Democracy and Governance in Pakistan Tahir Kamran Reproduced by Sani H. Panhwar Dem ocracy and Governance in Pakistan TahirKam ran Contents 1. Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 2. The Era of Praetorianism .. .. .. .. .. .. 24 (1958-71) 3. The Era of Populism; .. .. .. .. .. .. 49 Zulfi Bhutto (1971-1977) 4. Third Man on Horseback; .. .. .. .. .. .. 62 Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) 5. The Rule of Troika in the Name of Democracy .. .. .. 82 (1988-1999) 6. Bonapartism Revisited .. .. .. .. .. .. 107 Musharraf Ruling the Roost (1999-2007) Selected Bibliography .. .. .. .. .. .. 134 Preface There is no gainsaying the fact that democracy is both a challenge and an opportunity for Pakistan. It sounds even more relevant if we finger through this book written with so much richness of insight by Professor Dr. Tahir Kamran deserves high appreciation of his matchless effort in producing such a subtle book of history in so much concise manner. It is indeed an invaluable contribution to Pakistan generally and the civil society and the student of history particularly. It can also be useful for those who are directly responsible for turning Pakistan into a fireball of hatred, deprivation and anguish. Coming to the question why democracy is a challenge and an opportunity for Pakistan. SAP-PK thinks that democracy is a challenge for Pakistan because there are multi- ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural groups juxtaposed with their own unique history, needs, problems and aspirations. It is a challenge because there are several conflicts arising out of the same uniqueness which the “politics of elimination” of the military and civil establishment deliberately created to wield more and more powers. It is a challenge because the same people have lost their hope overtime after years of betrayal by the military, politicians and bureaucracy, to the consequence that they are no longer interested in even one of the significant practices of democracy, i.e., ‘elections’ and now we need no less than year 71 or an October earthquake to see them at the same note. It is a challenge because years of exposures to dictatorial regimes and lessons of intolerance towards women, religious minorities and neighboring countries pushed down their threats through ideological apparatuses of the state have shaped their minds in the directions where the debate of human rights becomes irrelevant and lawlessness is the existing law. Now comes the second part of the same question as to why democracy is an opportunity for us. SAP-PK thinks that the answer to this question is in fact carved on the other side of the same coin. And that is that one should learn from his/her follies. The history proves that we were free to make mistakes. The question is whether we are ready to accept them. This book takes stock of many follies that ruler of this unfortunate country made one after another under the impression of prolonging their indispensable rule ‘and benefiting Pakistan’. And those follies were not follies just because ‘they’ made them, but because only a few people made them and they did not bother to consult millions of people. The ‘opportunity’is therefore rooted in this realization that people matter and or very reason of the existence of this country. Had the rulers trusted our people in the true spirit of the letter, socio-economic and political conditions of this country would have been different. They, and we as nation, must understand that ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is our strength. This diversity must be acknowledged and respected both in approach and actions. We must understand that countries become zones of opportunities when they chose ballot over bullet, debate over coercion, tolerance and consensus over intolerance and self-serving attitude. Pakistan has still that streak which can push people back to exercise the former choices. But that all begins by accepting people as supreme. Supremacy of people makes countries sovereign. Mohammad Tahseen Executive Director Introduction Democracy is a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern them. Fundamentally the notion of democracy emanated from Europe particularly after the treaty of West Phalia (Germany) in 1648 though ancient Greece is generally believed to be the locale of its origin. After the French Revolution in 1789, democracy found a socially conducive ambience as the institution of monarchy and the supremacy of Church were not only called into question but denounced and displaced. Hence democracy in its essence came up as a secular concept. However, in Europe it was after 1848 that autocratic dispensation was dealt a fatal blow and democracy entwined with the spirit of nationalism started flourishing. Nevertheless, democracy did not have a smooth sailing until the mid twentieth century. It had to contend with Nazi, Fascist and totalitarian challenges which it eventually managed to overcome in 1945 obviously at a tremendous cost, and ‘the norms of rationality, bureaucracy and institutionalized, impersonal authority, born in Western enlightenment and nurtured by the modern state, would eventually spread across the globe’.1 In a culturally and ethnically plural country like Pakistan democracy is sine qua non for its territorial and political integrity. The equitable distribution of economic as well as environmental resources like water, gas etc. among the provinces is possible only through democracy. Historically speaking Pakistan was conceived as a parliamentary democracy with federal structure on the pattern of Westminster. However, democracy could not strike root in the sixty years of Pakistan’s history. Consequently, federalism though sustained itself but just barely. Ideological confusion hampered the growth of democracy as Pakistani nation state, a purely Western/modernist construct was ascribed an Islamic meaning. The notions like nation, nationality or nationalism are rooted in European political and cultural context. However, Muslims of India appropriated it without resolving the core issue of territoriality and the sanctity that nationalism accords to it that runs counter to the concept of Umma or Milat as projected in the Islamic political thought. Hence Nationalism/nation was propounded in a novel connotation, which seems to be a theoretical quandary of immense proportion leading to a state of ambivalence. Objective Resolution in 1949 was a significant stride towards the state of ambivalence, this resolution allowed undue space to the religious element into the social and political setting of Pakistan. Thereby the plural and secular spirit of democracy was mauled and 1 Subrata Kumar Mitra (ed.), T heP ost-ColonialStateinAsia:DialectsofP oliticsandCulture(Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1988), p. 03. Democracy and Governance in Pakistan © www.sanipanhwar.com 1 badly distorted. Consequently political instability and authoritarianism became an abiding feature. It led to a socio-political menace of religious fundamentalism and sectarian chasm in the 1980s and 90s. Political and cultural diversity did not find articulation in an immensely centralized state structure. Right from the outset democracy was hobbled because of the self aggrandizement of the ruling elite. Muslim League leadership itself was an impediment in the smooth nurturing of democracy. Most of its leaders in West Pakistan belonged to landed aristocracy therefore not distant from the masses. Generally Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s early demise is considered as a bad luck and one of the major reasons for the aborted growth of democracy. Historical facts however fail to corroborate such a view point. Vesting of the executive powers in the Governor General proved anomalous to say the least. In such a circumstance the Prime Minister became a superfluous entity. Similarly, Muhammad Ali Jinnah reposed greater trust in the bureaucrats instead of his political comrades which invigorated apolitical elements in Pakistan. Consequently neither the free and fair elections could be held nor could constitution be framed and promulgated. Constitution making and elections would have scuttled the unbridled powers of bureaucracy, represented by Malik Ghulam Muhammad, Ch. Muhammad Ali and Sikander Mirza. That trio along with Gen. Ayub Khan ruled the roost in 1950s. That decade can decidedly be designated as the decade of the bureaucratic rather than democratic/civilian rule. Having said all that, one must not lose sight of the fact that oligarchic rule that Pakistan witnessed comprised military and West Pakistani feudal politician, bureaucrat being most powerful. Hamza Alvi’s concept of ‘overdeveloped state’ is very pertinent in understanding the role of two colonial institutions and their role in impeding the process of democracy. Ayub Khan’s autocratic rule inverted the relationship between civil bureaucracy and Army. In the 1950s bureaucrats were preponderant with Army acting in a subsidiary role. However, during Ayub era army assumed greater importance. The Army- bureaucracy nexus sustained nevertheless. Conversely politicians were given a rough shod. In thousands they were EBDOed. Introduction of basic democracies and 1962 Constitution were the means to perpetuate the personal rule of Ayub Khan. When he had to contest elections against Fatima Jinnah in 1965, he managed and manipulated them with the help of state machinery. Besides, muzzling of the press and particularly suppression of the leftist political forces had an adverse fall out in the long run. Ayub Khan was indeed provided a