WINSTON Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons in November 1947, stated: “It has been said

that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried
from time to time....”

Democracy is a noble concept of governance. Yet, historically, its practice has been frequently flawed.
Democracy’s embrace must be thus accompanied by safeguards against its susceptibility to abuse and
distortion.

In ancient Greece, where democracy was born, populism unleashed the Peloponnesian Wars. Many of
the Roman Empire’s unending wars were fought to quench its citizen-mob’s thirst for glory.

British democracy did not extend, until almost the end, to its extensive empire. The ‘mother of
parliaments’ doggedly opposed basic human rights and self-determination for Britain’s colonies until the
empire was near collapse.

How ‘free’ is the ‘common’ Pakistani voter to choose qualified and honest representatives?

The US Declaration of Independence declaimed that “all men are created equal”. But this did not include
the African slaves owned by the framers of that declaration and the Bill of Rights. Nor did democracy
protect the Native Americans from the most thorough genocide perpetrated in recent history.

Hitler and Mussolini came to power through the democratic process and then aborted it. Today, in
Europe, the ghost of fascism and racism has been resurrected by economic recession and the influx of
African and Arab refugees. Italy, Austria and Hungary are now governed by elected neo-fascists, who are
also gaining electoral strength in Germany, Holland and Scandinavia. The UK’s disastrous Brexit was
decided by ill-informed chauvinists in an ill-advised referendum.

‘Middle (and ignorant) America’ has elected Donald Trump with his promise to ‘make America great
(and white) again’. His anti-immigration policies and trade protectionism, together with a whimsical and
impetuous foreign policy, threaten to trigger another recession and erode the structures of the global
cooperation.

The dangers of populist democracies are writ large in the electoral victory of Narendra Modi and the BJP
in India, propelled to power by a slick electoral machine playing on false promises of prosperity
combined with an appeal to the base sentiments of national chauvinism and religious hatred. The anti-
Muslim card is likely to be played again, this time specifically against Pakistan’s support for India-held
Kashmir’s freedom struggle, to secure Modi’s re-election next year. The threat of another India-Pakistan
war is thus a byproduct of the workings of the world’s ‘largest democracy’.

Pakistan has been often ‘named and shamed’ for its patchy adherence to democracy. The debate on the
virtues of military versus democratic governance is a false one. Democracy is preferable. What is
required is to rectify the grave flaws in Pakistan’s democratic process and governance, and thereby avert
the periodic domestic crises which have created the conditions for military intervention in the past.

In a separate speech in December 1944, Churchill opined that “the plain, humble, common man ... is the
foundation of democracy” and it is vital “to this foundation that this man or woman should” be able to
choose his or her elected representative “without fear, and without any form of intimidation or
victimisation”.

How ‘free’ is the ‘common’ Pakistani voter to choose qualified and honest representatives? It is well
known that in Pakistan’s rural areas, votes are dictated by feudal lords and tribal loyalties. ‘Electables’
are, almost by definition, anti-democratic. In many constituencies, votes are either bought by monetary
or other incentives or coerced by threats of physical or pecuniary harm. Poor and uneducated voters are
swayed by false promises. Religious and hate-filled sectarian slogans are invoked to influence Pakistan’s
conservative electorate. Most political parties allegedly receive foreign funding designed to influence
electoral results and their policies. Sections of the media have also become susceptible to monetary
influence. And, sadly, some of the ‘champions of democracy’, the so-called civil society and NGOs, are
themselves at least partially funded by external sources.

Beyond the vote, democracy cannot serve its purpose in an environment of pervasive corruption and
open abuse of power. Accountability, adherence to the rule of law and checks and balances on
executive, legislative and judicial powers are essential to the legitimacy of democratic governance.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, there are few institutionalised mechanisms to ensure these prerequisites.
Once in office, elected prime ministers and presidents — even more than military dictators — have
consistently abused their power to extract privilege and profit, for themselves or their families and
cronies. The legislature’s oversight functions have been circumscribed, not by the so-called
establishment, but by parliament’s apex leaders themselves. Judicial recourse is cumbersome and has
been often also susceptible to coercion and corruption. And when in the past, upon occasion, the
judiciary displayed independence, it was ejected or, literally, ‘taken over’.

The damage done to Pakistan’s economic prospects by the accumulated excesses of the last ‘decade of
democracy’ are now starkly evident: Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves are being drained by the day;
exports are stagnant; investment is frozen; the rupee is in free fall. Recourse to another IMF bailout is
inevitable. Yet, it will not provide sustainable reprieve unless the underlying challenges of generating
sufficient revenues, eliminating wasteful expenditures, and mobilising domestic and foreign investment
are not overcome.

Economic vulnerability has, in turn, eroded the nation’s ability to address the external challenges posed
by a belligerent India, a chaotic Afghanistan and a hostile America.

The credibility of the July 25 elections is threatened not only by foreign-instigated terrorism but also by
a political and media campaign led by leaders enmeshed in the delayed and uneven process of
accountability. The prospects of a peaceful election and the expeditious formation of the next
government are in doubt. It would be in the nation’s interest if the polls are held peacefully and fairly,
and its results accepted by all parties.

The incoming government will have to assume enormous and immediate responsibilities: to ensure a
peaceful transition; address the economic emergency; deter Indian aggression; help to achieve peace in
Afghanistan; and restore cooperative relations with the US. It must also introduce effective and
institutional checks against the abuse of power, ensure good and transparent governance and overcome
the visible deficits in Pakistan’s democracy

Even after more than 70 years of existence and around 17 years of continuous rule by elected
governments, Pakistan could not attain the desirable levels of political stability and economic growth.
The political and economic situation in the country currently has become so adverse that nothing could
be forecast with certainty about the future of the present government. The foremost reason for this is
the lack of political and economic stability in Pakistan and the resultant social chaos has been that
democracy as a culture and institution has failed to flourish and evolve in the country. Various related
factors have been responsible for the failure of democracy to evolve as an institution in Pakistan. These
factors need to be identified, analysed and documented by the policymakers so that a sustainable
political and economic stability can be achieved.

At the outset it must be understood that the culture of society determines the nature, structure and
functions of institutions of that society, including the state. Looking at the institutions of democracy
from that standpoint reveals that the foremost and underlying cause that a democratic culture has not
evolved in Pakistan has been the incompatibility between the social structure of the country and the
essence and values of a democratic culture. The nature of social structure, which comprises social
institutions, social values, social roles and social statuses of Pakistan has fundamentally been
undemocratic in form. As democratic culture primarily is based on the values of equality, equity, justice,
freedom and individualism (together creating a culture of merit, inventiveness and amity) these values
have hardly been prevalent in Pakistan’s social structure.

Pakistan’s social structure is profoundly and extensively tribal, ultraconservative and thus anti-change.
The culture which such social structure promotes hardly has any space for the above-mentioned
democratic ideals to be attained. Such social structure is hierarchical in orientation which functions
primarily on the institutionalisation and reverence of traditional figures of authorities like tribal and clan
chiefs and religious figures. That is the fundamental reason that symbols of traditional authorities like
Khan, Malik, Chaudhry, Wadera and Sardar on the one hand and maulvis on the other hand have been
dominating the society through their societal power and influence to the exclusion of the masses and
their consciously and freely-elected democratic and liberal leaders. These symbols and figures of
traditional authorities have been colluding to entrench their respective power base on the one hand and
to ricochet any challenge to it. As this challenge could only come from liberal and democratic figures,
values and institutions under the umbrella of democratic political structure, tribal chieftains and clerical
leadership have been trying their utmost to prevent democracy evolve. Many of the traditional figures
also joined the political system by appealing to the conservative constituency to make it hostage to their
vested interests and in this way make it unviable. Innumerable feudal lords and maulvis have joined the
political system of Pakistan over the decades and their efforts to dominate it have seriously
compromised the vitality and functionality of the system, whose biggest victim has been democracy.

The success of traditional authorities in this connection has mainly been due to the strategy of
traditional power brokers to infiltrate and dominate the institutions of democracy like parliament,
political parties and elected governments. Therefore, it is no surprise that most Pakistani political parties
have evolved into family-limited companies with politics being their prime business. Traditional
authorities have used their power base to domineer the institutions and values of democracy. Thus the
very institutions which could otherwise have been a guarantee of flourishing democracy in Pakistan,
have served as stumbling blocks for evolution of democracy.

Institutions of a tribal culture intrinsically operate on the principle of inequality and top-down flow of
power and authority. Therefore, the values of a tribal culture, like that of Pakistan, are incompatible
rather in conflict with the values of democracy. So in a society based on tribal principles equality is hard
to be attained. Contrarily, democracy functions on the very principle of equality to all members of
society and the state. For instance, every member of society and citizen of the state, has only one vote
to exercise and is expected to have equal opportunity of social and economic mobility. Although in
theory the Pakistani political system, which is outwardly democratic but inwardly not, operates on the
principle of one-person-one-vote (universal suffrage) but most of the people cannot use vote freely
either because of the pressure of the respective traditional authorities or bonds or because of their lack
of education and information. Resultantly, the government which gets elected is based on what German
political thinker-cum-political sociologist Noelle Neumann called ‘loud minority’ while the majority
becomes ‘silent.’
Another very important aspect of the failure of democracy to evolve in Pakistan is that the auxiliary
institutions, which otherwise ought to provide support to Parliament, people and political leadership to
build their capacities of policymaking and their execution by providing them education and information
have been working at cross purposes. These institutions which include the bureaucracy and all the
government departments, due to relatively good education and administrative skills of their human
resource, have been working for personal and institutional benefits by taking advantage of the
ignorance of the masses. This is the basic reason that bureaucrats and top civil servants have been
enjoying all kinds of perks and privileges out of the taxpayers’ money while the very purpose of good
governance remains a pipedream in the state of Pakistan. As the flourishing of true democracy is thus
against the interest of the bigwigs of the government institutions, they develop a natural affinity with
members of traditional authorities to stunt the growth of democracy.

Moreover, the institutions of the state get their human resources mostly from among the masses
socialised into highly tribal and ultraconservative social structures, therefore, they do not have the
capacity and comprehension of how to support democracy. Principally and ideally these state
institutions must support democracy and more importantly promote the values of democracy: equality,
equity, justice and freedom by ensuring good governance through transparency, accountability, rule of
law and participation. However, this ideal has been unachievable because the parliamentary political
system has reinforced the traditional and reactionary social structure instead of overcoming its
shortcomings.

THE final test of stability of a system of governance lies in its

ability to facilitate a change in government without causing
serious political upheavals. And it has been universally observed
over the last four centuries that systems based on the principles
of democracy have managed to adjust to change of governments
more smoothly than in those based on monarchies or
dictatorships.

And no matter what form of government — presidential, parliamentary, French style or American type and
so on so forth — if it is founded on the fundamental principles of democracy, it has been seen to have
never failed to have a peaceful change from one administration to the other.

During the first nine years of its inception, governments in Pakistan changed almost by the month
accompanied by widespread political uncertainties because during this period while our founding fathers
were drafting the basic law of the new land, legitimacy to the government in Karachi (the first capital of
Pakistan) was being provided by a Colonial law (The Act of 1935) which was anything but democratic in
its character.

And then a democratic constitution introduced in 1956 was abrogated within two years by the country’s
commander-in-chief, General Ayub Khan who had his own ideas about what kind of democracy suited the
genius of Pakistani people. In fact Pakistan’s Army chiefs from General Ayub Khan to General Pervez
Musharraf have had a long-standing disagreement with the meaning of democracy as it is understood
universally. Their kind of democracy has been more or less GHQ centric rather than people centric. Each
of these Generals had allowed the people to elect their representatives but ensured at the same time that
the elected parliament worked within the parameters set from time to time by the GHQ.

In a democracy institutional checks and balance against misuse of power, civilian dictatorships and
military takeovers are provided by an independent judiciary, a powerful parliament and a free media. But
in the system of democracy perfected by Pakistani Army Chiefs over the last 47 years the uniform is used
for the checks and balance purposes, and that too mainly to keep popular political leadership from
snatching effective political power from the Army, while the three institutions — the judiciary, the
parliament and the media — are allowed to function ‘freely’ but under close guidance from General
Headquarters.

In a normal democracy it is the majority that rules through its representatives. But in Pakistan it is the
Army chief who rules the majority. In 1971 when the majority refused to be dictated by the then Chief of
the Army, General Yahya Khan, he hit back by banishing the majority itself from the state of Pakistan. So,
since 1958 when the first martial law was declared in this country, effective governance has remained
with the successive Army Chiefs who sometimes ruled from up front and sometimes pulled the strings
from behind.

But no matter how and from where they ruled, succession had always remained less than ideal since
1958. Field Marshal Ayub Khan was told to go home by his Army Chief, General Yahya Khan. And Yahya
in turn was booted out by his own deputies. Prime Minister Bhutto was removed and hanged by General
Zia. There was, of course, a smooth change over both at the GHQ and the Presidency when Zia died. But
then since the Supreme Court was at that time in the process of giving its ruling in favour of Prime
Minister Junejo who had appealed against his dismissal by General Zia, the then Army Chief General
Aslam Beg perhaps was not very sure how the superior judiciary would act if he stepped in instead of
letting the constitution take its course.
So, he ‘helped’ the then Chairman Senate, Ghulam Ishaq Khan to succeed the late President. But then
governments collapsed like ninepins during the 1990s as the successive chiefs of army staff kept pulling
the string from behind, playing the game of the favourites. No government was allowed to complete its
constitutional mandate. And no succession during this period had conformed to the constitution.
Governments were booted out on the flimsiest charges and a pliant superior judiciary was pressed into
service to uphold the act.

In fact every change of government since 1958 was challenged in the superior courts as being
unconstitutional, but subservient judges had upheld each one of them as being in order on various
grounds including the doctrine of necessity. In only one case, that of Yahya Khan’s had the judiciary ruled
that he was a usurper, but the ruling came well after he had been removed from the seat of power. The
courts legitimised Ayub’s takeover in an indirect way.

The question of validity of declaring Martial Law by Ayub was surreptitiously introduced during the hearing
of a criminal case and the court ruled that what had happened on October 7, 1958 was a revolution,
which by implication meant the change required no legal justification. General Zia got around to the
problem of legitimacy by withdrawing on his own the fifth and sixth constitutional amendments which
automatically replaced the doubtful sitting supreme court chief justice with the General’s own favourite
who then obliged Zia by legitimising his rule and empowering him to amend the constitution by using the
doctrine of necessity.

When General Musharraf’s takeover was challenged in the courts, he got rid of the doubtful judges from
the superior courts and packed them with safer ones by forcing the superior judiciary to abandon their
oath to protect, defend and preserve the constitution and instead take oath on his provisional
constitutional order. So, the question that is being increasingly asked in the country today is: Do we once
again go to the superior courts when effective power passes on to the next government, whenever that
occurs; or do we finally have a smooth transition when General Musharraf finally calls it a day on his own,
if at all?

The writer is a senior journalist based in Islamabad

 Past, present and prognosis

People have all sorts of views on the institution of democracy as a

way of running a society. To some, it leads to a government of the
people, by the people, for the people. To others, the best argument
against it is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. I don’t
intend to delve into the pros and cons of the abstract concept of
democracy as a socio-political system, nor discuss how it has been
practically implemented in various parts of the world. I merely intend to
talk about the health of democracy in Pakistan and its prognosis.
Regarding the health of the democratic experiment in the Islamic
Republic, I have good news as well as bad. To start with the good:
there’s no immediate, or even long-term, threat to our democracy
whatsoever. Here I must acknowledge that in holding this opinion I
represent a tiny minority, considering the widespread concern,
anxiety, distress and consternation on the part of an overwhelming
majority of public intellectuals, journalists and commentators regarding
the well-being (or otherwise) of democracy.
Of course, this difference of opinion could easily be explained away by
saying that democracy is an elusive ideal that any society can at best
approach; and which is never fully realised – and this sort of
explanation would be in line with the spirit of academic tolerance in
vogue these days – but I will resist the temptation. No, it’s not a matter
of seeing the glass half-full or half-empty, because as far as I am
concerned the glass itself is non-existent – the question of whether it’s
half- or quarter-full should only arise when there’s a glass to begin
with. Which brings me to the less pleasant task of announcing the bad
news I referred to earlier: There’s no such thing as democracy in
Pakistan; and there never was. And if one can be certain of one thing,
it’s that anything that is non-existent can never be under threat from
any quarter.
Mind you, I take no delight in claiming this. I would love to be a part of
a prospering democracy as much as the next guy, but one thing that I
would love even more is not to yield to hallucinations, however
pleasant.
As Gary Miller pointed out long ago, the man who clears the trash from in front of
your house does a useful job – doesn’t he? – despite the obvious fact that he doesn’t
put anything in its place

What we have always had in Pakistan (barring military dictatorships) –

and still have – is at best a crude form of majoritarianism, which leads
to ‘democratic’ authoritarianism hardly much better than the military
variety. For sloganeering, casting and counting votes every five years,
and coming out of polling booths with a triumphant look on one’s face
is just one part of democracy. If we had anything like democracy, we
would see political parties themselves being democratic – not just
regarding the party heads, but also in terms of inclusivity of members
in policy and decision-making. If we had anything like democracy, we
would see political parties getting rid of their own nefarious characters
before the courts turned their attention to them. If we had anything like
democracy, responsibility and answerability on the part of the political
leadership wouldn’t be conspicuous by their absence.
If we had anything like democracy, politics wouldn’t be the exclusive
prerogative of the rich elite. If we had anything like democracy, we
wouldn’t constantly see hardcore criminal activities disappearing in the
smokescreen of ‘civilian supremacy’ and ‘constitutionalism’. If we had
anything like democracy, we wouldn’t be subjected to such shameless
displays of unbridled greed and blatant conflicts-of-interest. If we had
anything like democracy, we would see its unmistakable fruits in the
form of widespread safety, prosperity, and egalitarianism; instead of
merely being on the receiving end of sermons extolling democracy’s
virtues. Above all, we would see democracy presented as a means of
ensuring well-being and prosperity of the masses; and not advertised
(and widely believed) as an end in itself.
I know that I am leaving myself exposed to the standard retort of
challenging me to bring something better than whatever goes by the
name of democracy. Churchill in 1947 had famously quoted an
anonymous source to the effect that democracy was the worst form of
government except for all those other forms that had been tried from
time to time. This (‘Do you have an alternative?’) has ever since been
the pet rejoinder to any and all criticisms of democracy. I hereby admit
that I don’t have any alternative to ‘democracy’. That said, I disagree
with the notion that unless one brings a royal suit one is not entitled to
point out that the emperor is stark naked. As Gary Miller pointed out
long ago, the man who clears the trash from in front of your house
does a useful job – doesn’t he? – despite the obvious fact that he
doesn’t put anything in its place. I believe the same can be said of any
kind of trash.

The Economist Intelligence Unit released Democracy Index 2018 on

Tuesday in which Pakistan has been declared as a hybrid regime,
ranking just above the authoritarian Myanmar.
Pakistan has fallen two places in the global ranking with an overall
score of 4.63. According to the report, Pakistan’s global rank is 112
and regional rank is 21. A breakdown of this score reveals that
Pakistan scored 6.08 in the electoral process and pluralism, 5.36 in
the functioning of the government, 2.22 in political participation, 2.50
in political culture and 4.71 in civil liberties
Norway has once again topped the index with an overall score of 9.87
and has been classified as a full democracy.

According to the report, only 20 countries (4.5 per cent of the world’s
population) are classified as full democracies while 55 countries (43.2
per cent of the world’s population) are classified as flawed
democracies, 39 countries (16.7 per cent of the world’s population)
are classified as hybrid regimes and 53 countries (35.6 per cent of the
world’s population) are classified as authoritarian regimes.
INTRODUCTION:
Democracy is the most essential and fundamental element for managing the affairs of
society systematically. Democracy and participatory governance are popular political
patterns in the modern world. In a broader sense democracy encompasses the leading
features; fair and free election process, supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, and
freedom for the people. In other words democratic state must practice the principles of
equal citizenship irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity and regional background. It must
also ensure equality of opportunity to all for advancement in social, political and economic
domains and guarantee security of life and property to its citizens.
IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY:
It is fact that democracy is the major constituent for social, political and economic
development. It is considered as the backbone of the system, without which an effective
running of system is impossible. The crucial importance of democracy can be observed by
the experience of East Asian countries. Between 1965 and 1990, several countries of this
region registered the highest growth rate and proved it with high living standards. The most
important factors behind this economic miracle are good governance. It is not that Swiss
and Swedes are inherently blessed with greater honesty and integrity than Pakistanis. But
actually difference lies in the institutions, laws and work procedures.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Pakistan, like India, adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 as the Interim Constitution,
1947 to meet the immediate requirements of an independent state. It provided
parliamentary form of government, although the Governor General enjoyed special powers
and the federal government exercised some overriding powers over provinces. Pakistan's
early rulers did not pay especial attention to democratization otthe political system because
their major concern was how to ensure the survival of the state in view of internal and
external challenges. The fear of the collapse of the state encouraged authoritarian style of
governance.
Pakistan had faced serious administrative and management problems during the partition
process. These problems were the division of civil and .military assets of the British
government between India and Pakistan, communal riots, the migration of people to and
from Pakistan, and the troubled relations with India, including the first war on Kashmir,
1947-48. In this critical situation when Pakistan was facing initial administrative and
humanitarian difficulties, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the father of the nation, died on September
11, 1948, thirteen months after the establishment of Pakistan. The separation of Quaid
within a short span of time undermined the already weak political institutions and
fragmented the political setup. Most of the post-Jinnah political leaders had no nationwide
fame and appeal to reorganize the massive crowd again as a result regional politics within
the state flourished. This critical situation, made it difficult for the political parties and
leaders to pursue a coherent approach and gather under one leadership. They were unable
to develop consensus on single point, meanwhile the assassination of Liaqat Ali khan
shocked the entire democratic system. Though Liaqat Ali Khan laid the foundation of the
constitution by introducing objective resolution but several years later constitution of
Pakistan was introduced (March 23, 1956) which even could not get popular support of all
major parties, leaders and regions. By the time the constitution was introduced a strong
tradition of violation started, the political parties were divided and the assembly was unable
to assert its primacy. In this situation power was shifted to the Governor General/President
Iskander Mirza, who had military background. Iskander Mirza took support of top
bureaucracy and the military. This contributed to the rise of the bureaucratic-military elites
in Pakistani politics which further suppressed future of democracy.
WHY DEMOCRACY IS FLOP IN PAKISTAN:
Army Interference: Since the establishment of Pakistan Army has always had a strong
desire to have a permanent place in the political setup of country. The four military regimes
are the proof of this. The first Martial Law was imposed by Ayub Khan in 1958 and lasted till
1969. He abrogated the constitution of 1956. He also introduced presidential system with
indirect elections. In April 1969, General Yahya imposed second Martial Law and lasted till
1971. He had abrogated the constitution of 1962, banned all political activities and dissolved
National and Provincial assemblies. Again Martial Law intervened in 1977 and the popular
leader elected by the common people through dubious elections was hanged. Zia's Martial
regime was supposed to be the shortest one but it turned out to be the longest in the
history of Pakistan. Zia did not abrogate the constitution of 1973 but suspended. He also
passed his famous 8th amendment to restrict the power of head of government through
article 58 2(b) and provided significant powers to the president who could dissolve National
Assembly whenever he think that need has arisen. In 1999, again military intervened in
political setup led by General Musharraf. The Army was yet again in power promising of
smooth transfer of power to grass root level within three years.
Corruption and nepotism: It is fact that democratic governments in Pakistan have been
witnessed of corruption, mal-administration, and

nepotism. The people reluctantly visit public institutions because they know that without
any favor or bribe it is very difficult to get any work done from the public officers. Moreover,
due to malpractices of the public official and misappropriation of public fund the
infrastructure of public institutions has been cracked and a situation like chaos is prevailing
all over the country.
In 1990 the government of PPP was dissolved due to corruption charges set against Benazir
Bhutto by the President of that time. The next government of Nawaz sharif was also
dismissed in 1993 by Ghulam Ishaq khan on plea of corruption and nepotism. Again
elections were held in 1993 and Benazir became PM but this government was also dissolved
on corruption charges in 1996.
Royal style of politics: All the governments after Junejo were characterized by the royal
style of the Prime Minister that was true in case of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif because of
their extravagant style of living i.e. Raiwind palaces and Surrey palace respectively.
Authoritarian style of politicians: All the previous heads of governments both civilian and
military and also the politicians exercised absolutism in style and mentality. They did not
realize their foremost duty was to serve the people not just to misrule them. Politicians
during the last 50 years have not shown responsible attitude.
Abuse of powers: People elect the PM, his cabinet and the members of assemblies through
ballot. But it has often happened that an indirectly elected president comes and dismisses
the government. This is highly undemocratic, unconstitutional" and it has been happening in
our political history due to the 8th amendment passed by the Zia regime. Zia dismissed
Junejo government and Ghulam Ishaq dissolved Benazir and Nawaz Shari governments
respectively. This is the main reason that has wrecked the entire setup of politics.
Lack of accountability: Our constitution does not provide an effective system of check and
balance. That is why every elected civilian government becomes omnipotent and powerful
which give rise to corruption and mal-administration. There is no effective system of
governance which can keep proper check on the decisions and the steps taken by PM and
his cabinet. Judiciary must be made strong enough to keep a strong check over these
important matters.
Lack of continuity: In Pakistan except Bhutto's government, no government has completed
its expected life span. After Junejo, many governments were disbanded in the period of nine
years. This game of power musical chair has seriously affected the economic and social
progress of our country.

REMEDIAL MEASURES:
-The honest and competent people should be elected form the grass root to the highest
level through fair and transparent democratic process.
-Direct system of election must be introduced and governments must be allowed to
complete their tenure.
-In order to attain the quality of good governance, senior high officials, think tanks and
previous failed rulers must ask for participation in decision making and execution of policies
through a democratic consultative process.
-For good governance the role of army in the political setup of the country must be
discouraged and constitution must clearly define the areas of operation of all institutions of
the state like army, bureaucracy and the government.
-Independence of judiciary must be maintained which can exercise an effective system of
check and balance on each and every institution and prevent politicians from abuse of
power.
-People must be educated without which they can not protect their rights. Education creates
confidence which empower people to defend their social, political and economic rights.
-Media should also playa positive role in creating awareness among people regarding their
problems and their solutions. In this way people will be able to demand their rights and will
perform their duties and responsibilities in a more organized way.
-In order to develop an effective system of governance participation of women should be
encouraged as according to latest count, women ratio
is .48:52 respectively.
Conclusion: This is the high time that consensus must be developed among the people of
Pakistan that what system of government can suit them better. Keeping in view the
pluralistic society of Pakistan, federal government can serve people in a better way through
giving sufficient powers to the provinces in order t 0 tackle problems of ordinary citizen
effectively. Direct system of election must be introduced and governments must be allowed
to complete their tenure.

List of the Advantages of Democracy

1. Democracies give people a chance to become personally involved
with their government.
Because the government in a democracy is under the control of the people
and their voice, then it is up to each individual to decide their fate. People can
choose to vote in whatever way their morality dictates. Some even give voters
the option to not vote if that is what they feel is the best way to express their
opinion.
Every ballot is an opportunity to express one’s personal opinion. Whether that
voice lands in the majority or not, there is an agreement in a democracy that
the tally of the vote stands unless there is a clear moral objection to the
outcome. A community won’t object over the failure of a tax levy for a
swimming pool, but the judicial system might step in if the people vote to
accept a local ordinance that allows slavery.

2. A democracy encourages equality in a positive way.

The structure of a democracy gives every vote an equal amount of weight
during an election. This option gives each person the chance to cast a ballot
without judgment when they register for this process, providing an opinion that
despite their social or economic status. Everything “yes” or “no” counts as
one, whether you are rich or poor, own land or not, of express your gender in
a specific way.
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality,”
said Alexis de Tocqueville. “But notice the difference; while democracy seeks
equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

3. The structure of a democracy works to reduce issues with

exploitation.
All government formations are sensitive to exploitation because of the people
who get elected into powerful positions. The contrast with democracy is that
the authorities are distributed more equally within it. The ruling documents in
this structure create checks and balances to assure that no single person
receives supreme power over the legislative process.
Democracies prevent elected officials from ignoring the needs of the general
population to help themselves. It challenges them to represent the needs of
each community so that everyone receives an equal opportunity to pursue
their dreams.

4. Democracies usually grow faster economically than other forms of

government.
The freedom offered in the structures of democracy allows the general
population to seek any result they want. Although legal barriers exist to
prevent one person from hurting another, this governing structure grants the
freedom to look for different employment opportunities, schools, or even
places to live. The choice remains with your voice.
You get an opportunity to seek what you are enthusiastic about in this life. The
structure of democracy makes it possible for everyone to stay fruitful with their
work because they are always employing their strengths. That is why the
gross domestic product of a country which features constitutional
arrangements is typically larger.

5. There is more consistency available in democracy than other

government structures.
There is more unity in the governing process with democracy because the
general population holds the right to vote on resolutions. This arrangement
can take different styles, but the result is generally the same. Each person
gets the chance to express their view at their polling stations by casting a
vote. That process allows each community to continue pursuing the specific
results that they feel are helpful, or they can switch directions to try something
new.
The structure of democracy makes it possible for everyone to come together
in a way that forms society in ways that are helpful for virtually all people.

6. Democracy does not create a centralized power base for ruling over
the people.
The United States uses a centralized form of governing, but there are equal
powers distributed between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
Voters have an opportunity to change their elected officials every 2-6 years as
a way to control their destiny.
In a direct democracy, every decision would be placed to a vote for a supreme
level of control. Either way, there is no centralized power that can dictate what
people can or cannot do. Every branch of the government must agree on the
process. Then each community can make decisions with their voting power to
overturn unwanted rules and regulations to evolve life over time.

7. People identify with their government to create a stronger level of

patriotism.
The structures of democracy are unique because they allow everyone to fight
for the things that they want in life. Each person can pursue their dreams,
working to mold society in a vision that meets their expectations. Even when
that idea runs counter to what the majority wants or falls outside of an
expected window of morality, there is an ability to express those ideas
assuming that others are not hurt by such an effort.
That is why there is more loyalty and patriotism present in democracy. Even
when there is disagreement in the community, everyone still has the common
ground of their nation to fall back upon when forming their identity. Everyone
contributes in their own way, which this governing structure celebrates. Other
governments can dictate those choices.

8. Countries who use democracy are less likely to enter into armed
conflicts.
As democracy has come through Europe once again, the levels of warfare
between the major nations on the continent have decreased significantly.
There have been fewer conflicts in the past 50 years than at any other time in
history. Although the United States is an exception to this advantage because
of the country’s status on the global stage, most nations who focus on a
democracy avoid battles instead of chasing after them.
That means there are fewer issues with violent rebellion within democratic
societies as well. Decisions must route through various legislative bodies or
the people, which reduces the pursuit of war on a whim. There are fewer coup
attempts within this governing structure as well.

9. A democracy transitions power smoothly while establishing

legitimacy.
Democracy creates an appropriate structure of government for every person
because voters select who will be in charge or how policies are made if a
direct form of governing is in place. This process demands that each
candidate for office declare before their voters the reasons why they are the
best person to represent each community.
By winning an election, it becomes possible to establish legitimacy for political
candidates or referendums that other forms of governing cannot provide.
When leaders change in democracy, the checks and balances offered by this
format make it possible to produce smooth transitions when power changes
hands. There are fewer arguments about who becomes the replacement for
any position. This outcome occurs because each job is either directed by the
people or filled by someone who won an election.

10. It encourages centrism more than extremism.

Even in this current wave of populism that is happening around the world, the
format of democracy encourages people to come to the center more often
than it favors the extreme. There are times when a complete majority of a
single party can win an election, but even then, there can be enough
disagreement within the ranks that compromises must happen. This process
makes it possible for voters or their representatives to aggregate the different
needs of each community toward a coherent policy that protects the needs of
everyone. That ensures that the interests of each segment of society can
receive the protection they need while providing a higher level of
accountability for the governing actions which occur.
List of the Disadvantages of Democracy
1. Democracy is ineffective unless voters educate themselves on
governing decisions.
A democracy allows an individual to cast a vote either directly or through a
preferred representative on the issues that the government must manage.
There is no direction as to how voters approach this responsibility. Although
some people will educate themselves on each issue to offer an experienced
opinion, there is no requirement to go through all of this work. Someone can
turn in a ballot that is a straight-party ticket with no consideration about the
individual views or needs.
President Teddy Roosevelt reportedly once said this: “A vote is like a rifle; its
usefulness depends upon the character of the user.”

2. The structure of democracy depends upon the will of the majority.

History has taught us that the will of the majority is not always the ethical or
moral position that one should take. We have dealt with issues like slavery,
discrimination, and gender inequality in the past because the perspective of
the those with the most votes say that society deserves to have those
elements. If someone finds themselves outside of the will of the majority more
often than not, then it will feel like their vote doesn’t really count for something.
“Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights,” said Larry
Flynt. “Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what they
should all be having for supper.”

3. Democracy can encourage mob rule.

People are migrating toward neighborhoods, employment opportunities, and
even relationships based on how comfortable they are around other people.
The prevalence is to have neighbors and friends who have a like-minded
perspective because there is a fear present in democracy of being wrong. No
one wants to be stuck on the outside looking in when it comes to governing.
Some states in the U.S. are even becoming polarized as families keep moving
to stay within their comfort zone. Democracies encourage mob thinking
because every election becomes an “us vs. them” edict.
“Remember,” Will Rogers reportedly warned, “democracy never lasts long. It
soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet
that did not commit suicide.”

4. The cost of democracy is something that many people don’t realize

exists.
Democracy is one of the least cost-efficient forms of governing that exists
today. The time and currency resources that are necessary to conduct an
election can cost billions of dollars. Even a local election for city council,
mayor, or a school board can cost six figures. The Presidential elections every
four years in the United States are measured in the billions. Although it is
useful to have the people to have power in their voice, their taxes are what are
used to create that opportunity.
“Democracy is the worst form of government,” warned Winston Churchill,
“except for all of the others.”

5. Democracy requires more time to implement changes.

Centralized government structures can make declarations on rules,
regulations, or responses that are not always possible in a democratic
structure. Voting requires time to review the information provided by each
election. That means processes slow down to the point where it can take
several years to create significant changes. There may only be 1-2 legislative
bills that come through in an entire session that go beyond the typical
budgets, committees, and nominations that officials manage.
It even takes more time at the local level to make decisions with democracy
because each referendum must go to the voters. Every decision is up for
review potentially. That means there is always a certain level of uncertainty.

6. The structure of a democracy is a person-first process.

Elections usually involve the opinions or thoughts of each person based on
what individuals want for themselves. Instead of looking at what might be
useful for the rest of society, most voters gauge what they put on their ballot
based on what affects their checking account, taxes, or overall cost of living. It
is a process which encourages everyone to put their needs before others.
When people are voting based on personal interests, then it creates
discontent in society because it feels like the majority tries to suppress the
minority. That is why there must be an emphasis on protecting the rights of
those who find themselves on the outside.

7. There is still the risk of creating a conflict of interest within the

government.
Most people work to retain what they have after it is earned. That is why
families keep making mortgage or rental payments, managers continue to
reinforce their expertise, and politicians do their best to stay in power.
Democracies put structures into place to limit the impact of one person on the
overall society, but it was not always that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt served in office from March 1933 to April 1945. He
served as the 32nd President won a record four Presidential elections,
becoming a central figure in the events that shaped the world during that time.
His New Deal program was a direct response to the Great Depression. Now
an amendment limits the number of terms that the executive branch can
serve.

8. Democratic governments follow the “a chicken in every pot” system.

Democracy does not require the same level of accountability if it is established
in representative form. The goal of a politician is to receive the most votes.
Once that person gets into office, there are fewer controls in place to recall
that person if they do not accurately represent what their community wants.
The only method to stop this in some countries is to vote in a different person
during the next election.
Empty promises are common in direct democracies as well. When there is an
incentive to offer everything without the requirement to fulfill your word, then
you’ll see more lies than truth in the daily conversations about governing that
occur.

9. Gridlock occurs frequently in democratic structures.

There is no incentive for people to work together when another election can
change the outcome in the future. The United States encountered this
disadvantage when a Supreme Court opening occurred during the final year
of President Obama’s term in office. Republicans in Congress refused to even
hold hearings with his nominee because of the upcoming election, which
President Trump eventually won.
When there is no incentive to work together, then partisan politics become the
conversation of government. It is especially bad in two-party systems, but this
disadvantage is present in all democracies as well.

10. It can require individual voters to accept an entire mandate for a

single issue.
Conservatives in the United States would argue that it is challenging to vote
for the average Democrat because of their views on abortion. Liberals would
make the same point when discussing LGBTQIA+ rights. Unless there is a
direct democracy structure in place, voters must accept an entire manifesto to
vote on the issues which are critical to their needs. Instead of having a
candidate who truly represents them, they must pick the platform which is the
closest to their stance.
DEMOCRACY IS A STATE WHERE THE FREE MEN AND
THE POOR, BEING IN MAJORITY ARE VESTED WITH
THE POWER OF THE STATE, THE MOST PURE
DEMOCRACY, FOR THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IN THE
STATE DIRECTS. (ARISTOTLE)
The 64 years history of Pakistan stands evident of the fact that true democracy is a word unknown to this
land of the pure. It is unfortunate that the country which was created on the basis of democratic values
remains deprived of the true spirit and essence and taste of democracy even after good six decades of
independence. Why democracy fails to come to Pakistan or where does the true democracy come from?
This is a million dollar question that has echoed throughout in the political history of Pakistan. The true
democracy is the only remedy for all the miseries this nation has suffered during the 64 years. Since its
inception, the most difficult challenge Pakistan had to counter was to establish a true democratic system,
which could guarantee its survival, stability and development. Unfortunately, democracy could not find its
place in Pakistan to make the country a true democratic state•. Pakistan was conceived on the basis of
Islam, which is democratic both in letter and spirit. It is indeed very unfortunate that the plant planted by
Quaid-e-Azam and watered by the blood of millions of Muslim men, women and children has not thrived in
the country. In other words, we have not proved worthy of the freedom achieved after immense sacrifices.
After the sad demise of Quaid-e-Azam and Shaheed-e-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan, the spirit of freedom
movement died down and selfish interests and political intrigues dominated the national scene.

Democracy has its origin in ancient Greece. However, other cultures have contributed significantly to the
evolution of democracy such as ancient Rome, Europe and North and South America. The concept of
representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European
middle ages and the age of enlightenment and in the American and French revolutions. Democracy has
been called the last form of government and has spread considerably across the globe.
Democracy ensures balance among all the organs of the state. It comes from rule of law, supremacy of the
constitution, independence of judiciary, public participation in decision making, accountability and
transparency. Its advent is ensured when decision making and policy formulation are done keeping in view
the aspirations of the common man. It is the power to govern as per the consent of those being governed,
that is why it is called as the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

One of the factors which can be held responsible for the failure of democracy has been the weak and fragile
political fabric that has led to repeated interventions and punctuations in democratic governments through
military coups. Out of a total six decade history, this country has remained entrapped in the oppressive
clutches of dictatorship for more than three decades. Unfortunately, whosoever assumed the government,
strived for the satisfaction of his own politically, materially and financially charged vested interests at the
cost of country’s progress and economic development? There ill-designed ruling techniques brought in the
culture of extremism, religious and ethnic prejudices and violation of the constitution. Whether it was Zia’s
slogan of islamisation or Musharraf’s propaganda of being non NATO ally of the US in war on terror ‘all
contributed negatively and adversely to the cause of national development.
Democracy is regarded as the most fabulous principle of modern governing system but unfortunately, the
need of establishing a true democracy has been a dream ever since Pakistan came into being. Democracy
is the culmination of freedom and development in advanced countries. In Pakistan however, the already
difficult situation has been aggravated by constant failures which never let democracy survive. The
development of democracy has been hampered by the troublesome legacies of the military regimes,
including ethnic fragmentation, provincialism, sectarianism, concentration of wealth and privileges in the
hands of a selected few.
Democracy in its simplest basic form is about giving people the right to elect their government. The aim is
to create stability and certainty in the society by establishing a system under which a government can be
created and changed peacefully. While thinking in Pakistani perspective, the question about democracy
points towards what it could and must have done instead of inherent weakness in the system. It is debatable
whether military dictators have outperformed civilian governments or vice versa. But realistically, except for
the government that came in 2002, no civilian government after 1985 was allowed to complete its tenure.
The issues of economic growth and investments were highlighted more during democratic periods than
during dictatorships.
Democracy ensures balance among all the organs of the state. It comes from rule of law, supremacy of the
constitution, independence of judiciary, public participation in decision making, accountability and
transparency.

Historians and analysts are also of the view that democracy is an evolutionary system that does not come
as a template. There may have popular principles like sovereignty, or representative governments but these
have to be rooted in the socio-economic culture of the country.

The quality of democracy and its stability has thus depended generally on the growth of the middle class
which has expended and continues to rise. But the fact of the matter is that middle class is neither organic
nor ideologically homogeneous. The Pakistani middle class may not be seen as yet in the elected
assemblies but it occupies alternative spaces of influence in the robust civil society movements.
Pakistan may remain a transitional democracy until it has at least the peaceful transfer of power through
elections. Our elected representatives have a heavy burden to disprove the sceptics inside and outside the
country by forming coalitions.
The dire need is to utilise the democratic system for the betterment of a common man. It is a collective
social enterprise that cannot be left for the powerful elites. To make the country vibrant, viable and prosper,
drastic measures need to be applied. The education should be circulated from the top to the bottom. The
opportunity to get education should be on equal basis for the rich and poor. Education is the only tool
through which we can attain our cherished goal by making our country prosperous developed and
progressive. As the literacy rate is increased in the country, the true democracy and effective democratic
political process would begin.
Good governance makes stabilised institutions and fix roots of democracy deep in the corners of the
countries. Bereft of good governance in Pakistan, our nation cannot establish its supremacy in the world
comity. It is the good governance that can make democracy viable in the successive futures.
Moreover, feudal system should be abolished to make fair and square elections so that rural and urban
inhabitants would choose the capable candidates for them.
The remedy lies in the words of Lord Beveridge,
‘Power as a means of getting things done appeals to that men share with brutes; to fear and greed; power
leads those who wield it to desire it for its own sake, not for service it render, and to seek its continuance
on their own hands. Influence as a means of getting things done appeals to that which distinguishes men
from brutes. The way out of world’s troubles today is to treat men as men, to enthrone influence over power
and to make power revocable’•.
If we want to make Pakistan a really lasting democracy, we must act on the above advice. Then only, we
shall enter in the reign of true democracy and the people will manage their own affairs instead of being
dupes and pawns in the hands of dishonest men.
Democracy is a way of life. It is not just about documents or governments. It is about the things we do
everyday that contribute to society and make it a better place to live.

PAKISTAN turned 72 this month. Political instability gave it a new

regime type in each past decade. An inapt focus on short-term
growth may see the Ayub and Musharraf eras as the best ones. But
an indepth, integrated lens covering durable economic, political
and security progress gives a different view. Durable political
progress means fair and regular polls that improve governance and
the rights of all societal groups. Durable economic progress is
about growth, but also its apt drivers, quality and equity. Durable
security comes from durable political and economic progress.

The patterns on these three axes in the three army eras were similar. Coups
were justified based on civilian misrule. Such misrule is common in poor
states, yet most armies do not step in. Each era promised real democracy, but
gave rigged polls and autocratic rule, which excluded key parties and ethnic
groups. Governance was poor and even Ayub’s famed bureaucracy focused on
elite services. Legislative progress was weak. Each era ended with the fake
political system ending when it was finally forced to hold fair polls (1970, 1988
and 2008), with oddly PPP winning each time.

Growth was high. But driven by politicised short-term US aid, it ebbed once
aid ended. Some say we were an Asian tiger then. Actually, we were an
American poodle. Ayub-era growth spurred industry, but mainly light
industry, unlike fast Korean forays into heavier industry under army rule.
Huge inequity created major regional tensions then. Zia’s and Musharraf’s
growth was facile and did not upgrade the economy much. Sans durable
political or economic progress, each era produced long-term violence, which
ironically all came from the same US ties that gave only short-term aid and
growth. So, given the mega failures on all three axes, they rank the three worst
eras.

While Ayub-Yahya and Musharraf eras resulted in more violence, Zia left
deeper national imprints by founding the flawed structures of today’s
Pakistan. Socially, this included bigotry, deep conservatism and politics of
faith. Politically, it meant a move from issues-based to corrupt patronage
politics. Economically, it meant a state that ran high fiscal and external
deficits and debt levels, abdicated its role in spurring industry, and chased
IMF loans. The security mix included raising militants to achieve regional
aims.
ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Durable security comes from durable political progress.

Then there were four civilian eras. There was the 1947-58 era of the original
sin where, unlike India, we shunned democracy. Bhutto’s era started
promisingly by giving a strong consensus constitution and an egalitarian
economic vision, but later gave autocracy, poor economy, Baloch insurgency,
and finally rigged polls. His civilian era most closely resembled autocratic
eras. The 1990s era of political musical chairs run by Pindi saw slow growth
and misrule.
Finally, there was the 2008-2018 decade which curbed Musharraf-era
militancy. Operationally, this was due to the army. But strategically, the point
is that, instead of curbing militancy in its own era, it had planted its seeds
then. Once in the saddle, it developed political compulsions from which it was
only freed by democracy’s return. Everyday governance remained poor even
after 2008. But political progress occurred via the emergence of more open
and tolerant politics where the media, civil society and opposition were freer.

While Musharraf vainly promised new leadership, it emerged in this era with
PTI. The first-ever institutionalised free polls and civilian-led peaceful
transition were held in 2013. Key legislative work was done that autocrats
never did, eg, on devolution, electoral reforms and Fata merger. A key failure
was on local bodies.

A notable aim was to replace short-term security-linked US ties as growth

driver with long-term Chinese economic ties. Growth increased. But this
policy did not give results quickly. So it too ended with large deficits and debt
and crashed growth. But overall, this era had better political and security
results than others. Hence, it ranks as the best era, but one still with many
gaps. So startlingly, even much-maligned corrupt politicos from inept parties
gave better results.

Unluckily, our best era was ended by those who gave us our worst eras.
Despite past lessons, we are back to the illusion that political progress can be
sacrificed for economic progress and security aims by having a ‘selected’
regime. But in deeply fractured states like ours, political progress is most
crucial as without it one cannot have durable security or economic progress.
Autocracy is up, but governance and economy remain abysmal. Thus, this
political experiment of our paternalistic ideological guardians may end too,
but only after inflicting deep wounds on society