DEMOCRATIC RECESSION IN PAKISTAN

“Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people”- Abraham Lincoln. As it is clear from the words of Linchon, democracy is a government by the people, meaning the people have the authority to decide on their leaders who will run the state. It is a type of government in which all the people of the state are involved in making decisions about its affairs by voting to elect representatives to a parliament. Unfortunately, in the contemporary world the true ideals and values of democracy for instance, pluralism, rule of law, freedom of speech and civil supremacy are in joepardy, subsequently causing democratic recession.

Since 1947, Pakistan chose a democratic form of government for itself. Its founders ardently supported and emphasized a democratic system that could ideally permeate the governance structure and body politic of Pakistan. From the day Pakistan was founded, people have been striving for a government, and democracy was opted as being best political system ever produced by human civilization. Unfortunately for the people of Pakistan, democracy has struggled to survive for long periods. In a land where most citizens have not experienced the advantages of pure democracy, it is difficult for them to understand its true worth. Democracy means “government by the people,” but unfortunately, in Pakistan, it often seems like “government on the people.”

The democratic recession is the primary barrier that prevents Pakistan from attaining the status of a developed nation. No doubt Pakistan is a democratic state, but in fact, democracy has never been allowed to fully take root. Since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, a military-bureaucratic establishment has frequently governed the country. Army generals arrogate power at their convenience and relinquish it only when forced by mass political movements or sudden, unexpected events. When external or internal pressures mount, democracy is given a chance; otherwise, it is repeatedly challenged by military coups.

The formation of the governments, and state affairs are being acting under the shadow of the non-democratic forces, either directly or by indirectly by exerting its influence to accomplish their desired objectives with democratic recession is exacerbating, every passing minute.

Democratic recession in Pakistan began in 1954 when Governor-General Malik Ghulam Muhammad dissolved the 1st Constituent Assembly and declared a state of emergency, taking over the administration of the country. In October 1958, another decisive step was taken. The 1956 Constitution, framed after nine years of effort, did not last longer than two and a half years before it was abrogated by the then-President Iskander Mirza, who imposed martial law throughout the country. Iskander Mirza repeatedly delayed elections using various excuses, but when he started losing control over democratic forces in the country, he imposed martial law and appointed Ayub Khan as Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA). This marked the beginning of recurring periods of martial law in Pakistan.

In 1969, a significant moment occurred when Ayub Khan abrogated his own Constitution of 1962 and imposed martial law. Just like Iskander Mirza and Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia and Musharraf took comparable actions by declaring emergencies and suspending the constitution. From that point onwards, governments have functioned, and state affairs have been run under the shadow of the military, either directly or by indirectly exerting its influence to accomplish desired objectives and the democratic recession is exacerbating with every passing minute.

As we know, Pakistan has crossed its 76th independence, it’s worth noting that during this time, the nation has nearly experienced four decades under civilian rule. Formation of a stable democratic government has been challenging; the rules keep changing, amendments are made, or assemblies are dissolved. It’s unfortunate that Pakistan has not enjoyed political stability: a long period of the democratic recession has been prevailing, falling apart the Quaid’s visions.

In a nutshell, the government of Pakistan has not learned from history. Successive governments have continued the cycle of mistakes, further entrenching the country in a state of vulnerability and insecurity. After the death of Quaid, Pakistan lost the stability it once had and has struggled to find a strong leader. It has been like trying to navigate without a clear path.

It’s noteworthy that the armed forces are not trained to make political decisions. The final solution to internal problems is political, and to foreign aggression, it is diplomacy. However, under-developed countries generally fail to establish the supremacy of civilian authority over the armed forces. Pakistan is one example of the dominance of the armed forces in the affairs of the state, resulting in fostering of true democratic culture ensued by democratic recession.

Farhal Mushtaq

The author is a final-year law student.

This author does not have any more posts.