“But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep”
…events during PPP regime and especially during the present PML-N rule, many such attempts were made to destabilise or weaken the grip of democratically elected governments, by the deep state through political groups. The epic example is 2014 Dharna by PTI and PAT, when the parliamentary forces, having faith in democratic process stood by the government.
The recent defence of a democratic system by the people of Turkey is nothing short of heroic. Comparing this affinity for the democratic system with the general indifference the masses feel for our democracy is an exercise in embarrassment. The comparison is all the more appropriate because the two countries have had strikingly similar history of military interventions. But why are our democratic institutions still so frail when Turkey seems to have evolved after all?
Commenting on the issue, political commentator and columnist Sualiha Nazar told DNA that the reasons for our weak democratic setup lie in the weaknesses of our political parties. And there are too many of them.
“The most obvious weakness is the fact that our politicians have not delivered. Despite the noisy slogans of good governance, our governance systems are inefficient and ineffective.”
People on the streets of Turkey were just being logical and rational when they stopped the coup, because the democratic setup had given them better economic conditions. As soon as the people of Pakistan feel similar improvement in their life, they will change their attitude towards democracy.
Sualiha added that lack of in-house democracy in the party is yet another reason for our frail democratic system. When the leaders are not elected by workers of the party, there is little chance that these workers will stand by these leaders once the famous Triple one Brigade makes its move.“Another reason is the utter lack truly national parties. All parties of Pakistan have a provincial or regional constituency they represent,” she said.
While PML (N) government has strong roots in Punjab and it is not too fanciful to say that we might see some resistance in case there is a coup, the rest of Pakistan will largely stay unperturbed. We used to have one national party but even that party has shrunk to its core constituency.
Considering that Turkey is a much more united country with a history of nationalistic and racial identity, and ours is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country, the need for a party with national outlook and vision increases many folds, Sualiha added.
She opined that the short-sightedness of our opposition parties is yet another reason for the tacit approval of military intervention in our masses.
In Turkey, even the opposition parties that were bitterly against Erdogan, defended democracy and asked their supporters to rally behind them. In Pakistan there is a history of opposition parties waiting for the ‘umpire’s finger’ to be lifted, or even imploring the umpire to lift his finger. Political parties have to realise that they have to stand as a united front against military encroachment in civil affairs.
Agreeing with Sualiha, acclaimed political analyst, commentator and columnist Dr Ikramul Haq said that Pakistani leadership has failed to deliver on all fronts as far as common people are concerned. The fundamental right to compulsory and free education under Article 25 of the Constitution is denied. The vast majority is deprived of health facilities and other basic amenities of life. The economic structure is making the rich richer and poor the poorer.
“There is no will to bridge the widening gap between the rich and poor. There is no investment in areas that can create jobs. We need jobs for two million every year, said Dr. Ikram.
The delivery by institutions is poor and people are suffering even after paying exorbitant in direct taxes. The rich and mighty are the beneficiaries of the system. They control and own 90 percent of resources but pay less than one per cent tax.
“The peoples of Pakistan unlike Turkish citizens are not getting anything from the present system. The will not come out to defend the present rulers, said Dr. Ikram.
The lawyers’ movement
Veteran Journalist Sirmed Manzoor also believes that Pakistan still has a long way to go in strengthening and institutionalising the democracy.
Sirmed shared with DNA that the lawyers’ movement against Gen. Musharraf in 2007 had an overwhelming support by the political parties which forced him to hold “comparatively’ free and fair election under the circumstances particularly after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto Shaheed.
Ultimately, under pressure by the PPP government in Centre and Sindh Province and supported by the coalition political parties and opposition PML-N, he had to resign. He had lost the support within his own institution, said Sirmed.
Yet, subsequent events during PPP regime and especially during the present PML-N rule, many such attempts were made to destabilise or weaken the grip of democratically elected governments, by the deep state through political groups. The epic example is 2014 Dharna by PTI and PAT, when the parliamentary forces, having faith in democratic process stood by the government.
Jingoist media and Martial Laws
The dilemma is that jingoist media is a major destabilising factor. Majority of opinion makers especially in Urdu media are busy demonising the political leadership. Social media is also utilised in such attempts, he said.
Sirmed opined that martial laws as we have witnessed time and again in Pakistan, cannot filter the ‘littered feudals and industrial barons’.
It is democracy through electoral process. Martial Laws have been instrumental in bringing such element into political process.
‘The example is the 1985 non-party based elections under Gen. Ziaul Haq which gathered such lot in the parliamentary democracy. Again, Gen. Musharraf used them against the popular political parties in forming the 2002 government,” said Sirmed.
The present regime is under tremendous pressure from the undemocratic forces. “Though I am optimistic, yet not to the extent that the people will come out as savior of democracy in present scenario,” he said.
However, political commentator and lawyer Jalal Hussain was of the opinion that governance in Pakistan has been shaped not only by the Constitution but the power structure that underlies it.
Although, the formal rules of the Constitution stipulate that the military is subordinate to elected civilian authority, as declared recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Air Marshall Asghar Khan case, yet within the functioning power structure military is a key player, said Jalal.
Diarchy of Power in Pakistan
“The diarchy of power in Pakistan, consist of the civilian bureaucracy and military establishment, which continues to dominate the financial and political choices made by the country,” Jalal said.
He opined that since its independence 68 years ago, Pakistan has been under military rule for just about 32 of those years. Military dictators have stepped in under various circumstances deposing democratic governments and establishing their rule.
Despite military rule, democracy has always resurfaced due to the resilience and the will of the people of Pakistan. This democracy continues to suffer from flaws, one of which is its reliance on the military for constant support.
Depending on the army to solve problems undermines the credibility of the democratic government in place. The army has maintained its image of being a ‘savior’ and has stepped in to take the reins in ailing and failing democracies.
He added that throughout Pakistan’s history there has been a discernible deficit between imagining an ideal form of a state and the intended structure of power.
The concepts of rights, representations etc. enshrined in the constitution have been in conflict with the wishes of the status quo who have tried to flex and mould the constitution to suit their designs, he said.
“A constitution cannot be popularly legitimate if the power structure that derives its authority from it seeks self-aggrandisement and personal benefit at the expense of the public,” said Jalal adding that in order for a constitution to sustain a state there has to be a convergence between an agreed goal and a means to achieve it.
