Pakistan’s Fight for True Democracy

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, envisioned a democratic nation rooted in the principles of governance accountable to its people. He emphasized this vision on March 25, 1948, asserting, “Those days have gone when the country was ruled by bureaucracy. It is the people’s government responsible to the people on democratic lines and parliamentary practices.” Jinnah’s aspirations were for Pakistan to be a state where governance reflected the people’s will and administrative bodies held themselves accountable. However, even as Pakistan marks 76 years of independence, it continues to face significant obstacles in enacting a true liberal democracy.

Banning PTI: a Farewell to Democracy in Pakistan?

The most recent 2024 elections drew concerns as they appeared to fall short of democratic ideals, marked by allegations of electoral fraud, vote-rigging, and covert efforts by the interim government to tighten its grip on power. Reports surfaced of manipulative tactics, including switching independent candidates’ symbols to confuse less-educated voters, a maneuver that fueled public resentment. Months after the elections, the Punjab Provincial Assembly passed the Punjab Defamation Act, which imposed strict fines of up to 3 million rupees without requiring substantial evidence. This move disappointed netizens and human rights advocates who fear that the act could be weaponized against government critics, stifling freedom of expression.

Adding to the growing list of grievances, a new firewall was recently implemented to monitor online spaces and social media traffic. This has inadvertently led to a 40% reduction in internet speed, as noted by social media experts, significantly affecting remote workers and small businesses that rely on digital platforms to thrive. Freelancers on platforms like Fiverr faced unexpected setbacks as the firewall slowed down services, leading Fiverr to mark Pakistani freelancers as “out-of-office” because of connectivity issues. Despite the clear impacts, government officials deflected blame, attributing the slowdown to “faulty underwater cables” and “overuse of VPNs,” which further eroded public trust.

The climate became even more restrictive with the passage of the Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act following peaceful protests by the PTI in September. This act prohibits public gatherings in Islamabad without explicit government permission and threatens violators with up to three years in prison. Its vague language has raised concerns among civil society groups, journalists, social activists, and opposition parties, as it appears to infringe upon citizens’ rights to assemble and express dissent. Critics argue that this legislation undermines democratic values by limiting the public’s ability to voice legitimate grievances, potentially silencing concerns over government policies and decisions.

Understanding the Political Culture of Pakistan

The introduction of the 26th Amendment has further compounded worries about the erosion of judicial independence in Pakistan. Under this amendment, the government wields significant influence over the appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, raising fears that judges may now feel compelled to align themselves with ruling party interests to secure the coveted position. This shift blurs the essential separation of powers and reduces the judiciary’s role as an impartial check on the executive branch. As a result, there are concerns that the judiciary could become biased, endorsing laws and rulings that favor the government, which could protect officials from scrutiny over previous corruption or human rights abuses.

While 2024 has seen a series of assaults on democratic rights, Pakistan’s historical struggles with authoritarianism are longstanding. Pakistan’s journey toward democracy has repeatedly been interrupted by military interventions curtailing civilian rights and restricting electoral processes. The first instance occurred in 1958 when General Ayub Khan initiated martial law, overthrowing the government of Iskander Mirza. During Ayub’s rule, the public’s right to vote was revoked, dealing a heavy blow to the democratic aspirations of Jinnah’s vision. Public discontent with Ayub’s repressive rule culminated in his resignation in 1971. This marked the end of his administration and heralded Pakistan’s first national election in 13 years, giving citizens an opportunity to reassert their democratic rights.

This hard-won democracy, however, was again stifled when General Zia ul Haq imposed martial law in 1977, followed by yet another military takeover in 1999 led by General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf’s rise to power stemmed from tensions with the then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, ultimately leading to a military coup. During his presidency, Musharraf dismantled the 1973 constitution, reinforced religious extremism, and dismissed judges who resisted his policies, effectively stifling democracy. It was only in 2008, when Musharraf’s popularity dwindled, that he was ousted with the help of the United States withdrawing support, military disapproval, and an alliance of political parties. After Musharraf’s departure, General Ashfaq Kayani restored a level of balance by instructing the military to avoid interference in political affairs, a move that distanced the armed forces from Musharraf’s authoritarian style.

The 26th Amendment: A Threat to Judicial Independence

Pakistan’s history demonstrates the critical role of public opinion in shaping governance and ending authoritarian regimes. Both Ayub Khan and Musharraf faced escalating resistance as their popularity plummeted, ultimately leading to their downfall. Pakistanis, determined to reclaim their democratic rights, have consistently rallied to end oppressive military rule. Although each period of martial law left lasting scars on the country’s institutions, the resilience of the people brought democracy back each time, often with stronger safeguards than before.

The current situation in Pakistan echoes these historical tensions between authoritarianism and democratic aspirations. Many Pakistanis fear that the recent laws and amendments might signal another drift away from democracy. However, Pakistan’s past shows that public resilience has been a powerful force against repressive regimes. History suggests that citizens’ discontent, if widespread and sustained, can serve as a catalyst for political change. Future leaders may find that the key to securing public support lies in respecting democratic principles and addressing the concerns of the people. A government genuinely aligned with a “pro-Pakistani” ethos—one that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and the protection of fundamental rights—could win the confidence of the populace and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s journey toward democracy has been struggled with challenges, yet its people have demonstrated remarkable perseverance. With each attempt to curtail their rights, they have risen to demand a voice in their governance. This resilience offers hope that, despite current setbacks, Pakistanis will continue striving toward a more democratic future that reflects the ideals of its founder. The lessons of the past suggest that the path to a stronger democracy lies not in authoritarian measures but in a government that genuinely respects and represents the will of its people.