Why does the promise remain unfulfilled?
Seventy years after the creation of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif, whose party is ruling the country for the third time, complains that there is no social, judicial, political or economic justice in the country. In a state of desperation Sharif has called for a revolution. Sharif holds judiciary and army responsible for the state of affairs. A couple of days earlier chairman senate Raza Rabbani had proposed the holding of an intra-institutional dialogue among the executive, the judiciary and the military bureaucracy to evolve a modus vivendi.
Politicians maintain that Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as a pluralistic society and a modern, democratic, federal and welfare state could not be implemented on account of military takeovers which turned the country into a political wasteland. Military coups took toll of institutions that constitute the underpinnings of a democratic system. Military rulers introduced a highly centralised system of governance and an authoritarian style. Laws against religious minorities and women were passed by Zia who also patronised militant groups. Musharraf used religious parties, NAB and agencies to remain in power. Military rulers were assisted by pliant judges. Every military dictator raised his own crop of politicians.
Military rule was the major cause why Pakistan could not develop on lines recommended by Jinnah but this is not the whole story. Bitter rivalries between politicians have paved the way for army intervention. Parties in power have persecuted opponents, sometime through docile courts while those in the opposition hobnobbed with generals to overthrow the elected governments. Politicians therefore are also a part of the problem.
The Parliament has been turned into an ineffectual body by the PML-N government. It cannot be strengthened as long as the parties do not open parliament’s doors to educated and enlightened middle class MPs by ensuring strict implementation of rules regarding election expenses. With crores of rupees required to win a parliamentary seat, parties rely on electables with deep pockets who often lack the calibre and treat election expenses as investment that would be repatriated along with profit after winning the elections.