The brief was prepared for GeoPolitica – a Romanian journal of political geography, geo-politics and geo-strategy

- for its special issue on Pakistan titled Pakistan: A Rising Global Player in the Emerging Geo-Strategic
Environment.

I am sure, democracy is in our blood. Indeed, it is in the marrow of our bones. Only centuries of
adverse circumstances have made the circulation of this blood cold. It has become frozen, and
our arteries have not been functioning. But thank God, the blood is circulating again.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Presidential address at the session of the All India Muslim League on April 24, 19431

Democracy is among the phenomena that are better
understood than defined. From Aristotle’s detested
perception of democracy as mob rule to the time when
Fukuyama considered it as the climax of mankind2 to
the present time when exclusionist pluralism has
caused serious blows to an inclusive and equal world,
democracy has remained a process and an ideal. With
its varying interpretations, democracy is generally
seen as a set of institutional arrangements but its
essence lies in the shared values of collective concern
and participation in public life and affairs of the state.
In fact, definitions and interpretations of democracy
can be boiled down to being the ‘institutionalisation of
the collective conscience of a people’.
If taken as a definition, it essentially means that
democracy would have an inherent variation in
different cultures and times. It also means that the
character of democracy in a particular society is
shaped by the preferences and practices of its
members. It further means that mere constitutional and
subordinate laws are not sufficient to guarantee that the
will and consent of people will actually prevail, rather
the people have to remain informed, involved and
engaged to ensure their true representation.3 With the
changing dynamics of society, concepts like liberty,
inclusiveness, sovereignty and representation keep
changing. This explains why democracy remains an
ideal even where achieved to a certain degree. No
society can therefore claim having achieved
democracy to its fullest and no society has the reason
to abandon the pursuit for the ideal in democracy.
The formative years
The birth of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in August
1947 was a political miracle in many respects. It is the
only country in the world the struggle for which was
aimed at institutionalising an ideology and that was
achieved solely through non-violent political process.4
The President of All India Muslim League (AIML),
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, led the political campaign for
Pakistan and achieved it without any violence, chaos
or disruption. Jinnah, whom Pakistan likes to call

1 Yusufi, Khurshid Ahmad Khan. "Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-i-Azam." Lahore: Bazm-i-Iqbal 2 (1996): 70.
2 Francis, Fukuyama. "The end of history and the last man." Op. cit (1992): 49-50.
3 Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty Speech, http://www.learnedhand.org/?p=4
4 Jabbar, Javed, Pakistan: Unique Origins, Unique Destiny? Islamabad: National Book Foundation, 2012, p. 73

[1]
Quaid-e-Azam (great leader), was a democrat and
champion of civic rights.5
Despite the democratic spirit that the Muslims of the
Subcontinent had demonstrated during their struggle
for freedom, the country’s formative years defined the
future trajectory of statehood in a different fashion.
These formative years formally started in March 1940
when a public convention of the AIML passed a
resolution (Lahore Declaration) for a separate
homeland for Muslims. This resolution was a turning
point that came only months after the 1939 elections
for the federal and provincial legislative assemblies in
which Muslim League suffered a humiliating defeat at
the hands of the Indian National Congress, led by
Nehru. In fact, Muslim League had only completed
formation of its organisation in all provinces by 1938,
and that too with varying strengths.6
Immediately after passage of the Lahore Declaration,7
the slogan for Pakistan became so popular that through
the wave of this public sentiment Muslim League
emerged as the key representative political party of
Muslims throughout the Subcontinent. The masses
rallied behind the party for a cause but this does not
mean that they were organised on political lines as well
and Muslim League remained a uniting platform,
rather than an organisation. Further to damage the
objectives of the League, several prominent Muslims
who had stayed away till now, joined it to surf the tide.
AIML succeeded on most Muslim majority seats in the
1946 elections. It was hardly the AIML shaping the
movement, rather it was the movement that shaped the
Muslim League. The 1946 electoral results carried an
unmistakable message for the ruling British, Hindu-
majority Indian National Congress and the masses of
all religions and castes; and the message for a separate
homeland was well communicated.
The transition phase
On June 3, 1947, the British Government proclaimed
establishment of two dominions on religious grounds
in August. Chaos and arbitrariness are obvious when
there were merely 10 weeks available to carve Pakistan
out of the Subcontinent and put the partition and
independence in place.8 Pakistan’s territory was not
even fully demarcated at the time of its birth. Pakistan
was almost an ‘overnight’ state and an ‘overnight’
nation.9 The confirmation that the Subcontinent was to
be divided had been a shock to Hindu nationalists
whose religious ethos would consider the land of India
as sacred and indivisible.10 Though riots had already
taken place in Bengal and Bihar in 1946, widespread
riots broke out through most parts of the Subcontinent
after declaration of Indian Independence Act. In these
conditions, Muslims who opted to migrate to Pakistan
as well as those who preferred to stay in their ancestral
lands were targeted. One of the largest human
migrations took place during the second and third
quarters of 1947 and Pakistan received around 10
million muhajireen11 who were wounded, sick, looted
and broken.12
The areas that became part of Pakistan had very poor
infrastructure and hardly any industry.13
The partition plan included a formula for division of
assets but Pakistan hardly got anything from India that

5 In his broadcast talk on Pakistan to the people of the USA in February 1948, Quaid-e-Azam had said, “The Constitution of Pakistan has
yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure
that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were
1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism has taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men, justice and fair play to everybody. We are
the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of
Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state, to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-
Muslims – Hindus, Christians and Parsis – but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens
and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.” Yusufi, Khurshid Ahmad Khan, Speeches, Statements & Messages of the Quaid-
e-Azam, Vol. IV, Lahore: Bazm-i-Iqbal, 1996 P. 2694
6 Khaliquzzaman, Choudhry, Pathway to Pakistan, Lahore: Longmans, (1961), p. 190
7 This resolution was ironically named Pakistan Resolution by Hindu press, but the same name became popular and is still referred to as

such.
8 Talbot, Ian, and Gurharpal Singh. Partition and region: Bengal, Punjab and the Partition of the Subcontinent. Oxford University Press,

1999.
9 Jabbar, p. 73
10 This is despite the fact that Indian Subcontinent has never been a single empire prior to becoming a colony of the British.
11 Muhajir (pl. muhajireen) is generally translated in English as refugee. This Arabic term, however, refers to a Muslim who permanently

abandons a place and migrates to another in search of a better environment for his/her faith. Abou-El-Wafa, Ahmed, Professor, The Right
to Asylum between Islamic Shari’ah and International Refugee Law: A Comparative Study, Riyadh: UNHCR, 2009
12 Jabbar, p. 79
13 Aziz, Sartaj, Between Dreams and Realities, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 347

[2]
was actually useful.14 The Muslim League was
undergoing a major crisis and transition from being an
anticolonial movement to adapting itself to the
different function of governing a country.15
Meanwhile, the death of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad
Ali Jinnah merely 13 months after creation of Pakistan
in September 1948 proved a serious blow to the nation.
The economic condition as well as future prospects
were fragile and deliberate attempts to cripple the
economy could be sensed.16 The country’s military
was in a bad shape while battle had broken out on the
Jammu and Kashmir front. Besides, the country’s two
wings were separated by around 1,000 miles.17
In the midst of its unique challenges characterised by
riots, large-scale migration, economic disparity,
nation-building and security threats, the country
started off by laying the foundation on the principles
of “democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social
justice, as enunciated by Islam” through the Objectives
Resolution of 1949. This resolution is of primary
significance in any debate that aims to understand the
nature of the State of Pakistan. It is in fact the
articulation of the ideals of the founding fathers,
articulation of the public conscience and the essence of
the freedom movement. In political sense, it spelled
out the objectives on the basis of which the
constitution was to be framed. The document is
remarkable also in the sense that it defines democracy
in indigenous context and aims at developing a hybrid
model in which Islamic ideals meet the modern
concept of a nation state. Above everything else, this
was a manifestation that the political leadership had
the vision and capability to read public sentiments and
to translate them into policy documents.
This should have been a take-off point; Pakistan’s
constitution should have been made on the basis of this
much-celebrated resolution, and democracy should
have prevailed ever since. The reality has, however,
been much different.
From 1951 to 1958, Pakistan had seven prime
ministers and the political scene remained like a game
of musical chairs. Then the military took over and the
country was under military rule from 1958 to 1971.
Following two years of civilian martial law a
parliamentary system under a political setting was put
in place in 1973. The military took over again in 1977
and General Zia-ul-Haq remained at the helm of affairs
till his death in 1988. Parliamentary democracy was
revived in 1988, and during the next 11 years Pakistan
had four governments (apart from caretaker
governments). In 1999, the country witnessed another
military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. He left
office of the president in 2008. Since then there have
been two governments, from 2008 to 2013 and 2013 to
2018, each of which completed its five-year term.18
Thus, during 72 years of its existence, the country
experienced 33 years of military rule. Only three
governments could complete their full terms
(including one under a military ruler from 2003 to
2008), and no prime minister could serve a full term in
office. The country had its first constitution after nine
years of its creation, which lasted only a couple of
years (1956-1958). The second constitution was given

14 A glimpse of this has been recorded by Brian Cloughley in these words, “170,000 tons of equipment and stores for Pakistan were
intended to be dispatched in 300 trainloads from India; only three railway wagons arrived, and these contained either obsolete items or
rubbish.” Cloughley, Brian, A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 4
15 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies, Virginia: Yale University Press, 1968, p. 17
16 On December 30, 1947, Prime Minister of Pakistan had written to the Indian Prime Minister, “The systematic sabotage against the

implementation of partition, the stoppage of such essential requirements as coal and rail transport, the deliberate with-holding of Pakistan’s
share of funds and arms and equipment, the wholesale massacre of Muslim population, are all designed towards one aim, namely, the
destruction of Pakistan” … “India’s forcible occupation of Junagadh, Manavadar and other states of Kathiawar, which had acceded to
Pakistan as well as the fraudulent procurement of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir State are acts of hostility against Pakistan whose
destruction is India’s immediate objective” Rizvi, Hasan Askari, The Military and Politics in Pakistan 1947-86, Lahore: Progressive
Publishers, 1986, p. 38; Also see: Jabbar, Javed, Pakistan – Unique Origins; Unique Destiny, Islamabad: National Book Foundation, 2012,
p. 77, 78; and Ali, Chaudhary Muhammad, The Emergence of Pakistan, Lahore: Research Society of Pakistan, 1975, 175
17 Eastern wing of Pakistan, commonly referred to as East Pakistan, was later severed from Pakistan and was established as Bangladesh in

1971.
18 The reader should be cautious from drawing a comparison between Pakistan and India merely on the basis of shared history and dates

of independence. Pakistan not only lacked formal continuity in terms of political centre, it also had to evolve a new federal structure, craft
a new constitution, make institutions for providing financial sovereignty, adjust anew in international arena, adjust the demographic
imbalance caused by largescale migration, and all that when the country lost its consensus leadership within months after its creation. India
had the utility of Nehru’s leadership who had not only led the independence movement but also had the opportunity to serve as its prime
minister for 17 years after independence. The Indian National Congress had been spearheading the freedom movement for a much longer
period than the All India Muslim League and had a strong reservoir of leadership, as opposed to AIML that took off only after 1940. See
Husain, Ishrat, Governing the Ungovernable: Institutional Reforms for Democratic Governance, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2018,
p. 57

[3]
by General Ayub Khan and remained in force up till
he held office. The third and currently in force
constitution was formulated by the Parliament in 1973.
This constitution is a key milestone in Pakistan’s
history. It is another manifestation of the vision and
wisdom of the political leadership for stewarding the
nation to its objectives by putting aside their internal
differences. The two military rules (from 1977 to 1988
and from 1999 to 2008) did some tinkering with the
constitution but could not abrogate it. The Eighteenth
Constitutional Amendment Act of 2010 has sought to
do away with most such deviations.19
The three legacies of the colonial period and
national politics
Looking at this game of political see-saw one wonders
how the national leadership of a country that had very
clear ideals before it could be so reckless with its
destiny. The answer again lies in the origins.
The colonial rule that lasted for almost a century
thrived on the basis of three groups of the locals.20
The first such group is civil bureaucracy that was on
one hand given a sense of superiority over the masses
and kept at physical and intellectual distance from
them in all respects, and on the other hand was trained
to essentially serve their bosses.21 Though the
bureaucracy of every level played an important role in
a state of administrative chaos after the creation of
Pakistan, but simultaneously found a vacuum of
leadership and stepped forward when the country’s
third governor general came from its ranks. The third
governor general removed the leader of Muslim
League Khwaja Nazimuddin from premiership and
appointed Pakistan’s envoy to the US (another
member of civil bureaucracy) as prime minister.
Eyebrows were naturally raised and the suspicions of
foreign intervention in the country’s politics were
rightfully suspected.
The second group was of the feudal lords who were
raised by granting huge lands, statuses and titles by the
19 Nuri, Maqsudul Hasan, Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Nawaz Khan (eds.), Eighteenth Amendment Revisited, Islamabad: Islamabad
Policy Research Institute, 2012, p. ii
20 Waseem, Muhammad, Politics and the State in Pakistan, Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1994, pp.
21-59
21 Waseem, pp. 135-141
22 Jaffrelot, Christophe, Pakistan at the Crossroads: Domestic Dynamics and External Pressures, Haryana: Penguin Books, 2017, p. 12
23 Jaffrelot p. 29
24 Finer, S.E., The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics, London: Pall Mall Press Ltd. 1962, p.6
25 Pakistan Army, Kashmir War
https://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPReview/TextContent9900.html?pId=195&rnd=444
26 Waseem, p. 141
[4]
British and were used as their pawns to control the
locals and for the benefit of the rulers. As such, these
landlords not only held huge resources but also
significant authority over their lands. Most of them had
got this prominence for having betrayed their fellow
countrymen and having served the objectives of the
colonial rulers. When the tide turned in favour of
Pakistan, they were quick to shift their allegiances and
were able to hold the same prominence in the new
setting where a leadership gap was obvious. With the
sole intent of clinching more power, the feudal lords
served as the political leadership of the new country
and were a major reason for political instability and
intrigue during the initial years. They would easily
bargain their positions and would covertly revolt
against a sitting prime minister in favour of an aspiring
one.
In fact, they had raised a political class and set a
political tradition that was deeply entrenched in
feudalism. During later years, when feudalism lost its
shape and power to some extent, the feudal mind-set
survived and impacted national politics to a great
deal.22
The third group was the military. It was undergoing a
transition from a former colonial army into a national
army.23 Like every other army, it had all three political
advantages that Finer had counted: “a marked
superiority of organization, a highly emotionalized
symbolic status, and a monopoly of arms”24. Though
the military was in a bad shape itself but it was trained,
disciplined and highly motivated to guard the country
and the people against all odds. During very initial
days the military received widespread respect due to
its services to the immigrants and affectees of floods,
as well as fighting a war with its meagre resources on
the Kashmir front25 immediately after independence.26
1947-49, Pakistan Army Web Portal,
These were the times when there was unrest in East
Pakistan on linguistic27 and in Punjab on religious
grounds.28 On the foreign front, Pakistan was looking
for allies in an environment when India had brought its
military to the borders, had forcibly annexed the states
of Junagadh, Manavadar and Hyderabad29 and had
fought a war on Kashmir with Pakistan.30 On the
Western side, Afghanistan was contemplating
establishment of Pakhtoonistan (land of the
Pakhtoons) by annexing areas of the North Western
Frontier Province. The military was therefore formally
given a role in the affairs of the state with full
consensus and support by the political leaders.31 Major
General Iskandar Mirza was appointed as defence
secretary in 1947 and as interior minister in 1955. He
then took over the reins of the country as governor
general. He was the first to bring martial law to the
land in 1958 through his appointed Commander-in-
Chief General Muhammad Ayub Khan. Ayub
dismissed Mirza within a few days and took full charge
of the country.
With these beginnings, the three groups remained
significantly relevant in national politics and the
democratic journey in varying degrees. The civilian
bureaucracy soon confined itself to its business and
kept itself engaged in administering the affairs of the
state as per their roles. The military had its phases.
There were times when it took charge of things while
at other times it preferred politicians to manage the
affairs of the country.32 In political camps too, regard
for democratic principles gradually increased and
politicians without a feudal background played their
role in promoting mature political culture.
To sum up, the roots of instability in Pakistan lie in
loss of consensus leadership during its early years,
feudalistic political culture and the military’s inherent
conviction that based on its organisational discipline it
is better suited to steer the country to progress.33 With
these domestic problems, international power politics,
hostility with India and continuous regional instability
have provided an enabling environment against
democratic development.
Spirit of democracy
One would wonder how the people had responded to
these episodes of political see-saw and whether they
had been silent spectators to the happenings in the
country. The rough road treaded by democracy in
Pakistan might convince someone to conclude that
democracy has failed in or is not meant for Pakistan.
In fact, the answer to such suspicions has always been
given by the people themselves as they are the biggest
stakeholders and the most fervent supporters of
democracy in Pakistan. The spirit of Pakistan
Movement and the ideal of Quaid-e-Azam are so
strongly embedded that they have their appeal and
inspiration even after seven decades. Apart from what
has been summarised above, these people have gone
through the hardest times. They have seen two full-
scale wars in 1965 and 1971, and two limited wars in
1948 and 1999 with India, have lost the eastern wing,
and have faced natural calamities like earthquakes, and
severe floods.34 The country faced, survived and
prevailed against cessationist movements, terrorism,
internal displacements and a huge influx of refugees.
The constants have been a hostile bigger neighbour
(India) on the eastern side and a volatile neighbour
(Afghanistan) on the west that has kept Pakistan in the
eye of the storm for decades. Through the cold war
followed by global power politics, foreign backing has
unfortunately been available more to military rules
than the democratic dipensations.35
The people of Pakistan have reacted with maturity and
have realised that democracy is a process for which
they have to remain consistent despite all odds. They
are mindful that any response to a situation has to be
in a proportion and should not undermine the security
and solidarity of the state itself. While political
gambling and intrigue has been on the forefront of
national political scene, the opposition has always

27 Matinuddin, Kamal, Tragedy of Errors: East Pakistan Crisis 1968-1971, Lahore. WajidAlis Pvt Limited, 1994, pp. 47-52
28 Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab disturbances of 1953, Lahore:
Superintendent Government Printing, Punjab, 1954
29 Ali, Mir Laik, Tragedy of Hyderabad, Karachi: Pakistan Co-operative Book Society, 1962
30 Hodson, H.V., The Great Divide: Britain-India-Pakistan, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 427-493
31 Rizvi, p. 42
32 Akhund, Iqbal, Trial and Error: The Advent and Eclipse of Benzir Bhutto, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 118-125
33 Khan, M Asghar, Pakistan: Politics and Military Power, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 6-9
34 The massive earthquake of October 2005 killed over 85,000 individuals, while floods in July-August 2010 affected approximately 20

million people, killing nearly 2,000 and displacing over 12 million.

35 Ali, Murad. "US aid to Pakistan and democracy." Policy Perspectives (2009): 119-132.

[5]
been very vibrant as well. There have been largescale
political movements and no government could take a
visible drift from the national ideals enunciated in the
Objectives Resolution.
Alongside the restriction and strictness of the martial
law governments, the security situation of the country,
the immature political culture and confidence in the
armed forces served in favour of military rule. Still the
people did not stop acting in favour of democracy.
Finer had pointed out two “crippling weaknesses” of
the military in political field, namely the ‘technical
inability to administer any but the most primitive
community’ and ‘their lack of legitimacy’ for which
they have to seek civilian collaboration.36 Rulers
coming from the military, Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and
Pervez Musharraf held referendums to give legitimacy
to their regimes but the people generally stayed
indifferent to the process (though official figures
showed immense approval for their preposition).
Public response was entirely different when the same
rulers allowed some political process and held
elections to allow selection of public representatives.37
Despite the fact that these elections were held in shady
conditions and with several restrictions, people
realised that revival of political activity, in whatever
form, is the only way to reviving democracy. This
public sentiment was so obvious that every military
ruler had to give a political cloak to his regime. This
was done by putting restrictions on independent
political voices and creating a king’s party on each
occasion.38 In such instances, the politicians who
served the feudal mindset mostly served the purpose.
Despite all odds, hope is not lost as long as the people
of Pakistan subscribe to democratic principles. In fact,
the country has progressed significantly on many
fronts. The first and the foremost sign of optimism is
the near consensus among the people with respect to
confidence in democracy. Several surveys conducted
recently have exhibited such widespread confidence.
In a survey conducted in October 2017 by Gallup
36 Finer, 14
37Chaudhry, M.A.K. Martial Law Ka Siyasi Andaz. (1988), p. 81
38 Asghar Khan, pp. 198-200; 213
39 The figure is comparable with USA (68%), Europe (70%) and Africa (64%).
40 Gallup Pakistan, Views about Democracy in Pakistan as compared to the World, http://gallup.com.pk/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/Report-on-Global-Democracy.pdf
41 ibid
42 UNDP, Pakistan National Human Development Report UNDP (2017). https://www.undp.org/content/dam/pakistan/docs/HDR/PK-
NHDR.pdf
43 Newberg, Paula R., Judging the State, Courts and Constitutional Politics in Pakistan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1995);
Munir, Kishwar, and Iram Khalid. ‘Judicial Activism in Pakistan: A Case Study of Supreme Court Judgments 2008-13’. South Asian
Studies (1026-678X) 33, No. 2 (2018), pp. 321-334
[6]
Pakistan, 81% of Pakistanis showed confidence in
democracy as a system of governance as against 19%
who preferred military democracy. A January 2018
survey by the same organisation indicates that people
are keen to be taken on board on key national issues.
As much as 68% of Pakistanis39 would like to vote
directly on major national issues to decide what
becomes law.40 At the same time, 62% support
representative democracy as well.41
In practical terms, the people have used their votes to
express their preferences and have voted out political
governments that have disappointed them. The power
is not confined to a single political party and every
election has brought change. Increasing literacy and
spread of information through the media is producing
general awareness and choices are becoming saner.
The most encouraging fact is that the youth are the
most significant group that has to play a role. Pakistan
being the youngest country in the world,42 youth (18 to
35 years) constituted 44% of the total registered voters
in the 2018 elections. Youth being the most optimistic,
the most passionate and forward looking segment are
a good omen for democracy in Pakistan.
A socio-political change is taking place in the country.
Three governments have successively completed their
five-year tenures (2002-2007, 2008-2013, 2013-2018)
while the fourth successive government has come in
through elections. Different political parties have been
and are ruling in the centre and the provinces have
successfully established a working relationship despite
political differences. Similarly, system has continued
to run smoothly in spite of the governments having
difficulties in legislation for not enjoying majority in
the upper house of the Parliament, the Senate. All
national institutions are also part of the process. The
judiciary and media too are going through phases.43
There definitely are occasional vibes against optimism
for democracy but the reasons for optimism are much
stronger and more frequent. Like in many countries of
the world, the tussle between political parties, blame
game, issues of Civil-Military relations continue,
though with varying degrees, but it appears much more
clear now that the democratic process is here to stay.
Conclusion
The people have put their confidence in political
parties in the hope for mature policy making and
inclusive national development. The promotion of
democracy would require political process in all
segments and levels of society. This has to start from
promoting democracy within the political parties and
side-lining the feudalistic approaches within their
ranks. Political governments have also been shying
away from sharing their power with grassroots
political leadership and have been avoiding local
government elections. If elections for local bodies
were held, their powers were curtailed.44 The student
unions and trade unions too are nurseries for political
leadership and guarantees for peaceful political
settlement of issues. Discontinuing them is always a
bad omen for democratic principles. Literacy is a
national emergency, increase of which would surely
help in numerous ways including maturity of political
voices and choices. The ‘failure of democracy’45 has
very grim implications like the one that Pakistan saw
when it lost East Pakistan.
Democratic institutions and traditions take a long time
to develop strong roots. Political institutions have
historically been products of interaction and
disagreement among social forces46 and the people of
Pakistan understand that the road to ideal is long and
tough, but it is a process through which they will be
able to institutionalise their collective conscience and
practice the principles of “democracy, freedom,
equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by
Islam” in letter and spirit.

Prepared by:
Syed Nadeem Farhat
Senior Research Officer
Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Islamabad.

For queries:
Syed Nadeem Farhat
Senior Research Officer
nadeem@ips.net.pk | www.ips.org.pk

44 Khan, Abdul Qayum, ‘Local Government and Judiciary in Pakistan after 2010’, Pakistan Perspectives, vol. 22, No. 1, January-June,
(2017), 27-41
45 Aziz, Sartaj, Between Dreams and Realities, Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2009 p. 26
46 Huntington, p. 11

[7]