I think that throughout the history of Pakistan we have only experimented with democracy in between the large tenures of dictatorship. I for one think that one of the main reasons that democracy has not been the answer is because of the people and the politician; there is nothing wrong with democracy itself. Illiteracy is at an all-time high in Pakistan and this has been a problem since the beginning. I think that democracy is suited for countries with high literacy rate because for democracy to be effective the people need to know what’s best for them and through education we can look far enough and make wise decisions or have the foresight to elect the people that will take the country forward. Due to illiteracy majority of the population have absolutely no idea what’s best for them or the country and make ill choices which hinders the growth of the country. Another point is that this country has been unlucky enormously by not being blessed with an honest, dedicated leader. We have always been gifted with greedy, selfish, short-sighted, power hungry and largely illiterate politicians whose only aim is to gain a seat in the government so they can get rich and powerful. There is no proper code of conduct or structure. No one to keep check on them and thus democracy is only an experiment in this country where the people conducting the experiment keep changing and along with them changes the core of the experiment, the policies and the methods and therefore it never prospers.
My research paper was on a similar topic. Like i mentioned there, democracy has always been the by-product in the aftermath of a dictatorship era, where the leader of the post-dictatorship time leading the chant of democracy gained their power with the influence of the dictator. They are the product of the thing they are rallying against. This itself ruins the true essence of democracy and destroys the charm of the real democracy. Take ZA Bhutto for example. Granted that he belonged to an already powerful family, it was his relations with General Iskander Mirza and later with General Ayub Khan that really catapulted him into the scene of politics and made him an influential figure. Shahnawaz Bhutto had good relations with Iskander Mirza even before Pakistan; this led to great relations between Mirza and ZA Bhutto. A quote from the book “Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan: His Life and Times” by Professor Stanley Wolpert,
"Mirza had been a regular guest for the annual hunt in Larkana, staying at Al-Murtaza (the Bhutto family home)… . (In the) winter of 1955-56, he brought (General) Ayub along to Larkana for the hunt .Both generals enjoyed the generous hospitality of the Bhutto family ..."
Through this informal relationship between the generals and the Bhutto family, ZA Bhutto captivated the generals with his genius and they saw the leader within the young man. Iskander in his time and Ayub in his, gave Bhutto important seats; seats of power and responsibilities. He started off well and showed the right side of what democracy is and became a peoples' favourite. After the fall of Ayub and Yahya and the separation of East Pakistan, in which Bhutto was heavily involved in, Bhutto became the leader of the country. Later on he lost his way and the lust of power deviated from his form of democracy to no democracy at all. Martial Law was implemented by General Zia and the cycle started again.
Same was the case with another major politician, Nawaz Sharif. He gained his power mainly during Zia’s tenure and later tried to overthrow the same man that got him into that high seat.
The dilemma with this country is that none of the politicians work for Pakistan but only for themselves. That’s why in the past it has been easy to remove democratic governments and introduce martial law on the basis of corruption, nepotism, money laundering etc. If we consider recent times, this is the first scenario in which there have been a completion of one elected party’s rule and another has been elected to rule without the interference of the armed forces. This too was not because democracy had moved out of the experimental state and was beginning to take hold, it was due to the fact that martial law was not in the global picture, not part of the agenda put forward by world powers: namely America. The word democracy does not only mean that people get to elect the government but also that they get their rights, their security and when they don’t get what they deserve they have the option of raising their voice and being heard by the ruling party. If the premise here that democracy in any way exists in Pakistan based solely on the fact that an 'elected' government managed to complete its tenure? If this is the only standard for democracy then indeed, Pakistan is truly a democratic state. Let’s not talk about the absent citizen's fundamental rights, the absent state, the absent infrastructure or non-existent security. If we consider these factors then I believe Pakistan hasn’t even experimented with democracy let alone implemented it.
No comments:
Post a Comment