Pakistan’s leadership void

The history of any country is marked by a complex tapestry of events, and this is especially true for countries that attained independence during the mid-20th century. Many of these countries, predominantly situated in Asia and Africa, were once colonies of European powers and achieved independence after struggling against colonial rule. Pakistan's journey towards democracy stands as a crucial thread in its intricate political history.

In the early 20th century, two political groups fought a parallel struggle against British colonial rule. One aimed to establish a sovereign Muslim state, while the other was committed to preserving an undivided India. Ultimately, this struggle led not only to the end of colonial rule but also determined the fate of the conflict between the Congress and the All India Muslim League, resulting in the division of the subcontinent into two new dominions.

The colonial influence on the nation's mindset, policies, governance, institutions, laws, and language endured long after independence, creating a lasting colonial legacy that continued to shape the country in various forms.

The Muslims achieved independence under the dynamic leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam, whose untimely death deprived the country of a visionary and sincere leader. Pakistan's political challenges intensified soon after his demise. The assassination of first Prime Minister of Pakistan Khan Liaqat Ali Khan, a close aide to Jinnah, dealt another blow to the young republic. The trickle-down effect of these tragedies struck at the fragile roots of the new nation, and the ensuing crises continued to haunt the country for years to come.

The crisis of democracy, leadership, and East-West provincial conflict multiplied the challenges at home. Meanwhile, relations with India soured soon after the Kashmir War ensued in 1948. Despite efforts at negotiations and mediation, the wars and conflicts did not end there, leaving Kashmir embroiled in an existential security conflict for the region.

An unstable political system and interference of non-electives posed major challenges to democracy in Pakistan in the 1950s, particularly from 1952-58. This turbulent period was followed by a period of two military regimes. Subsequently, there would be two more interludes of democratically elected civilian governments, interspersed with military interventions (1971-2008). This stark division between civilian and military administrations not only highlights issues with the prevailing 'system' but also underscores the challenges related to democratic governance. Despite numerous explanations and proposed solutions, the reality remains that the democratic culture in the country continues to face weaknesses. Many draw attention to the example set by India, where despite facing various challenges, democracy remains consistent, and institutions are well-established.

None would deny that the struggle of Indian Muslims for independence was, at its core, a fight for their democratic rights, including representation and participation. Mohammad Ali Jinnah spearheaded this struggle to secure the political and civil rights of Muslims, based on his vision of a liberal democratic order. In a resolution passed by the Muslim League at Madras in 1941, the safeguarding of 'religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative, and other rights' of minorities in Muslim-majority areas, as well as ensuring similar rights for Muslims in minority regions, was emphasised. This blueprint outlined an equitable political order within a democracy.

Regrettably, following the passing of Quaid-i-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan, these ideals became obscured amidst political bickering among various politicians and the establishment during that era. The approach taken by the civil and military leadership to address the crucial matters exposed a deficit in prudent decision-making, leaving the nation vulnerable to a series of civil wars and internal conflicts. The absence of competent leadership led to severe consequences for the nation. The dire outcomes were the bitter yield of an undemocratic order, with the separation of East Pakistan standing out as a prominent example.

During the years when there were democratic governments, democratic institutions were not strengthened, nor were democratic norms nurtured. The political edifice remained fragile, under both civilian and military regimes. Both administrations implemented measures that inadvertently undermined democratic norms and the system itself, such as political vitimisation, and manipulation of ethnic and religious sentiments. These actions sidestepped the true essence of democracy-representation and participation. A majority of political administrations focused on catering to limited parochial and partisan interests, thus failing to achieve consensus on significant national issues such as the creation of additional provinces and the construction of dams.

Given this background, the distrust of the government and politicians, though not uncommon in many countries, reached unprecedented levels. This prompted inquiries into the very nature of democracy, its capability to deliver, and its potential to address the myriad issues of the nation. Beyond mere rhetoric, the governments struggled to provide satisfactory answers or viable solutions to the majority of problems. Essentially, the core issue lies in the absence of a genuine democratic spirit and the norms necessary to cultivate a democratic culture.

The Quaid envisioned a Pakistan characterised by a liberal order, where the rights of the common person were assured, and their representation was ensured; a nation that safeguarded the interests of minorities and upheld the principles of the rule of law. Seven decades later, the nation falls short in all these aspects, demanding a dedicated and earnest endeavour to materialise the vision of a Pakistan envisioned by its founding leader.

-The writer is a former faculty at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. He can be reached at: pakirish@yahoo.com