Why democracy is weak in Pakistan?

If Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's government complete its first full term in office and elections are held as per schedule in 2018, it will be the second democratic government in succession since 2008. It is true that democratic governments could be ousted before time, but that should be only through constitutional means. However, our track record is bad in this regard. Why we continue to have a weak democratic order since independence and can it ever be improved? Democracy is weak because we don't want to make it strong.

Nawaz Sharif’ four years rule so far remained 'semi-democratic’ mainly because of the issues related to national security, Operation Zarb-e-Azb and now Raddul Fasaad, foreign policy, etc. Country's law and order is being looked after by the apex committees, comprising both civil and military officers.

The PM himself is responsible for not giving much importance to the Parliament in contrast to his predecessor, Yusuf Raza Gilani. Whether he was a strong or a week prime minister, but he was more accessible. The main opposition leader, Imran Khan, has also made rare appearance in the house.

Acceptance of the military courts with ifs and buts requires regret and apology from the civilian rulers. Whether it was the previous PPP government or the incumbent PML-N, they failed in making strong civilian institutions and remained busy more in saving their own neck.

In 70 years, former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government (1972-77), practically completed its term and the decision to hold early elections was not forced or under compulsion. Perhaps, he misread the ground situation or was misguided. In between 10 years of Ayub Khan and 11 years of General Zia and three years of General Yahya, we experienced six years of civilian rule.

There may be some questions about Bhutto's style of governance, but the fact remains that there were also many positives of his rule, both internationally and internally. Everyone has a right to form his or her own opinion. This itself is the essence of democracy.

Civilians have often been blamed for their misrule, poor governance and corruption, all may not be untrue either. But if it is also a fact that whatever little accountability, which has taken place in this country, it is that of politicians to an extent that even their governments were dislodged, they were executed, or sent to jails for years. Those, who have never had any right to rule, had never been questioned.

Thus, they often rule with a sense of insecurity to survive. Political parties also did not mature themselves and never allowed democracy to flourish in their own parties. Jamaat-e-Islami may be an exception because of its size. But they too have problems and often the Emir acts like a dictator and could get himself re-elected for an indefinite period.

Unfortunately, we do not have a strong election commission, with a capacity to monitor parties’ elections. Though, it is mandatory for the parties to send their details of election to the ECP, but they seldom do so. There is no counter-check nor do they look into details of parties’ mode of finances.

There is no excuse whatsoever either for bad governance, corruption and misrule. One of the reasons behind the weak civilian rules in Pakistan had been the sense of insecurity among the civilian rulers or politicians’ capacity to defend the parliamentary system.

While everyone anxiously awaits the outcome of the Supreme Court verdict in Panama case, democracy will not derail if the decision comes against PM Sharif. It will also not weaken democracy if it disappoints the opposition leaders particularly Imran Khan.

Days before the independence, founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, laid the foundation of the democratic order in his address to the first Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. Everyone interprets his speech in his own way, but the fact remains that he clearly mentioned how the country should be run, i.e. through democratic order and with one man, one vote. He was the biggest advocate of a civilian rule in the country.

Our debate on his speech mainly revolves around his views as liberal or conservative, but no one is ready to learn from his democratic vision. Parliamentary democracy itself is a liberal concept and that is why many religious groups are against it.

Within a year, after his death we also buried his dream of a democracy system. It started by dissolving the Assembly and later the first constitution of Pakistan, was made after provincial assemblies’ hand-picked National Assembly.

Thus, the democratic train derailed within its first nine years and for this, the then civil and military bureaucracy conspired to keep the Bengali leaders of Pakistan Muslim League (PML) out of the mainstream.

First president and second governor general, the late Iskandar Mirza, fell into his own trap and was soon ousted by General Ayub Khan. Rest is history, but what happened in 1971, was the result of what continued from 1948 to 1956.

Military rules in Pakistan always remained uninterrupted, longer and stronger as compared to civilian rules. Even the civilian rulers, picked by dictators to prolong their own rules looked insecure, what to talk of those elected through generally accepted democratic norms.

Military dictators often rule the country with a policy of 'might is right’, as they always been vindicated by superior judiciary and if some judges tried to resist, they were sent packing.

From the days of the late Field Marshal Ayub Khan to General Pervez Musharraf, this practice has generally been accepted. While dictators criticised politicians, and blamed them for all ills, they picked some politicians to prolong their rule, and to get some legitimacy.

Five civilian governments were sent packing unceremoniously, through martial law or through other undemocratic means. General Ziaul Haq imposed a martial law, by abrogating the Constitution, though the government and opposition had agreed on fresh elections. General Musharraf and his cronies overthrew Nawaz Sharif's government on October 12, 1999 again in violation of the Constitution and ruled the country for nine yrs as compare to Zia's 11 years.

Thus, the weak civilian rule in this country has often been a cover up. While politicians or civilian rulers went through accountability in many ways like hanging of Bhutto, sending Junejo, Benazir and Sharif's governments packing, putting Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and their families in jail, the military dictators hardly been made accountable for their misdeeds.

At times, dictators even put their own constitution in abeyance as did Ayub in 1968. Instead of handing over power to the speaker of his own hand-picked parliament, he added. Similarly, Gen Zia imposed martial law, abrogated the Constitution but, through his hand-picked Majlis-e-Shura, brought major amendments to the same constitution.

In case of Musharraf, even the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah case had so much liking for the general that it had even given the powers to amend the Constitution, which the General had not even asked.

General Yahya Khan, despite holding free and fair elections, had complete authority and powers to call the Assembly despite threat from PPP leader, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, that he would boycott. Instead, the general sent the troops on March 26, in what later turned out to be disaster for Pakistan.

The rule of superior judiciary remains more of an accomplice as successive military rulers, through Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) got whatever they want from their 'favourites.'

Democracy can only get stronger if all institutions become accountable under one law. Political parties bring democracy in their respective parties under the same formula which they demand in the country.   

The writer is the senior columnist and analyst of Geo, The News and Jang. Twitter: @MazharAbbasGEOs