Democracy in Pakistan: Root Causes of weak democratization system in

Pakistan

Introduction: The vital aim of this essay is to analyze the problems of Democratization

in Pakistan as the major features of the Pakistani polity show serious problems of

democracy. At times, democracy is either totally non-existent or its quality is poor. The

essay will mainly focus on institutional imbalance within the democratic system of

Pakistan which put democracy in crisis. Further, this essay will cover the problem of

political consensus building within the arena of Pakistan as such consensuses are

important to make democracy function. This essay will also highlight how political

parties as well as judicial system contribution towards the democracy. Moreover the

essay will try to analyze that how Authoritarian regime impact on democracy of Pakistan

and shape the politics for their own preferences. Finally, in the conclusion this essay will

cover the overall problems within democratization of Pakistan.

Current Democracy in Pakistan: The concept of Democracy has been the subject of

much intellectual discourse and analysis. For the rationale of this discussion, the concept

of democracy is a useful starting point. Democracy as a structure of governance and

interest representation demands respect for dissent and opposition. It recognizes the

principle of majority rule and guarantees protection of minorities. Democracy also builds

reliance in electoral contestation to get public office and provides legitimacy to political

parties as main instruments for acquisition and shift of power from one set of individuals

to another (Dahl et al. 2003). Pakistan came into existence in 1947 as a democratic state.

1
It has indirect or representative democracy system. It is one of those few states among the

Muslim countries and developing world, where people have shown vigor and some

vitality to adopt a democratic parliamentary system and through popular mass

movement’s demonstrated disapproval of military dictatorships (Jalal, 1995). A lasting

characteristic of Pakistani tradition, history and politics has been an aspiration for

democracy (Hugh and Rose, 1997). The passion for democracy continues to resurge,

inspite of ethnic, social class, religious cleavages, strong authoritarian tendencies and

prolonged military rule. There is no contradiction that cultural and structural conditions

weigh heavily against the promotion of democratic processes and institutions in Pakistan

(Taylor, 1995). The civil society has expanded, but is still weak, inspite of a number of

non-governmental groups, formal associations, human rights organizations, autonomous

bodies that have emerged over the years. Even the size and scale of political parties has

risen (Inayatullah, 1997). The prolonged military rule (1977–1988), wiped out

democratic norms, quiet democratic values, yet aspiration for democracy continues to

persist. For almost a decade (1988–1999) Pakistan has sustained a transition to

parliamentary democracy. This has been the longest period of civilian led regimes,

although, none of the elected governments have been able to complete its five year term

in office but in 2013 first time in history of Pakistan. It is encouraging to note that the

principle of electoral competition has gained strength. Electoral procedures have acquired

stability. Despite presidential interventions (1988, 1990, 1993 and 1996) and dissolution

of the assemblies, democratic creed has survived in Pakistan. Inspite of above changes

still democracy in Pakistan is facing various problems like, institutional imbalance, lack

of political consensus building, weak political parties and authoritarian regime (Weiss &

Gillani, 2001).

2
Institutional Imbalance: Pakistan inherited institutional imbalance at

the time of independence in August 1947. The state apparatus like the

bureaucracy and the military were more organized and developed than

the political and democratic institutions. Further, the initial temporary

Constitution, 1947, also strengthened bureaucracy and authoritarian

governance. The institutional weakness is most damagingly apparent in the collapse

to institute a functioning and durable constitution (Cohen, 2005). Three constitutions

have come and gone without establishing a stable direction for institutional growth. The

first one agreed upon in 1956, almost a decade after independence, was revised in 1962

only to be discarded for a new one in 1973. General Musharraf is currently working on

the latest version (Rizvi, 2000). The bureaucracy and the military maintained

their professional disposition marked by hierarchy and discipline. The

serious administrative problems in the early years of independence led

the civilian government to seek the support of the military and the

bureaucracy. Pakistan’s security problems with India, especially the

first Kashmir war, also helped to strengthen the military’s position in

the polity. All Pakistani civilian governments supported a strong

defense posture and allocated a substantial portion of the national

budget to defense and security (Shafqat, 1997). These developments

emphasized institutional imbalance and worked to the disadvantage of

the civilian leaders. The weak and split political forces found it difficult

to sustain themselves without the support and cooperation of the

bureaucracy and the military. This enabled the bureaucracy and the

3
military to enhance their role in policy making and management and

they began to dominate politics, which ultimately create the

institutional imbalance within the democracy of Pakistan (Weiss and

Gillani, 2001).

Political Consensus-building: The democratic process cannot turn

out to be functional without a minimum consensus on the operational

standards of the polity. The minimum consensus is the beginning point

of democracy. As the political process functions over time and it offers

opportunities for sharing power and political advancement, it evokes

more support from different sections of the society and the polity. The

extent of consensus broadens when more groups and individuals enter

the political mainstream through the democratic norms as set out in

the constitution and law (Ziring, 1997). This makes the political

institutions and processes viable. The Pakistani polity has been unable

to fully develop a consensus on the operational political norms.

Whatever understanding developed among the competing interests at

one point of time was allowed to fitter away with the passage of time

because of the non-accommodating disposition of the competing

interests and an open non-cooperation of constitutionalism and norms

of democracy (Jafferlot, 2002). Therefore, all constitutions turned

controversial over the time because they were violated by the power

holders. Pakistan functioned without a constitution for years under

martial law imposed by the Army Chief which made him the repository

4
of all authority and power in the country. If constitution can be easily

set aside or subordinated to the will of the military ruler, the tradition

of constitutionalism and participatory governance cannot develop. The

civilian rulers also amended the constitution in a partisan manner by

employing parliamentary majority, and disregarded the need of

building consensus (Kennedy, 2003). Moreover the steady growth of

Islamic extremism and militancy and Islamic-sectarian movements

since the early 1980s has stifled the free flow of ideas on the issues of

national importance. It gave rise to religious and cultural intolerance

and increased the level of civic violence. The rival extremist religious

groups did not hesitate to use violence against each other. The major

victims of these trends were social and cultural pluralism, political

tolerance and accommodation of dissent. The participatory processes

also suffered as the religious extremists gained strength in Pakistan.

Such a political and cultural environment is not conducive to growth of

democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law (Haqqani, 2005).

1
Political Parties: Progress of democracy is facilitated primarily by political parties .

These are important instruments of interest articulation, aggregation and serve as

mediums of political mobilization. Pakistan has been struggling to sustain political parties

as an instrument of interest representation and popular will. In the past years, political

parties have survived, despite Martial Laws and other Presidential interventions. Political

1
According to recently election data Pakistan has 49 political parties which participated in the election
2008. Information available at http://jang.com.pk/election2008/symbols.html, retrieved on 27-02-2008.

5
parties remain instruments of support and mass mobilization. The political parties have

yet to acquire the skills of interest representation in the parliament (Taylor, 1995). The

political parties have conventionally been weak and incapable to carry out their major

function in an effective and meaningful manner. The role of the political parties has

suffered due to periodic restrictions on political activities under military rule, infrequent

elections, weak organizational structure and poor discipline among the members, absence

of attractive socio-economic programs and a lack of financial resources (Ziring, 1997).

Political parties also suffer from conflicts based on personality, region and ideology . The

political parties formed electoral alliances and political coalitions. These have generally

been temporary in nature because of differences in their political orientations and limited

experience of working together. Furthermore, every party suffers from internal

inconsistency which undermines its position in a coalition. Political parties have been

relatively more successful as a movement for pursuing a limited agenda like the

overthrow of a sitting government. The problems of political parties hamper the

development of democracy in Pakistan (Taylor, 1995).

Feudal System: Pakistan current population 68% is living in rural areas and mainly rural

areas are managed by local Feudalist (locally know as Zamindar/ Wadera). Feudalism is

one of the important aspects responsible for the weakness of the democratic politics in

Pakistan. During British India period; British had awarded vast agricultures lands to

feudal, so they safely and strongly rule on India. After partition of India and Pakistan

feudalism remain strong in Pakistan. It becomes more dominated on Pakistan's political,

social and economic life at tribal and costs system. Pakistan history is very clearly shows

that how land reforms introduced in 1959 by dictator General Ayub Khan and in 1972,

6
1977 played a key role to supports feudal system in Pakistan and these reforms are

remain controversial in Pakistan. Authoritarian regimes supported feudal system in

Pakistan which gave a breath to feudal system – for which reason the poor common

public remain under the control of feudalism. Given the fact that feudalism is prevalent in

the rural areas, no developments are allowed in these areas. Throughout history,

feudalism has appeared in different forms. The feudal prototype in Pakistan consists of

landlords with large joint families possessing hundreds or even thousands of acres of

land. They rarely make any direct contribution to agricultural production. Instead, all

agriculture farms cultivation is done by farmers or tenants who live at subsistence level

under controls of Landlords. Landlords control huge agriculture lands, human resources

(farmers, tenants), all agriculture resources, example, water, fertilizers, machinery, and

consequently exercises considerable influence over the political, revenue, police and

judicial administration of the area. Due these advantages landlord is become lords and

masters in Pakistan. Such supreme power can easily corrupt, and it is no question that

feudal system there is humanly undignified. Majority of Pakistani legislator are feudal or

belonged to Feudal systems. They use their influence on process of elections and most

time changed in selection. If they are not participating than they order to their

tenants/farmers for vote their favorite candidate and provide resources in elections

campaigns to political parties. Mostly they capture vote by force or some time they

purchased on vote on the name of development. In point of fact, Pakistan have feudal

democracy, such contradictory term is not used commonly. Whereas the basis of

democracy is liberalism, that of feudalism is authoritarianism-uncritical acceptance of the

authority. Pakistan feudalism is the rule of the powerful families and they mainly believe

in force and coercion as devices of dispute settlement. Currently, Pakistani feudalism

7
class involves perks and privileges for the elite and they are present from National

legislative institutions, bureaucracy and mainly pass that legislation which for their

benefits. So, due limited but strong feudalism is also strong obstacle in transition of

democratic system and it not allowing further momentum in Pakistan.

Corruption and Nepotism: It is fact that democratic governments in Pakistan have been

witnessed of corruption, mal-administration, and nepotism. The people unenthusiastically

visit public institutions because they that they have to pay bribe and without bribing it

difficult to get any work done from the public officials. Moreover, due to malpractice of

the public official and misappropriation of common funds for public and infrastructure

also has been cracked by public officers in Pakistan and a situation like chaos is

prevailing all over the country. Mostly, political parties favorite, peoples, relatives

appoints in public institutions including, judiciary, Police, Election commissions,

Revenue. According to Transparency International, Pakistan ranking corruption is 127 out

2
of 177 countries in world . In 1990 the elected government of PPP was dissolved due to

corruption charges set against Benazir Bhutto by President of Pakistan. Again next

elected government of Nawaz Sharif was also dismissed in 1993 by President of Ghulam

Ishaq khan on plea of corruption and nepotism. Again elections were held in 1993 and

Benazir became PM but this government was also dissolved on corruption charges in

1996.

Powerful Judicial System: No strong democratic system can survive without a strong

and independent judiciary. No strong and stable Parliament can be created on the ruins of

an independent judicial edifice. An independent and functional judiciary is, in fact, the

2
Transparency International Report 2014, http://www.transparency.org/country#PAK (accessed on 3rd June
2014).

8
most momentous safeguard available to Parliament. It covers the perimeter of Parliament,

resist attacks from any adventurer from any other institutes of state. But in Pakistan, The

judiciary was remain strong supportive of the military’s regime and expanded role in the

past. It endorsed the direct assumption of power by the military on all four coups in

Pakistan. Since the restoration of the present Chief Justice and other judges in 2009, the

Supreme Court and the High Courts have engaged in a high pace judicial activism and

have build pressure on the elected parliament and the elected federal government of

Pakistan .The comments of the judges from Supreme to High court, as published from

media, have political implications in the politically divided political context. The Chief

Justice has argued various times that the parliament is not the supreme institutions and

that the Supreme Court has an overriding power with reference to constitution. Such

confrontations lead towards uncertainty about what the parliament can or cannot do,

especially after one institution become dominating all others, especially the elected ones.

The confrontation between the elected executive and non-elected judiciary is not a good

sign for democracy prime minister was convicted by the Supreme Court on contempt of

court and sent home. The key issue is that democracy requires institutional balance and

restraint rather than one state institution dominating all others, specially the elected ones.

The confrontation between the elected executive and non-elected judiciary is not a good

omen for democracy. Negative role of Supreme Judicial system is also root cause of

problem in transition of democratization system in Pakistan. Pakistan Judiciary should

play a supportive role for democratization system of Pakistan and provide them as strong

support, accountability and justice, so democracy become grow-up in Pakistan and play it

her important role. Pakistan Judiciary needs to be expanded at low level and strengthened

to reinforce democracy at the grassroots.

9
Authoritarian style of politicians: All the previous heads of governments of Pakistan

both civilian which elected by vote and military and also the politicians, ministers,

parliaments exercised absolutism in style and mentality which came from feudalism and

authoritarian regimes. They did not realize their primary duty was to serve the people not

just to rule them on them. Pakistan Army, mostly cultivated their political seeds in these

breed of politicians is also main obstacle in democratization process in Pakistan.

Islamic Laws: During cold war era and Zia authoritarian regime, internationally, locally

Islamic fundamentalism got huge supports and due absence of democracy they grew up

very well. With strong support of Pakistani military and U.S; Islamic fundamentalism

became strong and later created many alliances against democratic system in Pakistan.

History is witnessed that in Pakistan, democratic tendency was already weak since from

foundation of Pakistan but without internal and external check it became weaker later. In

Cold war Islamic Fundamentalists got huge national and international support and due to

keep them strong and on board on war with USSR, so religious Madrassa became

stronger and their student affiliations with their ideology of governance become strong.

Madrassa was earlier in involve religious teachings but not have strong representation

but during cold war they got more important and mostly poor families children become

have admission and the Madrassa, provide, food, taught their version of religion, fed,

clothed, so later such children have a different political ideology which affiliated with

religion basis not state basis. Currently in, Pakistan many strong Islamic parties sharing

the same ideological goal of enforcing Sharia (Islamic law) in Pakistan despite

Democracy, while maintaining sizeable Madrassa and mosque networks that are breeding

grounds for many extremist groups too. During general election of 2002 in Pakistan,

10
success of the six-party Islamic coalition, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), elections in

Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan was initially perceived to be testament to

the Islamic parties’ power if they were unified in a single block. Their scenario for access

to significant political power, however, still depends on Pakistan military support. Mostly

in past Pakistan army used them as tool to disrupt the moderate democratic transition in

Pakistan. But currently Islamic parties are widely against democratic system in Pakistan

and become strong power to counter the mainstream democratic system. In a sustained

democratic transition, however, the ability of these parties to influence the polity will

depend on the effectiveness of the mainstream moderate, democratic parties to

consolidate civilian rule and mobilize support for political and legal reform.

Parliament’s Role in Democratic Transition: Pakistan history is witness of repeated

direct or indirect authoritarian regimes interventions during Pakistan’s governance

system, due to these such actions parliaments have either been lose its importance or

seems absent, short-lived or rubber stamps for the military’s policies, their proceedings

hollowed out and meaningless. Even under civilian rule, an extra active judiciary has

repeatedly encroached on parliamentary prerogatives, while the executive branch has

dominated the governance agenda; legislative advice and consent has been more a matter

of form than substance. Five and a half years after the democratic transition began in

February 2008, the legislature is still developing its institutional identity and due lack of

interests, lack of knowledge of legislation, lack of ownership by elected legislature in

worth of legislature parliament, democratic transition is very weak and slow. Some of the

most prominent legislative committees should be exercise their authority to oversee the

executive and to engage the public. But currently political system will remain unstable so

11
long as the legacy of military rule is kept alive. The current legislature after earn of vote

became disappeared/disconnect themselves with public so, it put negative effects on

common public and anti democracy factor use all these issues for their supports and it

must resume the unfinished work of democratic reform if it is to fully restore

parliamentary sovereignty and stabilize a volatile polity. Due to military threats or

powerful military, Pakistani parliament is still unable to hold the security apparatus,

including its intelligence agencies, election commission, reforms in system and

accountability of these apparatus. Mostly parliament legislatures have lack dedicated,

trained staff, a problem that also plagues the National Assembly and Senate secretariats.

Library resources are likewise inadequate, with the upper and lower houses maintaining

separate facilities that unnecessarily add to costs without producing better research. As a

result, parliaments depend on briefs from the executive, often prepared by an unreformed

bureaucracy that, like its military counterpart, has little interest in strengthening

representative institutions. It is dire need that legislatures from both upper house and

lower should show their enthusiasm towards democratic transitions and for this they

should develop such laws and institutes which supports them in long term democratic

system. It is basic need of time that, these elected legislatures should provide awareness ,

close coordination with public and should engage with common public so, such action

will build concrete transition of democratic system becomes strong.

Conclusion: Pakistan faced a number of difficulties which did not let the democratic

principles, institutions and processes build up solid roots in the polity. Pakistan

created with the parliamentary structure of governance and democratic state but

the inheritance of institutional imbalance, feudal system, and authoritarianism,

12
problems encountered in the setting up of the new state, the outside security

pressures and the panic of the fall down of the state adversely affected the prospects

of democracy. Pakistan’s democratic culture also could not flourish because the

army once having tasted power has never really let go. The above analysis proposes

that democratic institutions and processes become stable and established if their

natural progress is not obstructed by supporter considerations. These institutions

should function in their factual strength over time, offering all citizens and groups

an equal and fair opportunity to enter the political mainstream. This assists to

construct support for the political institutions and helps their sustainability. In

Pakistan, interrupted collapse of the democracy and repeated military take-over or

attempts by the top brass to shape the democratic process to their political

preferences did not ensure democratic continuity and the competing interest did not

get equal opportunity to freely enter the political mainstream. Democracy and the

autonomy of public institutions and processes has been the major casualty of the

expanded role of the military. Whenever Pakistan came back to democracy through

civilian and constitutional rule, the quality of democracy remained poor. It is a case

of democracy shortfall. The long run survival of the prospects of democracy

encounters four main challenges in Pakistan, the military dominated regime,

imbalance of democratic institutions, the failure to put together consensus on the

operational standards of the democratic system and the poor performance of the

political parties. This does not mean that the people have given up on the primacy of

the popular will, participatory governance, accountability of the rulers and

governance for serving the people. The recent election result shows the people’s

intension towards democracy where people of Pakistan had given their decision in

13
the favor of democracy by the way of selecting political parties other then party

formed by military3.

References:

Cohen, Stephen P. 2005, The Idea of Pakistan, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Dahl A. Robert, Ian Shapiro, Cheibub, A. Jose, (ed). 2003, The Democracy Sourcebook,
MIT Press, USA.
Haqqani, Hussain 2005, Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, Carnegie Endowment
Washington, D.C.
Evans Hugh D. and Leo E. Rose 1997, ‘Pakistan’s Enduring Experiment’ Journal of
Democracy, vol. 8, no.1
Inayatullah, Sohail 1997, ‘The Future of Democracy in Pakistan: A Liberal Perspective’
Futures, vol. 29, no.10
Jalal, Ayesha 1995, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia: A Comparative and
Historical Perspective, Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore.
Jafferlot, Christophe (ed.) 2002, Pakistan: Nationalism without a Nation?, ZED Books,
London.
Kennedy, Charles H. (eds.) 2003, Pakistan at the Millennium, Oxford University Press,
Karachi.
Rizvi, Hasan-Askari 2000, Military, State and Society in Pakistan, Macmillan, London.

3
The party formed by military named as Pakistan Muslim League Qaid-e-Azam has been established in
2002 with the unconditional support of General Musharaf. This party is still supporting and favoring
General Musharaf’s policies against the democratic system.

14
Shafqat, Saeed 1997, Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan: From Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to
Benazir Bhutto, Westview Press, Boulder
Taylor, David 1995, ‘Parties, Elections and Democracy in Pakistan’ Journal of
Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, vol. 30, no.1
Weiss, Anita M. and Gillani, Zulfiqar, S. (eds.) 2001, Power and Civil Society in
Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Karachi.
Ziring, Lawrence 1997, Pakistan in the Twentieth Century: A Political History, Oxford
University Press, Karachi.
Kalim Bahadur, 1998, Democracy in Pakistan crises and conflicts; page 30-272. Har-
Anand Publication, New Delhi.
Beverley Milton-Edwards, Islamic Fundamentalism since 1945; (second edition), page
126-127.
S.Akbar.Zaidi, March2009, Politics of Democracy and of Good Governance in Pakistan,
PILDAT, Islamabad.

15