Pakistan needs the blame game to end
“The military’s intervention and interference in politics can only be reduced through the development of civilian institutional structures and good governance not through revelations of mass corruption and bad governance.”
For more than sixty years, Pakistan has been a battle ground between democratic and non-democratic forces. This has been made worse by the lack of democratic culture in the country which has affected the establishment of true democracy in Pakistan.
Over the last six decades, these factors have cost Pakistan half of its democratic life: since independence in 1947, Pakistan has had three constitutions and three military coups d’état. When the military was not directly in control, civilian regimes had very marginal influence over the country’s domestic and foreign affairs, particularly defence and security policies.
The prevailing argument in Pakistan follows the line that, by and large, the military has never allowed the civilian institutions to grow. While it is true to some extent, it’s the infighting and divisions among the civilians in the country which have prevented the growth of democratic institutions in Pakistan.
On the civilian front, there has always a party or a leader who was willing to derail democracy for personal gains. From Ayub’s Khan’s era to General Raheel Sharif’s time, civilian leaders have invariably shown eagerness in joining non-democratic forces.
The recent example of this unfortunate tale is the PTI’s Islamabad saga, commonly known as “umpire’s finger,” which was narrated by Imran Khan to allegedly invite the military in a political crisis in order to oust the current Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s democratic government. While Khan didn’t succeed in ousting Nawaz Shaif, he successfully weakened the government’s influence vis-à-vis the military: the military was invited by the government to resolve the issue and in result took away some policy powers from the civilian government.
The issue of Panama leaks reveals the same dilemma. The opposition parties are trying to push the government to fulfil their vested interests while the government has refused to budge despite the fact that the Prime Minister’s family has been directly involved in the scandal. Issues like these and personal rivalries among political stakeholders have always given space to non- civilian forces. Reportedly, the Chief of Army staff has asked Prime Minster to resolve the issue immediately and it was only after this that Nawaz Sharif has decided to come to the Parliament.
Such incidents are usual in Pakistan due to the weak institution building. The PML-N and the PPP, over the last two decades, have tried to come to power at the costs of institution building and democracy.
“By and large, the party has kept this so called ideology of Roti, Kapda aur Makan to attract and appeal to the poor constituency of Sindh. The PTI’s mantra of “Justice” has also failed badly while PML-N has been running the government through a small in house shadow cabinet.”
There is not a single major political party in Pakistan which can be called an institution; all political parties in Pakistan run around personalities rather than ideologies. They act more of family enterprises. Political parties in Pakistan are fragile, highly centralized and dominated by key personalities.
Moreover, if some identify themselves with an ideology, they do so because it constitutes their vote bank. The PPP, for instance, has wrapped itself in a pithy phrase of Roti, Kapda aur Makan,” or “Food, Clothing, and Shelter.
Bhutto gave up his socialist ideology immediately after coming to power and made alliances with the country’s feudal elite. During Bhutto’s time, the PPP was a left-of-centre party; Benazir moved it to centre; and now, no one can describe the party’s ideology or manifesto.
By and large, the party has kept this so called ideology of Roti, Kapda aur Makan to attract and appeal to the poor constituency of Sindh. The PTI’s mantra of “Justice” has also failed badly while PML-N has been running the government through a small in house shadow cabinet.
“The culture of democracy depends upon tolerance and acceptance of alternative point of view. It also means respect for opposition. Pakistan lacks in this area. If the culture of democracy is not established by the politicians then political, ethnic, religious, linguistic divide will occur and result in anarchy,” said Nasim Hassan.
The military’s direct and indirect intervention to further weaken the democratic system has only made the problem worse. Undoubtedly, the army is by far the most influential institution in Pakistan, consuming the frequently divided institutions of civilian government and politics.
The military’s intervention and interference in politics can only be reduced through the development of civilian institutional structures and good governance not through revelations of mass corruption and bad governance.
“The weakness of Pakistan’s political institutions, the groundswell of emergent threats, and the failed institutions of governance and internal security will likely prevent Pakistan’s varied politics from forging a consensus on these foundational issues,” says Stephen Cohen.
In the next few years, the interplay between the army and Pakistan’s political institutions will determine the country’s democratic future. It remains to be seen whether Pakistan’s political elite can build civilian institutions that would truly be reflective of public interests.
Unless and until the civilian leadership – opposition and government both – in Pakistan doesn’t respect the institutional supremacy itself, the military’s intervention will continue to take place.
