The roots of fragility

My dear friend Nadeem Mahmood, who happens to be a globetrotting mechanical engineer, is among the few from our batch of students who chose to stay in Pakistan. Imagine, less than twenty from a class of two hundred odd mechanical engineers living in Pakistan now. The rest all emigrated.
From the batches that came after us there are hardly any from some years who are found to be living and working in Pakistan. Brain drain has remained at its peak for more than the last twenty years when it comes to capable Pakistani engineers – who have opted to live abroad. Ironic as it may sound, most if not all of these engineers, and doctors too, went to state institutions of higher learning in Pakistan. We were offered education and training almost for free by these institutions and they remain heavily subsidised even now.
I hear regularly from those living abroad but take it upon myself to respond to the points raised by Nadeem as he lives here and people like him matter more in the political affairs of this country. We recently had a charged correspondence about democracy, feudalism, the role of military and the nature of political parties. I will humbly try to respond to the fundamental question of why democracy remains crippled in Pakistan.
However, at the outset, I will ask Nadeem and friends like him to think about why we single out for condemnation the general who imposes martial rule and absolve his organisation of any role played in that act of subverting the constitution? At the same time, why are the principles, systems, institutions and structure of democracy as a whole dismissed when a political leader fails to deliver?
Let us look at the factors that prevented democracy from taking roots in Pakistan. This may mean reiterating some of the points made before in these columns but it is important to remind us again and again of the reasons behind the political challenges we face. Unless these reasons are understood in their historic context and issues carefully identified, we will keep struggling to find their solutions.
Turn the clock back to 1947 and the initial years after independence. West Pakistan’s political and administrative space was fully captured by feudals mostly from Punjab and some from Sindh in collaboration with the Muslim elite of northern India who had migrated to Pakistan along with the officers of the colonialist Indian Civil Service.
Their protégé was to become the Pakistani Civil Service – bureaucrats most of whom were self-serving and power hungry from day one who looked down upon the poor native as irrational, pre-modern and unfit to participate in political processes. The seeds of this power capture were sown a little before the partition of British India when the feudal-led Unionist Party of Punjab merged into the Muslim League. The new West Pakistani power elite, a combination of West Punjabi and Mohajir elite and intelligentsia feared the largely non-feudal and politically aware majority living in the province of East Bengal that became East Pakistan.
Mian Iftikharuddin, the progressive politician from Punjab, gives an account of Quaid-e-Azam being humiliated at the hands of the likes of Daultana, Tiwana and Gormani when he tried to push for fresh land settlement, rehabilitation of agrarian communities from East Punjab and agricultural reform. One of them categorically blamed Quaid-e-Azam for creating a problem for them in the shape of East Pakistan.
It is important to note that people like Liaquat Ai Khan and Chaudhry Khaliq-uz-Zaman did not side with the Quaid in such matters. Hence, democracy in the newly-founded country would not only have meant a larger share in the political sphere for the people of East Pakistan, it would also have brought rather radical and pro-people political thinking into the mainstream politics of the predominantly feudal, tribal and elitist western wing of the country.
Events that unfolded in the 1950s and 1960s give enough credence to the point being made. The West Pakistani elite did not let the constitution be drawn up for nine long years, until the principle of parity between East and West Pakistan was negotiated with political leaders from the larger population of the eastern province.
Subsequently, the other reason but linked to the first one that destabilised democracy, is the political nurturing of the military generals and senior officers of primarily a West Pakistani army by the same West Pakistani elite in order to stay in control of both East and West Pakistan through them.
Gen Ayub Khan was taken into the cabinet as minister of defence as early as in 1955. Politicians and bureaucrats were chiefly responsible for bringing the army into the political fold at that time. Later on, when Pakistani agreed to America’s offer to become their ally in the cold war with Soviet Union and its allies, the Sandhurst and Dehra Dun graduates of the army were patronised by the west and encouraged to the extent that they finally took over the government and became the rulers after abrogating the constitution of 1956 just after two years of its promulgation. The military rule that was established in 1958 has firmly entrenched the military into the body politic of the country over the years.
The short civilian interludes, one after the break-up of the country from 1972 to 1977 and then between 1988 and 1999, then again from 2008 until now stand witness to the obvious political role played by the military. Initially, it was the West Pakistani elite – and now it is their remnants, which can be called the civilian aiders, abettors and collaborators (to borrow terms from the constitution of 1973) – who contributed majorly to martial rules. Neither has any martial rule strengthened the federation and served our national interests nor will any help us in the future. Not only does the military have to understand that but also the self-serving politicians who can only make it to power if there is a non-representative government.
The third and significant reason that undermined democratic process is the role of the higher judiciary and legal community in condoning the sacking of governments and dissolution of successive parliaments beginning with Justice Munir’s infamous doctrine of necessity and the acts of legal spin doctors ranging from Sharifuddin Pirzada to Ahmed Raza Kasuri. These people proactively provided the legal and constitutional cover to political ambition of rulers and dictators.
It is now accepted by supporters of democracy and independent legal historians that if Chaudhry Muhammad Ali’s government, which was removed by Governor General Ghulam Muhammad, had been restored by Justice Munir’s bench of the then Federal Court, Pakistan would have been a different country.
Justices M R Kiyani, B A Siddiqui, Dorab Patel, Fakhruddin G Ebrahim, Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui and a few others like them never budged but there were so many available to replace them. This seems to be changing now but we have to closely watch the recent activism of the superior judiciary and not get too excited about their changing role. We may recall that many of the judges did take oath just a few years ago under the Provisional Constitutional Order and Judges Order when Gen Musharraf came to power.
The final element that contributes to the weakening of democracy is the nature of the mainstream political parties. It is important to recognise that many of these parties operate in a restrictive political environment caused by military interference and irresponsible media reporting in recent times. However, nothing stops them from creating internally democratic and better organised parties with informed and knowledgeable cadres.
It is time to change the ways of doing politics. It is also time to shun politics revolving around patronage, corruption, selfish economic interest and bad governance. Parliament and provincial assemblies must remain supreme but democracy will remain fragile if political parties do not develop and fundamental pro-people changes in our economy are not introduced.
The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.
Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com