Essay On Democracy In Pakistan 300 Words To Know

Democracy in Pakistan

“Dēmokratia”, now known to the world as “Democracy” is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Democracy is the most essential and fundamental element for managing the affairs of society systematically. In a broader sense democracy encompasses the leading features; fair and free election process, supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, and freedom for the people. In other words democratic state must practice the principles of equal citizenship irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity and regional background. It must also ensure equality of opportunity to all for advancement in social, political and economic domains and guarantee security of life and property to its citizens.
It is fact that democracy is the major constituent for social, political and economic development. It is considered as the backbone of the system, without which an effective running of system is impossible. The crucial importance of democracy can be observed by the experience of East Asian countries. Between 1965 and 1990, several countries of this region registered the highest growth rate and proved it with high living standards. The most important factors behind this economic miracle are good governance.
Democracy today appears to be the most popular choice when it comes to choosing a form of government, it brings with it many complications that would be absent in a dictatorship. Making bold decisions for long term prosposerity, executing controversial decisions and making bitter choices for the common good can be very complicated processes in a democratic form of government.
Democracy is one of the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations. It is based on the freely expressed will of people and closely linked to the rule of law and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Democratic governance feeds into economic and social policies that are responsive to people’s needs and aspirations, that aim at eradicating poverty and expanding the choices that people have in their lives, and that respect the needs of future generations. In essence, therefore, democratic governance is the process of creating and sustaining an environment for inclusive and responsive political processes and settlements.
It is also important to note that the United Nations does not advocate for a specific model of government, but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and human development.
The Quaid believed in democracy, the following are a excerpts from his speeches on democracy:
Democracy is in the blood of Muslamans who look upon complete equality of man. I give you an example. Very often when I go to a mosque, my chauffeur stands side by side with me. Muslamans believe in fraternity, equality and liberty.
Dec 14, 1946, Quaid-e-Azam said at Kingsway Hall, London.
There are no people in the world who are more democratic even in their religion than the Muslamans.
The democratic system derives its strength from people. As former American President, Abraham Lincoln said.
“Democracy is Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Anna Garlin Spencer is of the opinion.

History has always provided evidence for the fact that ideas and values come before actions. Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome, Europe, and North America. The motherland of modern democracy, i.e. England is a manifestation of this principle. In the changing times of 16 and 17th centuries, during the age of discovery and at the dawn of industrial revolution, these were the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jeans Jacques Rousseau which paved the way for democracy. These were their political ideas in the social contract, treatises on government and other such political classics which got acceptance among masses and intellectual elite and became a part of political socialization and ultimately political culture. Coupled with these ideas were the socio-economic changes going on in Europe particularly, England. With the advent of Industrial revolution emerged a new mercantile class which had wealth but not prestige and political power. The ideas of democracy, rule of law and adult franchise went to their favor so armed with the weapon of these ideas, this new class succeeded in building up a new political culture under which a new political order was established.
Political harmony and democratic evolution is facilitated primarily by political parties and leaders. These are important instruments of interest articulation and aggregation and serve as vehicles of political mobilization. In Pakistan, political parties have traditionally been weak and unable to perform their main function in an effective and meaningful manner. The role of the political parties has suffered due to, inter alia, 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 paucity of financial resources. Political parties also suffer from factionalism based on personality, region and ideology. The Muslim League that led the independence movement failed to transform itself from a national movement to a national party. It suffered from organizational incoherence, ideological confusion and a crisis of leadership. The parties that emerged in the post-independence period could not present a better alternative. They suffered from the weaknesses that ailed the Muslim League. Consequently, the political parties could not work for political consensus building and political stability and continuity. Most Pakistani political parties lack resources and trained human-power to undertake dispassionate and scientific study of the socio-political and economic problems. The emphasis is on rhetoric and sloganeering which may be useful for mobilization purposes but it cannot be a substitute to serious, scientific and analytical study of the societal problems. The level of debate in the two houses of the parliament and provincial assemblies is low and these elected bodies often face the shortage of quorum which shows the non-seriousness of the political parties and their members in the elected houses in dealing with the national issues and problems. Quite often the ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not available in the house to respond to the issues raised by the members.
When the leadership of a country has all the power, which originally should have been with the institutions, the civil society is prone to become weak. The Pakistani society could not even properly voice their rights until recently, let alone struggling for democracy due to subjugation. Last but not least, the current stream of extremism and terrorism has brought forth a new ideology. These extremist elements equally manipulate the government and the common people. Their own version of Islam has become a means of playing with the sentiments of the already deprived masses. Hence, the bearers of this new ideology of governance consider democracy non Islamic and thus completely useless for an Islamic State. The prevailing conditions of the country and the demand for implementation of Sharia (their own version), is a testimony to this ideological belief. For these elements, the concept of democracy is western thus against Islam.
Moreover, this new ideological approach is also the most immediate threat to democracy in Pakistan today. In the war against terrorism, the realization of the fact that it is also a ‘ a ‘war of two ideologies’ but not necessarily a clash of civilizations is essential for preventing the country from another dead end.
Islam as we know is a complete code of life. But in the political sphere the decision for choosing the form of government has been left for the people, provided that the described requirements for vicegerency are met and the fact that sovereignty lies with Allah alone. As our constitution clearly states Pakistan as an Islamic Republic, there should be no misunderstanding about the governmental form.
Islam speaks of sovereignty of Allah, while western democracy advocates that sovereignty belongs to people. This means that democracy has been accepted within the limits of Islam so that in the name of democracy Islamic principles cannot be violated. Islamic Scholars and Islamic Politicians have come to accept the word democracy and what it means within these limits. The fear of some people here that democracy makes the people a source of power and even legislation although in Islam, besides Allah, no one has the right to make laws. Allah is our Creator, our Lord and he knows well that what is good and what is bad for us and Mohammad as its Prophet and Islam as its Religion. Such a people would not be expected to pass a legislation that contradicts Islam and its incontestable principles (Sharia) and conclusive rules.
Hence, in essence and soul democracy is not un-Islamic. There is compatibility between Islamic concept of government and democracy but it requires a well executed procedure of its incorporation in the constitution or making Pakistan a true Islamic democracy.
The people generally have also an important role to play in democracy—that of intelligent critics and no democratic govern¬ment worth the name can afford to ignore or bypass public criticism. If it were to commit, his folly, it would soon become unpopular loss it hold on the people and hence its majority in the legislature. Thus the public shares the role of the opposition whenever occasion demands it.
Public opinion may be passive and false or active and real. It is claimed in theory that all governments are ultimately based on the opinion or sanction of the governed. But we find that in practice the people's rights are often trodden down and tyranny and oppression are allowed to continue. The government does it not because the people want it to do so but because they are too idle, too uneducated and too disunited or timid to oppose the govern¬ment. Such public opinion is passive and false and not an active verdict. But when we find people alert, intelligent and determined to let the government know their will, when they want to exercise actively their voice in the management of their country, we have an instance of true or active public opinion.
True public opinion is formed by and expressed through the press, the platform, political parties and educational institutions. These have sacred duties to perform, duties on which depends the ultimate good of the entire community. The press today wields a tremendous influence, so it should support the causes and move¬ments and condemn the wrong ones and thus teach people to form correct opinion. A free and fair press ventilates the grievances of the public. Thus a healthy relationship develops between the people and the government throughout an unbiased press. Political parties also help to create and regulate opinions. No less important part is played by the educational Institutions which train the minds of the young people who will be the citizens of tomorrow. It has been said that modern Germany and China have been made by their universities.
It is necessary that the young and the growing minds should imbibe the spirit of fellow-feeling, the spirit of tolerance, the habit of compromise, and show due regard for the feelings and opinion of others without which a democratic society cannot function, let alone succeed. When there is true awakening of the people, we shall have the real and conscious public opinion. And justice will reign on earth and truly will the voice of the people be the voice of God.
Democracy is not only a form of government it is a philosophy which encompasses all aspects of rights and freedom. If we are to survive as a nation, we must allow it to grow or it will be hard to escape another catastrophe either internal or external.
In Pakistan, the need for establishing a true democracy is as old as the country itself. Democracy is one of the most fabulous principles of the modern political system. It is the culmination of freedom and progress in advanced countries. In Pakistan, however, the already difficult situation has been aggravated by constant failures which never let democracy survive. The legacies of colonialism and autocratic mindset of the leadership erected invisible barriers for the democratic process. The positive change is still slow, but a bleak past or murky present in no way means a foredoomed future as well. However, colossal efforts at every level are required for democracy to take root and relieve us of our ever increasing catastrophes.
Pakistan, like India, adopted the Government of India Act, 1935 as the Interim Constitution, 1947 to meet the immediate requirements of an independent state. It provided parliamentary form of government, although the Governor General enjoyed special powers and the federal government exercised some overriding powers over provinces. Pakistan's early rulers did not pay special attention to democratization other political system because their major concern was how to ensure the survival of the state in view of internal and external challenges. The fear of the collapse of the state encouraged authoritarian style of governance.
Pakistan had faced serious administrative and management problems during the partition process. These problems were the division of civil and military assets of the British government between India and Pakistan, communal riots, the migration of people to and from Pakistan, and the troubled relations with India, including the first war on Kashmir, 1947-1948. In this critical situation when Pakistan was facing initial administrative and humanitarian difficulties, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the father of the nation, died on September 11, 1948, thirteen months after the establishment of Pakistan. The separation of Quaid within a short span of time undermined the already weak political institutions and fragmented the political setup. Most of the post-Jinnah political leaders had no nationwide fame and appeal to reorganize the massive crowd again as a result regional politics within the state flourished. This critical situation, made it difficult for the political parties and leaders to pursue a coherent approach and gather under one leadership. They were unable to develop consensus on single point.
Exploring the last 63 years of Pakistan, democracy is taken as a comic relief between military regimes. Assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first elected Prime Minister, was in fact the demise of democracy in Pakistan. Since then, the balance of power tilted in the favor of the military. Though Liaquat Ali Khan laid the foundation of the constitution by introducing objective resolution but several years later constitution of Pakistan was introduced (March 23, 1956) which even could not get popular support of all major parties, leaders and regions. By the time the constitution was introduced a strong tradition of violation started, the political parties were divided and the assembly was unable to assert its primacy. In this situation power was shifted to the Governor General/President Iskander Mirza, who had military background. Iskander Mirza took support of top bureaucracy and the military. This contributed to the rise of the bureaucratic-military elites in Pakistani politics which further suppressed future of democracy.
Democracy was not evolved out of the Pakistani culture; rather it was imposed by our colonial masters so there was a lack of democratic culture and its associated values. Pakistani society consisted of tribal or feudal landscape. Pakistan even when created had a fair share of the feudal ruling class in the Muslim League who represented a culture of suppression and personal gains. These landlords and feudal cum politicians hijacked the political system. Tribalism or feudalism, as a political system, has certain values associated with it which include authoritarianism instead of mass level participation, kinship instead of merit, patronage instead of rule of law due to which our military and political elite could not embrace the idea of democracy wholeheartedly and that is why, there was no strong resistance whenever the military toppled the elected government. The first Martial Law was imposed by Ayub Khan in 1958 and lasted till 1969. He abrogated the constitution of 1956. He also introduced presidential system with indirect elections. In April 1969, General Yahya imposed second Martial Law and lasted till 1971. He had abrogated the constitution of 1962, banned all political activities and dissolved National and Provincial assemblies. Again Martial Law intervened in 1977 and the popular leader elected by the common people through dubious elections was hanged. Zia's Martial regime was supposed to be the shortest one but it turned out to be the longest in the history of Pakistan. Zia did not abrogate the constitution of 1973 but suspended. He also passed his famous 8th amendment to restrict the power of head of government through article 58 2(b) and provided significant powers to the president who could dissolve National Assembly whenever he think that need has arisen. In 1999, again military intervened in political setup led by General Musharraf. The Army was yet again in power promising of smooth transfer of power to grass root level within three years.
Consequently, the list of gross failures kept mounting and even after realizing the underlying causes, they weren’t addressed. Of the major causes of failure of democracy in Pakistan, the substantial ones are related to those in authority i.e., the leadership, army and bureaucracy.
Firstly, the failure to sustain democracy is the over developed state structure. The monopolization and centralization of power, decision making structure, hegemonic ideals vis-à-vis civil society and also a need to control them terribly weakened the de facto government institutions and in turn the social and economic structure as well. Secondly, a clash between main organs of government such as judiciary and executive lead never gave democracy a fair chance. Personalization of rule has been in vogue. This trend by the executive to influence all and sundry made. Pakistan an international study case of a failing democratic state
In addition to this the military rulers strengthened the bureaucracy for their own rule. Securing a permanent role in the establishment, the bureaucrats preferred to compromise with the feudal system as well. The circulation of power in a handful of families made the structure hollow.
Similarly, as cited earlier the authority at local level accumulated in the hands of feudal cum politicians who had the public vote bank with them. The military rulers were thought to curb them in the beginning but instead of nipping them in the bud they also compromised with them to prolong their rule. In such circumstances, even universal suffrage could not be effective and non-political powers began to play a greater role.
Likewise, the weak institution of political system, from the parliament- which became a proxy of dictators- to the regional political parties which had hereditary and non democratic leaders is another cause. These political representatives had no idea of political socialization and no organized quarters of leadership, who could establish a democratic culture.
Sadly, the political psyche of the people is also very negative due to low level of political awareness and socialization. And this trend allowed the hegemonic forces to keep media, educational institutions, peers and public forums from incorporating a political consciousness into the people. The masses were even not able to resist the Martial Laws, and the civil society always succumbed to the military rule.
Another important cause has always been the constitutional crisis and absence of rule of law apparatus. There has always been a great demand for incorporating Islamic principles in the constitution or implementing them (as implied by the ’73 const.) as Pakistan is an Islamic state. Also the several amendments in the constitution concentrated power in the President, which was against the democratic soul. There is still the need for intact constitution.
Next, the all powerful bureaucracy and feudal politicians should be stripped of their unwarranted authority. It has been a slow evil which has weakened the country like nothing else. They are elected for serving people not controlling them. The criteria of merit; the right of freedom and equal progress for common people has become a joke due to such an autocratic setup.
The political system which we have in Pakistan is rather something else in the garb of democracy. Where one needs at least ten to twenty million rupees to contest a National Assembly election and around half of that for a seat of provincial assembly; where the legislature has become a club of the elite is rather actually plutocracy, i.e. a government of a rich few. Middle class, having understood that the doors of the political system are closed for them, get disenchanted and ultimately get alienated from the system; and here lies a basic reason for the lack of development of democratic values and culture in Pakistan.
It is fact that democratic governments in Pakistan have been witnessed of corruption, mal-administration, and nepotism. The people reluctantly visit public institutions because they know that without any favor or bribe it is very difficult to get any work done from the public officers. Moreover, due to malpractices of the public official and misappropriation of public fund the infrastructure of public institutions has been cracked and a situation like chaos is prevailing all over the country.
In 1990 the government of PPP was dissolved due to corruption charges set against Benazir Bhutto by the President of that time. The next government of Nawaz sharif was also dismissed in 1993 by 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.
Democracy and participatory governance are popular political notions in today’s world. Fair and free elections are the key pre-requisite of democracy. However, democracy lacks substance unless the electoral process is coupled with the supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, and civil and political rights and freedoms for the people. The state must practice the principle of equal citizenship irrespective of religion, caste, ethnicity and regional background. It must also ensure equality of opportunity to all for advancement in social, economic and political domains and guarantee security of life and property of its citizens.
The failure to institutionalize participatory governance has caused much alienation at the popular level. A good number of people feel that they are irrelevant to power management at the federal and provincial levels. The rulers are so engrossed in their power game that they are not bothered about the interest and welfare of the common people. Such a perception of low political efficacy is reflected in the declining voting percentage in the general elections. A good number of voters maintain that their vote does not matter much in the selection of the rulers. Invariably they express negative views about the rulers as well as those opposing them. Despite all this, the people have not given up on democracy. While talking about their ‘helplessness’ with reference to changing the rulers, they continue to subscribe to the norms of democracy and participatory governance and emphasize the accountability of the rulers. They are therefore vulnerable to mobilization for realization of these norms and values. The political system of Pakistan is characterized by intermittent breakdown of constitution and political order, weak and non-viable political institutions and processes, rapid expansion of the role of the military bureaucratic elite, military rule and military dominated civilian governments, and narrow-based power management.
Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity—Irving Kristol
Our constitution does not provide an effective system of check and balance. That is why every elected civilian government becomes omnipotent and powerful which give rise to corruption and mal-administration. There is no effective system of governance which can keep proper check on the decisions and the steps taken by PM and his cabinet. Judiciary must be made strong enough to keep a strong check over these important matters.
In Pakistan, the rulers, political parties and leaders and the civil society groups support democracy at the normative or conceptual level. The politically active circles demand representative governance and participatory decision making in the political and economic fields. They highlight fair and free electoral process, the rule of law, socio-economic justice and accountability of those exercising state power as the pre-requisites for a political system.
The road to democracy may be winding and is like the river taking many curves but eventually the river will reach the ocean—Chen Shui-Bian(10th and 11th-term President of the Republic of China)

The historical facts and arguments validate the notion that democracy is a culture rather than a process. The democratic values and socialization have to gain acceptance in a society if democracy is to flourish as a political system. However, this does not mean that democracy cannot be established in the long run, in a state where there is absence of democratic culture. Culture itself is an organic thing and changes with the course of history. If the intellectual elite of a country succeed in propounding those ideas to the extent that these values are embraced by the people of that land at a mass level, and the socio-economic conditions, to some extent, are conducive for them then the democratic system can genuinely flourish in that society and country.
There is a need to reform the judiciary, in the presence of an independent judicial system, the discrepancies are kept in check thus it ensures enduring democracy through fair and free elections, without fair and free elections the actual shape of democracy can’t be prevail. It is the responsibility of the state to hold elections in such a way that everyone be able to contest elections regardless of his financial status. The state must try to build up a culture of meritocracy instead of monetocracy (money as the basis for progress) which is the prevailing norm of the political culture of the underdeveloped world.
In order to develop an effective system of governance participation of women should be encouraged as according to latest count, women ratio is .48:52 respectively.
Media should also play a positive role in creating awareness among people regarding their problems and their solutions. In this way people will be able to demand their rights and will perform their duties and responsibilities in a more organized way.
Democracy in Pakistan faced a host of difficulties which did not let the democratic principles, institutions and processes develop firm roots in the polity. In Pakistan, periodic breakdown of the political order and repeated military take- over or attempts by the top brass to shape the political process to their political preferences did not ensure political continuity and the competing interest did not get equal opportunity to freely enter the political mainstream. . Democracy and the autonomy of civilian institutions and processes has been the major casualty of the expanded role of the military. Whenever Pakistan returned to civilian and constitutional rule, the quality of democracy remained poor. It is a case of democracy deficit. The long term endurance of the political institutions and the prospects of democracy faces four major challenges in Pakistan: the non-expansion of participatory opportunities for those viewed as adversaries by the military dominated regime, the poor performance of the elected assemblies, failure to build consensus on the operational norms of the political system, and a drift towards confrontation, religious and cultural intolerance and extremism.
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 ideological commitment to these principles persists which will continue to question the legitimacy of no participatory and authoritarian governance and political management

Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah told his fellow members of the Muslim League on 9th June 1947 I do not know what the ultimate shape of the constitution is going to be, but I am sure it will be a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam he added democracy is in our blood, it is in our marrow. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold Islam and its ideals have taught us democracy it has taught us equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody.

It can be safely assumed that on that day in the founding year of Pakistan the two philosophies outlined by the founder as the basis of any future government in Pakistan were Islam and democracy. Both have in a sense floundered at the hands of their keepers. Islam exploited shamelessly by those that pretend to be its defenders has divided instead of uniting the nation and democracy has been reduced to a sham by those that never tire to proclaim themselves as its champions.

For the future of democracy in Pakistan there must be solid foundations laid in the past. This has not happened and the fault is not entirely with the politicians. Yes we know the musical chairs that preceded the first military take over by Ayub Khan but that cannot really be any justification for extra constitutional methods. We forget that the workable democracies of the world including that of the United States and Great Britain did not evolve in a period of two and a half years ( The standard limit in Pakistan). It took a civil war and more than two hundred years for the United States itself to get on track and have the present system which still leaves much to be desired. In neighbouring India we were not too long ago witnessing musical chairs in the parliament where no party was able to hold its majority. With extra constitutional interference they too would have been in a crisis but democracy allowed to run its course paid dividends and now they have a stable government that inspite of its short comings and an ailing Prime Minister has made significant strides on the national and international front.

Democracy in Pakistan has suffered because the nanny was too protective of the baby. The establishment was so keen on having a faultless democracy that it killed the entire process. Leaders independent of the establishment were seen as threats to national security and there has always been that all engulfing desire to produce Test Tube Politicians. We have lived through more than ten years under the rule of such leaders. Each term limited meticulously to two and a half years by the establishment. It can be said with certainty that these years of the Test Tube Politicians have ravaged Pakistan and jolted its very foundations. All those who designed and carried out this exercise must together with the politicians shoulder the blame for the present mess in which we find ourselves.

So what about the future? I find little hope for democracy in the future. We just do not have a democratic culture in the country. Political parties are nor really political parties because their leaders prefer to draw their strength from the establishment instead of the masses. Yes there is a lot of song and dance during the election. A pretence of an election campaign seems mandatory and helpful for the establishment to swing votes either way. The little grass roots politics that we have during elections disappears once the government is established. All contact with the masses is lost and the party becomes a burden rather than the instrument of governance that it should be. Party and government offices mingle which abolishes whatever accountability could have been achieved. Both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif clung to their party posts inspite of declarations to the contrary. While the country paid the price they too paid a heavy price for their lust of absolute power.

The only glimmer of grass roots democracy that I can recall was in the seventies. Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto was arrogant and could not tolerate opposition but it was only during his rule that parliaments were strong and members contributing significantly to the welfare of people. Accountability through parliaments was also quite visible at that time. In Sindh for example a very small opposition practically terrorised the ruling party with their alertness in matters of public interest and a command over the rules of procedure. Political meetings in those days started usually after Isha prayers and lasted till well past midnight. National leaders of parties always took the rostrum last and people waited patiently for their leaders. In most political party offices they had registers where appointments for well known leaders visits to different localities were made. In any given week a national leader was addressing close to a dozen meetings in different parts of the country.

All this changed. Nawaz Sharif had no stomach for long lasting public meetings. At meetings held in Nishtar Park he would arrive straight from the airport and the speaker than in control of the mike would be asked to step aside. Nawaz Sharif would speak for about forty minutes and than go straight to his pajero parked behind the stage. The whole show would not last for more than an hour. How could he know what his own party was saying or which of the speakers had the talents to attract votes in the next elections. I don’t think he or Mohtrama Benazir were bothered with that. In all probability they received lists approved by the establishment and were happy to just stamp their approval . Another vital ingredient for democracy is presence of organised groups. In the seventies we had several that upheld the cause of democracy and increased accountability of political parties. Strong groups in those times were labour, students, teachers, journalists and lawyers. While there was a political and ideological divide they always came together in matters of national interest. Politicians too had a sense of responsibility towards their electorate. Who can forget that (Late) Syed Saeed Hassan broke party ranks at a huge personal cost to voice protest against the language bill in Sindh assembly. Another MPA of the time Bostan Ali Hoti did not vote on linguistic grounds on the same bill and showed extra ordinary courage. This is what keeps democracy alive and gives hope for its future.

During the rule of Zia Ul Haq all the basic ingredients of democracy were wiped out. Inroads were made into organisations that in the past were bastions of democracy and with prompted leadership they were reduced to lethargic entities that only spoke to please their masters. Intellectual corruption was actively promoted and encouraged. What we see today are the final products of that Assembly line installed by the late General. Political leaders without conscious and a trade leadership which follows in their footsteps. He had eleven years of peace thanks to these tactics but this tolled the death knoll for the future of democracy in Pakistan.

Another element that has destroyed any hope for future of democracy in Pakistan is the injection of violence in politics. With guns blazing and tolerance at zero level there is no room for democratic difference of opinion. It is not uncommon in democracy for senior leaders to have differing opinion on political issues. We have now come to a stage where such difference of opinion usually earns you a place in a guinea bag. In these circumstances what hope for democracy?

Always an optimist I still se a glimmer of hope if steps are taken to really restore democracy and not inflict more home made recipes on this country. A good starting point of reforms for the present government would be to give a dead line to all parties to hold party elections within a specified period. Supervised by neutral observers this could be a breath of fresh air for democracy in Pakistan. Well organised parties with duly elected party officials would lay the foundations of true democracy. A nation suffering from the negligence of its recent rulers will certainly welcome such a move. True mobilisation of people and building of institutions razed to the ground by successive governments can be another step towards restoring democracy in the country. The Judiciary which is the corner stone of any democracy needs to be truly independent and if the rulers are sincere they would free the judiciary of all seen and unseen restrictions. Revival of true trade unions in all fields of life is another step that can ensure the future of democracy and give voice to the true feelings of the people.

For all those with different recipes of democracy and their supporters I can only say that democracy is a product of the wishes of the people and not the of the desires of an elite few. It evolves by itself and true democracy like a truly beautiful tree takes many decades to grow and spread out its branches to provide shade to the people. There are no short cuts no matter how pressing the need. Patience is another name for democracy. If only the establishment could have demonstrated this quality we would not be the outcast in a democratic world at the turn of the century.

Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Essay On Democracy In Pakistan 300 Words To Know”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *