Daily Times

Pakistan’s democratic project has not developed as desired. The reason for this failure has been the inability to evolve an appropriate constitution, meaning one that is in sync with the popular aspirations and needs of our community. Where did we go wrong? Was it the early death of our Quaid that derailed this project? Perhaps it is the self-seeking ambitions of the power-obsessed bureaucrats that pushed the country to a system that is steeped in totalitarianism, but is masked as democracy. Or was it, like Hamza Alavi once said, an overdeveloped state that stultified an underdeveloped nation’s attempts to evolve a participatory polity responsive to the needs of masses?

Pakistan’s early years witnessed a political vacuum after the early demise of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, which left a colonial era bureaucracy holding the reins of power. With the bulk of the senior members of the Muslim League either dead or retired, the responsibility to lead the new nation fell to second-rate politicians, barring some honourable exceptions, and it was a task too complex for them to handle.

The most damage done to our democratic project was by the lack of imagination shown by the Constituent Assembly, which was still recovering from their movement for independence, and strongly opposed handing over powers to an authoritative central government. Instead, they preferred giving autonomy to the provinces. The last of the political titans, like Maulvi Fazalul Haq and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, were dealt a poor hand by a neurotic coalition of political, bureaucratic and military leadership that appointed themselves custodians of the state. The unresolved conflicts with India and the irredentist claims of Afghanistan in the early years also engendered a security centric political culture that has dogged Pakistan to this day. The healthy political debate and public participation that was required by the majority was ignored, leaving the door open for military dictators and their political sidekicks to proceed with their autocratic political system.

After 1971, a politician desperately consolidating his power and authority rushed through a constitution without any consultation or public discourse taking place about it’s validity, or it’s appropriateness for a country that had suffered such a great loss of land, as well as reputation

Ayub Khan’s dalliance with the Presidential system, in which the legislature was indirectly elected, and local governments handled the day-to-day needs of the people, even though it mostly supported the totalitarian state in power, also ultimately ended in public protests. This, in turn, resulted in the cataclysmic events of 1971 that tore our country to pieces, and led to another democratic transition. This time, a desperate politician who needed to consolidate his power and authority, rushed through a constitution without any consultation or public discourse taking place about its validity or appropriateness for a country that had suffered such a great loss of land, as well as reputation. Years later, when Bhutto attempted to navigate his way through the same political system, he finally realised it’s many shortcomings, and it is no surprise that he eventually started advocating for a presidential form of government instead, an ambition he might have fulfilled if his tenure had not been brought to a tragic end by yet another dictator.

Pakistan’s many military interventions failed to create a system that could translate the lofty ideals of national development into sustainable good governance. The dialectical relationship between democracy and republicanism therefore continued, as the civilian politicians rooted for the former while the military establishment pined for the latter. In between this all, the real objective of governance was lost, as the state remained subservient to national security during both military and democratic rule. Pakistan instead deserved constitutional republicanism, wherein the rights of people were secure within a rule-based polity keeping a check on the rulers, legislators, judges, and armed forces. Is republicanism then, the answer to our problems?

The answer is a big yes. While a democracy is a rule of majority, republicanism is a rule of law with some inalienable rights for the people. China, Singapore, and some Middle Eastern states offer examples of republicanism, albeit with a local twist. If we apply the same formula of unadulterated democracy in countries like China, with social segmentation and economic stratification, we might not proceed very far on the development front. Consider, for instance, the case of the famous Three Gorges Dam in China that was built in record time despite a slew of obstacles while we in Pakistan stare a drought in the face but continue to dither on Kalabagh Dam. Would Chinese republicanism not have delivered more in Pakistan with it’s commitment to national development, alleviation of poverty, and eradication of corruption compared to the democratic system and its many flaws? What we have is only a semblance of democracy, yet it lacks substance and those who quote India as an example of a thriving democracy are severely mistaken.

Our democratic project, like that of India, has sputtered and laboured like a panting old railway engine well past its prime. What we need is a republican system that follows the rule of law, but does not ignore the rights of the people and is not hostage to the unbounded avarice of legislators who enter politics for personal gain alone.

We need a chief executive who is not beholden to the votes of blackmailing legislators, constantly badgering him for political favours; instead, we need a leader who is supported by some of the best minds in the country, and is not afraid to make tough decisions pertaining to vital national security and development issues that face Pakistan today. The system being proposed may well resemble a hybrid democracy that is supported by the armed forces as its republican backstop. With the military as guarantors of that republicanism, the judiciary as the arbiter of law and the republican government giving due representation to the public, an appropriate system for our country finally emerges; whether we can implement it before our current system derails completely, remains to be seen.

The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST and can be reached at rwwjanj@hotmail.com

Published in Daily Times, June 19^th 2018.