched in the power structure)
and aspiring ethnic elites. Therefore, the revival of religious sects and
increased ethnic assertion have become a serious challenge to smooth
transition to the democratic order.

ECONOMIC FACTORS:

One can establish linkages between economic policies and political

development in the state. The Pakistani experience reveals that like the
political arena, in the economic realm also the Pakistani elites failed to evolve
economic policies that could reflect consensus and continuity. In the 1950s
and 1960s the policies of import-substitution facilitated the development of
consumer industries (textiles in particular), which also accelerated the pace of
urbanization. However, the impact of these economic policies was that they
promoted social class inequalities and regional cleavages.

In the 1970s these economic policies of functional inequality were abandoned.

Instead the emphasis was on expansion of the public sector and
nationalization of the industrial sector. Equity and public welfare were given
preference as compared to policies of economic growth alone. In the 1980s
some lukewarm attempts of nationalization and expansion of the public sector
did not promote decentralization or political competition, but encouraged
centralization and constrained the environment of economic and political
competition.

In the 1990s, there appears to be a grater consensus among elites on

promoting privatization as a policy choice. Yet privatization has neither led to
decentralization nor has it encouraged strengthening of the democratic
process. The proponents of nationalization and privatization have created a
political environment in which powerful groups are presenting themselves as
either representing or defending the interests of feudal groups or business
groups. This polarization of dominant interest groups, i.e. feudal vs. business,
has adversely affected the process of transition from an authoritarian to
democratic system. These pendulum swings of developmental priorities
hamper the process of democratization, development of democratic norms,
and consolidation of participatory institutions.

rom the analysis of the above mentioned factors it is evident that cultural and
structural constraints exist that make transition to a democratic order in
Pakistan difficult. It needs to be recognized that reforming the cultural
heritage of a society is a hazardous task. Do we need a cultural policy to reform
our political culture? Alternatively, we could encourage the establishment of
rules, procedures, and laws under which democracy flourishes. It is merely
growth of democracy, but also appropriate rules, judicious decisions, and elite
accommodation that facilitate the creation of democratic order. Creation,
acceptance, and implementation of rules and laws that popularize the
principles of democracy need to be devised.