Democracy and Governance in Pakistan Tahir Kamran South Asia Partnership-Pakistan Haseeb Memorial Trust Building, Nasirabad, 2km Raiwind Road, P.O. Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore-53700, Pakistan. Ph: 92-42-5311701-3,5-6, Fax: 92-42-5311710 Email: [email protected], Website: www.sappk.org Writer: Tahir Kamran Research Coordinator: Anwar Chaudhary Editor: Mohammed Asif Sub-Editor: Asad Shakir Artwork: Mahboob Ali Quantity: 3000 Price: Rs 300 Date: July 2008 Printer: Sheikh Ghulam Ali & Sons Publisher: South Asia Partnership-Pakistan Haseeb Memorial Trust Building, Nasirabad, 2 km Raiwind Road, Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore. Contents Preface 1. Introduction 7 2. The Era of Praetorianism 43 (1958-71) 3. The Era of Populism 81 Zulfi Bhutto (1971-1977) 4. Third Man on Horseback 101 Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) 5. The Rule of Troika 133 in the Name of Democracy (1988-1999) 6. Bonapartism Re-Visited 171 Musharraf Ruling the Roost (1999-2007) Selected Bibliography 210 Preface There is no gainsaying the fact that democracy is both a chal- lenge 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. Professor Dr. derserves high appreciation of his matchless effort in pro- ducing such a subtle book of history in so much concise man- ner. It is indeed an invaluable contribution to Pakistan gener- ally 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, dep- rivation 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 chal- lenge 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 minori- ties 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 fol- lies. 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 coun- try 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 peo- ple 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 reli- gious diversity is our strength. This diversity must be acknowl- edged 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. Pak- istan 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 emocracy is a form of government in which the people govern themselves or elect representatives to govern Dthem. Fundamentally the notion of democracy emanat- ed from Europe particularly after the treaty of West Phalia (Ger- many) 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 institu- tion 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. Howev- er, 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 enlight- enment 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 integri- ty. The equitable distribution of economic as well as environ- mental resources like water, gas etc. among the provinces is pos- sible only through democracy. Historically speaking Pakistan was conceived as a parliamentary democracy with federal struc- ture on the pattern of Westminster. However, democracy could not strike root in the sixty years of Pakistan’s history. Conse- quently, federalism though sustained itself but just barely. Ideo- logical confusion hampered the growth of democracy as Pak- istani nation state, a purely Western/modernist construct was ascribed an Islamic meaning. The notions like nation, nationali- ty 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 10 Democracy and Governance in Pakistan 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 connota- tion, which seems to be a theoretical quandary of immense pro- portion 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 Pak- istan. Thereby the plural and secular spirit of democracy was mauled and badly distorted. Consequently political instability and authoritarianism became an abiding feature. It led to a socio-political menace of religious fundamentalism and sectari- an chasm in the 1980s and 90s. Political and cultural diversity did not find articulation in an immensely centralized state struc- ture. Right from the outset democracy was hobbled because of the self aggrandizement of the ruling elite. Muslim League leader- ship 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. Gener- ally 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 circum- stance the Prime Minister became a superfluous entity. Similar- ly, Muhammad Ali Jinnah reposed greater trust in the bureau- crats 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 Sikan- der Mirza. That trio along with Gen. Ayub Khan ruled the roost in 1950s. That decade can decidedly be designated as the decade Introduction 11 of the bureaucratic rather than democratic/civilian rule. Having said all that, one must not loose sight of the fact that oligarchic rule that Pakistan witnessed comprised military and West Pak- istani 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. How- ever, 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 Constitu- tion 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 sup- pression of the leftist political forces had an adverse fall out in the long run. Ayub Khan was indeed provided a prototype for the subsequent Army autocrats to emulate. The autocrats whether civilians or otherwise need pliable judiciary.