Failure of Democracy is Rooted in the Idea of Pakistan

Pakistan’s current political crisis is neither the first one nor the last. The cast and the characters have been changing in Pakistan since its inception but the script remains the same. Pakistan continues to be governed by its military, mostly directly, and intermittently indirectly. Democracy is a façade in Pakistan and it would continue to remain so as the current political crisis as well as dozens of similar ones that have happened in the past in Pakistan have a similar origin — the idea of Pakistan itself.

Even before its origin, the proponents of Pakistan had no clear idea about the geographical entity they were seeking as a separate nation.

The indications of this colossal failure of the idea of Pakistan were evident since it came into existence in 1947. After Independence while India had adopted its Constitution in 1949 and implemented in in 1950, Pakistan could only adopt its Constitution in 1956 and within two years it was dumped with the first Martial Law being imposed in 1958.

There are three pillars on whom rests the idea of Pakistan. They were consciously chosen by the founders and initial rulers of Pakistan. These three pillars are: Islamisation, confrontation with India, and an alliance with the West or other influencers to weaponise its forces.

ALSO READ | Imran Khan Was Never Really a Smart Cookie but Now He Has Run Out of Luck

In March 1949, Pakistan took its first formal step towards becoming a failed democracy by adopting the idea of a theocratic state when Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, presented the ‘Objectives Resolution’ in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly.

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, observed (Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military; pp 17), “The resolution laid out the main principles of a future Pakistani Constitution. It provided for democracy, freedom, equality and social justice as ‘enunciated by Islam,’ opening the door for future controversies about what Islam required of a state. The Objectives Resolution was a curious mix of theology and political science.”

Haqqani further added (pp 19), “Non-Muslim opposition members and a solitary Muslim parliamentarian expressed serious qualms about committing the new state to ‘ordering their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam.’ But Liaquat Ali Khan described it as ‘the most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to achievement of independence.’ In one way, it was. After the Objectives Resolution, there was no turning back from Pakistan’s status as an Islamic ideological state.”

In 1951, Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated. Soon after his assassination, finance minister Ghulam Muhammad, who was a civil servant, became the Governor General of Pakistan. This marked the beginning of emergence of a ‘Civil Servants-Military’ nexus which was later taken over completely by the military. Muhammad was succeeded by General Iskander Mirza who was a Major General in the Pakistan army. General Mirza remained at the helm of affairs till 1958 when as President of Pakistan he imposed Martial Law on October 7. This was the first formal takeover of Pakistan by the military. The balance of power was completely in favour of the military now. The result was another coup within next 20 days which resulted in General Ayub Khan taking over the reins as President of the country while General Mirza was banished to London where he later died in penury. The military was now firmly in saddle.

By this time the military had also started blending Islamic ideology with the identity of Pakistan and that became the permanent template which also became the undoing of Pakistan as a democracy.

During Ayub’s regime Pakistan’s military was positioned as the force that would help make Pakistan not only an Islamic state but also the torchbearer of pan-Islamism. The West supported this vision of Pakistan as a part of its anti-Communist cold war strategy not realising, they are nurturing a bug bear that would come back to hit them hard in the form of Islamic terrorism.

ALSO READ | Pakistan PM Imran Khan Has Lost the Numbers Game, Writing on the Wall is Crystal Clear

During Ayub’s regime, the military also brought education and media under its absolute control. Haqqani says (pp 43-44), “Curricula and textbooks were standardized, presenting a version of history that linked Pakistan’s emergence to Islam’s arrival in the sub-continent, instead of it being the outcome of a dispute over the Constitution of the post-colonial India. The history of Islam was presented, not as the history of a religion or civilization, but as a prelude to Pakistan’s creation. Muslim conquerors were glorified, Hindu-Muslim relations painted as intrinsically hostile, and the ability of Pakistanis to manage democratic rule questioned…”

Ayub’s successors carried it forward with great gusto by further strengthening this contrived narrative of history. Successive regimes in Pakistan have also ensured that this narrative is fed to the school students. Further, the formidable propaganda machinery of Pakistani military as well as Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) compelled the grown-ups to also consume this propaganda through TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and now Internet.

Tilak Devasher, a former special secretary with Cabinet Secretariat of India and a well-known authority on Pakistan affairs, puts it aptly (Pakistan at the Helm; pp xxvii), “One political trend that has increasingly become visible is a reversion to the pre-British structures of governance. The pre-British sub-continental empires were characterized in broad terms, by two main principles: first, the entire empire was the personal estate of the ruler; the bureaucracy functioned at his whims and fancies. Second, instead of the rule of law there was the law of the ruler, all power and authority flowed from the ruler and he was the final authority in all matters — political, military, administrative and judicial.”

Devasher talks about a graffiti on a Karachi wall in August 1990, that perhaps sums up the Pakistan conundrum most realistically: “We apologize for this temporary democratic interruption. Normal Martial Law will be resumed shortly.”

Arun Anand is a columnist and author of several books. His latest book is ‘Taliban: War and Religion in Afghanistan’. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.

Read all the Latest Opinion News and Breaking News here