Independence Day comes as a reminder for many things, about the Independence movement, the complicated process, and the later developments. For Pakistan, all these hold great significance, and have many dimensions, and provoke debate.
The Independence movement is, again, seen in various dimensions, the political struggle of the Indian Muslims, politically fighting the stronger Hindu community, the colonial system under the British Raj and other socio-economic factor which forced Muslims to think about a separate homeland. All these factors were skillfully managed by Mr Jinnah, and his team of dedicated leaders of the Muslim League who led the masses in major parts of India.
‘Independence’ itself was something that both the Hindus and Muslims wanted, and later demanded; while the British had also resigned to the fact that there was no solution to the communal problem of India but Independence. However, all three were not really prepared for what ensued after the Independence Plan was announced by the British. As it drew closer, many issues came up that the British tried to address through consultations.
Despite these efforts, the political schism, and deep mistrust between the two communities led to communal violence on a large scale. The unfair Radcliffe Award became a major issue, and restricted transfer of assets, and rehabilitation became major issues for the newly independent Pakistan. The Kashmir issue cropped up on the eve of Independence, as the Hindu Maharaja dithered on accession, against the will of the people; as the situation deteriorated, the dubious accession led to a war between the two newly created states.
As a result of these developments right at the time of Independence—birth pangs, Pakistan saw itself in an insecure environment, and had to fight a war to secure its rightful territory. Soon after, the nascent country lost its founder, Quaid-i-Azam, that came as a jolt for the political dispensation. While the first Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan gave the system continuity, his assassination a few years later after the creation of Pakistan struck at the roots of the polity. After 1951, the political order remained under strain, and largely unstable.
Another reckoning factor was the division of the country into two provinces, geographically separated. This was another factor causing a schism between the people and leaders of the two halves. Culturally, linguistically, the peoples of the eastern and western wings were distinct, and the differences started coming to fore with time, till they erupted into a mass movement, and led to separation.
The above discussion offers a few clues when we turn to democracy as it evolved, and has functioned in the country. As Pakistan sets to start its eighth decade, a discussion on democracy is in order. There are many dimensions to this critical debate, the colonial past, early turbulent years, insecure environment, role of political leaders, role of military, and a traditional, semi-literate society. A close discussion on all of the above offers insights into what can be called a ‘political malaise’ that leads people to say that democracy has not functioned smoothly, even that people are not fit for democracy! (one can also ask a question: “are we much different from the people of other south Asian countries where democracy has flourished?”)
One could start from the Pakistan movement that was based on the premise of representation and participation of the Muslims in the affairs of the state. The Quaid’s vision for Pakistan was a progressive, democratic polity, with equal rights for the minorities. The Quaid’s dream was shattered in the early to mid-fifties when a political musical chair ensued in the capital, and bureaucrats joined the politicians in calling the shots, removing and appointing PMs that suited their interests.
Thus, Pakistan’s democratic woes had started before the 1958 Martial Law by General Ayub Khan. After that, Pakistan has seen two more eras of military rule (Gen Zia, 1977-88; Gen Musharraf, 1999-2008). Interestingly, these periods got sustenance from a favourable international environment that also led to a somewhat rosy economic outlook. Also, all three military rulers got support from particular political sections.
The civilian rule periods are marked by political instability, and crises, and economic issues that the incumbents were somehow unable to handle; they also felt that they cannot run without the blessings of the military. And many of the governments, particularly in the 90s, were unable to complete their terms. The reasons behind this state of affairs are not hard to point at: a weak democratic tradition; weak institutions; weak Parliamentary norms and procedures. In the Parliament, the ruling party is only interested in legislation that strengthens them, while a splintered opposition is unable to overcome differences to check that. Thus, there is hardly any legislation on major public interest issues. With a desensitised public, political parties are free to win over their supporters than a broader electorate. Political parties remain highly personality-driven that prevents capable leaders to come forward.
While Pakistan chose to have a Westminster-type model of democracy, it was not strengthened on those lines, and it remains weak on many counts; spoilers keep on bringing up the issue of a Presidential system, almost as a threat.
AT 79, the age of Pakistan’s democracy is much less, in the current phase, it is 18 years, and a long way to go. In the 21st century, almost the whole non-western world has been able to tailor democracy to its national ethos, but in Pakistan’s case, there is much more to be done. Electoral system remains under strain, and the results mostly questioned. There is need of transparency in the whole electoral process and in the functioning of the Election Commission.
The Quaid, both as a leader of the Independence movement, and briefly, as the Governor-General, has left a deep imprint on governance that today is a major issue. In his commitment to good governance, transparency, merit, and accountability, there are lessons, clear as the day. Over time, all these have been relegated to history; Pakistan today, in its democratic dimension deviates from the Pakistan envisaged by the Quaid more than eight decades ago. A true democratic dispensation can steer the ship of the state toward the goals the Quaid had set, and to which today’s leaders also allude to, but make no serious effort to achieve.
—The writer is former faculty Quaid-i-Azam University. He is Editor, CISS, AJK. He can be reached at: [email protected].
