Polarized politics: the issues and challenges of democracy in Pakistan

Introduction
I. Historical Context of Polarization: events and role of political parties
II. Factors Contributing to Political Polarization
A. Ethnic and regional divides
B. Religious divides
C. Economic disparities: income inequality and economic policies
IV. Media and Polarization
V. Consequences of Political Polarization
A. Erosion of democratic institutions
B. Stifling of dissent and political discourse
C. Impediments to effective governance and policy-making
VI. Challenges to Democracy
A. Threats to electoral integrity
B. Erosion of democratic norms and values
C. Role of the military in Pakistani politics
VII. Case Studies of Polarization
VIII. Prospects for Mitigating Polarization
A. Strengthening democratic institutions
B. Promoting political and civic education
C. Fostering inter-party dialogue and consensus-building
IX. International Perspectives and Involvement
A. Role of international actors in Pakistani politics
B. Implications of polarization on international relations
C. Strategies for international engagement in promoting democracy
X. Conclusion
Political polarization refers to the increasing divide between different political groups
or individuals with opposing views and ideologies. In Pakistan, political polarization
has been a long-standing issue that has been exacerbated by various factors, including
economic disparities, regional tensions, and the rise of extremism.
One of the major contributing factors to political polarization in Pakistan is the country’s history
of military rule and political instability. The military has often played a significant role in
Pakistani politics, leading to a power struggle between civilian and military leadership. This has
led to the formation of polarized political groups, with some supporting military intervention and
others advocating for a democratic system of government.
Ethnic and regional tensions also contribute to political polarization in Pakistan. The
country is made up of diverse ethnic and linguistic groups, with each group having its
own political identity and interests. This has led to the formation of regional political
parties that often have conflicting views on national issues. Religious extremism is
another significant factor contributing to political polarization in Pakistan. The rise of
extremist groups, such as the Taliban and other militant organizations, has led to a
polarized political environment where some groups support extremist ideologies while
others condemn them. Overall, political polarization in Pakistan is a complex issue that
has been shaped by a variety of factors. Addressing this issue will require a concerted
effort by political leaders, civil society organizations, and the public to promote dialogue,
tolerance, and inclusivity.
I. Brief overview of the political climate in Pakistan
The political climate in Pakistan has been complex and turbulent, with a history of
military rule, political instability, and periodic violence. Pakistan is a federal
parliamentary democratic republic, with the President as the head of state and the Prime
Minister as the head of government. However, the military has wielded significant
influence in Pakistani politics, and has staged several coups throughout the country’s
history. In recent years, the political climate in Pakistan has been marked by a tense
rivalry between the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party and the opposition
parties, particularly the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan
People’s Party (PPP). There have been accusations of electoral rigging and corruption,
and protests and clashes have occurred between the opposing factions. Pakistan also faces
significant challenges in terms of terrorism and regional conflicts, particularly with
neighboring India and Afghanistan. The government has been working to address these
issues, but progress has been slow and sporadic.
II. Factors Contributing to Political Polarization in Pakistan
Political polarization in Pakistan has been a persistent issue over the years. There are
various factors that have contributed to this polarization, including:
– Ethnic, linguistic, and regional differences: Pakistan is a diverse country with people
belonging to different ethnic and linguistic groups. These differences have often led to
regional rivalries and conflicts, which have contributed to political polarization.
– Religious extremism: Pakistan has seen a rise in religious extremism in recent years.
This has led to the polarization of the society along religious lines, with different
religious groups competing for power and influence.
– Military interference: Pakistan has a long history of military coups and interference in
politics. This has led to the marginalization of civilian institutions and the strengthening
of the military, which has further polarized the society.
– Economic inequality: Pakistan is a country with high levels of economic inequality,
with a significant proportion of the population living in poverty. This has led to a sense of
alienation and disenfranchisement among many people, which has contributed to political
polarization.
– Media bias: The media in Pakistan is often accused of being biased towards political
parties or groups. This has contributed to the polarization of the society, as people often
get their news and information from sources that reinforce their existing beliefs and
biases.
– Lack of political consensus: Pakistan has a fragmented political landscape, with
multiple political parties competing for power. This has led to a lack of political
consensus and a tendency towards political polarization. Overall, political polarization in
Pakistan is a complex issue that is influenced by a range of factors. Addressing these
factors will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders, including the government,
civil society, media, and political parties.
III. Effects of Political Polarization on Pakistan
Political polarization refers to the increasing division of society into political camps with
sharply divergent beliefs, values, and policy preferences. In Pakistan, political
polarization has had significant effects on the country’s social, economic, and political
landscape. Some of the most notable effects include:
– Political Instability: Political polarization has contributed to political instability in
Pakistan. The country has been plagued by frequent changes in government, military
coups, and civil unrest, which have had a detrimental impact on the country’s
development and progress.
– Violence and Terrorism: Political polarization has also fueled violence and terrorism in
Pakistan. Radical groups have taken advantage of the country’s polarized political
climate to promote their extremist agenda and carry out attacks on civilians, military
personnel, and government installations.
– Economic Uncertainty: Political polarization has contributed to economic uncertainty in
Pakistan. The country’s business environment has been negatively affected by political
instability and terrorism, leading to a decline in foreign investment and economic growth.
– Social Divisions: Political polarization has also deepened social divisions in Pakistan.
The country’s diverse population is divided along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines,
which has contributed to political fragmentation and further polarization.
– Weak Governance: Political polarization has weakened governance in Pakistan. The
government has been unable to effectively address key social and economic issues due to
political divisions, which has further eroded public trust in the government.
IV. Possible Solutions to Address Political Polarization in Pakistan
Political polarization is a complex issue that cannot be resolved overnight. However,
there are certain steps that can be taken to address this problem in Pakistan. Here are
some possible solutions:
– Encouraging dialogue and engagement: Political polarization can be reduced by
promoting dialogue and engagement between different political groups. The government,
civil society organizations, and the media can play a key role in creating platforms for
dialogue and debate, where diverse perspectives can be shared and discussed.
– Promoting media literacy: The media has a powerful influence on shaping public
opinion and can contribute to political polarization if it is not balanced or impartial.
Therefore, promoting media literacy and educating the public on how to critically
evaluate news and information can help reduce political polarization.
– Fostering a culture of tolerance: A culture of tolerance and respect for different
opinions and viewpoints can help reduce political polarization. This can be achieved by
promoting education and awareness campaigns that emphasize the importance of
diversity, respect for human rights, and peaceful coexistence.
– Encouraging political diversity: Political polarization can be reduced by promoting
political diversity and creating space for multiple perspectives and ideologies. This can
be achieved by ensuring a level playing field for all political parties, promoting
independent media, and encouraging citizen participation in politics.
– Strengthening democratic institutions: Strong democratic institutions, including an
independent judiciary, free and fair elections, and a vibrant civil society, are essential for
reducing political polarization. These institutions can help ensure that all voices are
heard, and that power is distributed fairly and transparently.
– Addressing economic inequality: Economic inequality is a major source of political
polarization. Addressing this issue through policies that promote inclusive growth, job
creation, and social welfare can help reduce political polarization by creating a more
equitable society.
V. Conclusion
Political polarization in Pakistan has been influenced by a variety of factors, including
historical, cultural, and socioeconomic ones. One of the key causes of political
polarization is the country’s deeply entrenched ethnic and religious divisions, which have
contributed to the formation of political parties that represent specific groups. In addition,
political polarization has been fueled by economic inequality, regional disparities, and
corruption, which have led to a sense of disillusionment among large segments of the
population. The media also plays a significant role in promoting political polarization by
perpetuating divisive narratives and amplifying the voices of extremist groups.
The effects of political polarization in Pakistan have been detrimental to the country’s
stability and democratic institutions. It has led to a breakdown of trust between political
parties and their supporters, as well as an erosion of the rule of law and a weakening of
democratic institutions. Furthermore, political polarization has made it difficult for the
government to implement effective policies and address the country’s most pressing
challenges, such as poverty, unemployment, and terrorism. It has also contributed to the
rise of extremist groups and sectarian violence, which pose a threat to national security
and regional stability. Overall, political polarization in Pakistan is a complex issue with
deep-rooted causes and far-reaching consequences. Addressing this problem will require
a concerted effort from all stakeholders, including political parties, civil society, and the
media, to promote greater tolerance, inclusivity, and dialogue in the country’s political
discourse.

Pakistan has been a polarized polity and consequently, a divided society for the past
half century, and even longer if we look back deeply into its history. It started with the
serious differences among the political elites of the country over the character of the
state, quality of federalism, relationship between religion and governance and
ideological choices. One may argue that it could be a normal process in a diverse
nation’s struggle to take a definite direction and achieve stability in the formative
phase. But one wonders why it would take nine years in writing the first constitution
and then its annulment within three years without any general elections or transfer of
power happening under it.
Without getting into the details, it was the inability of the ruling elites, their diverse
regional backgrounds, personal vested interests in power grabs, and for that purpose,
engineering of political manipulation to wreck governments and forms new ones.
Factions of the same elite under different party platforms kept displacing one another
from power endlessly until the military took over in 1959. There is another view that
political elites were innocent and they were actually played against one another as
puppets by the civil and military bureaucracy. This is too charitable a perspective to
excuse the political elites and their never-ending factionalism, which continues to this
day, after a long history of 74 years. If they had played by the rules, demonstrated
political solidarity on principles and forged a political consensus, the democratic
norms and convention would have gelled over time. The recent ouster of former prime
minister Imran Khan, despite the fact that he had the largest party in the parliament
with 156 members losing power to a motley group of political factions, the closest
second having only 86 members and forming the new government, speaks a great deal
about persistent polarization. The sad story of Pakistan is that naked factional elite
interests have shaped these power plays, often by seeking friendly intervention from
the powerful judicial and security institutions.

Generation after generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social

background, Pakistan’s political elites have promoted political values that run
counter to nation and state-building.

Rasul Bakhsh Rais

The normal and expected role of the political elites in any form of political system is
working toward stability, order, national unity, solidarity and continuity along with
ensuring progress, social and economic development.
The Pakistani elites have done quite the opposite: polarizing and dividing people
along ethnic, religious, ideological and narrow political lines. Generation after
generation, coming from the same feudal-tribal social background, they have
promoted political values that run counter to nation and state-building in ethically and
demographically diverse society.
Ultimately, it is the rapacious character of the Pakistan ruling classes, their low
commitment to rule of law and accountability and access to power as means of
material benefits that have stunted the growth of democracy. In such conditions, the
military has assumed the role of ‘guardian’ of the state, and has regularly managed
political conflicts erupting over power struggles among the elites.
The present polarization between the PTI and the rest of the 11 so-called political
parties and factions is not new. It is a continuation of the same historical pattern, only
the main characters have changed. Each successive confrontation has been more
severe than before. The ongoing clash looks like political warfare with no-holds-
barred, barely covered with a fig leaf of constitutionality. This has been in the making
for the past nine years when Imran Khan challenged the fairness of the 2013 elections.
The others, in return, questioned the accuracy of the 2018 vote and vowed to oust him
from power by forming a joint alliance, launching street demonstrations, and finally
succeeding by winning over dissidents from his party and coalition partners and
moving successfully a vote-of-confidence motion in the National Assembly.
The sudden change of heart by four coalition groups supporting Khan and the open
betrayal of 20 members of his party have raised many troubling questions about the
neutrality of powerful state institutions. This adds another dimension to the political
conflict playing out in media, civil society and the general public.
Khan has instantly decided to engage in popular agitation against what he calls an
‘imported’ government by weaving a narrative of foreign ‘conspiracy’ and accusing
some as ‘traitors.’ His decision to resign from the national assembly en-masse is
stunning and may prove to be an adventurous path to Azadi‘liberation’ for the
country. He will be doing politics now not in the parliament but in the streets, rousing
public anger against the ‘corrupt mafia’ and demanding fresh elections.

Societal and political polarization of media helps media consumers to be

divided because of their political party affiliations. Sometimes economic conditions
and race are also attached in the disagreement between media consumers after
polarized news exposure. The polarized news consumption is the process leading
towards political and social diversification and separation (Tewksbury & Riles,
2015).
Media atmosphere and political knowledge have a close relationship.
Although media aid the consumers to become informatively rich citizens but from
the last few decades, political knowledge of citizens is linked with decreasing incomplete
supply of political awareness, diminishing news quality, less diversified
news with high news channels meditation, variation and disproportion in political
information and high disintegration and separated media (Aelst, et al, 2017).
Media has many effects on the cognition process of audiences and TV
consumers. Sometimes, media cause audience to be aggressive and hostile about
their ideologies. Hostile Media Effect (HME) is a phenomenon in mass
communication that is about perception of media coverage as biased against their
own pre-existing ideology. This perception comes from highly affiliated audiences
(Matthews, 2013).
Media become partisan news are broadcast about any specific political party
leading public to be more partisan-supported and politically polarised nation. One
sided news representation may become the baseline for ideological political stance of
citizens (Prior, 2013).
People have media perception in three parallel directions. First is about the
level of trust and credibility; second about hostile media effects and the third
regarding the focus on media perceptions, which are actually visualized by third
person perception. Media perception effects’ influence is enhanced when they are
multiplied with effects of hostile media, especially the TV consumers, which are
emotionally indulged in the issues, media are reporting (Tsfati & Cohen, 2012).
Detecting this biasness of the channels, many media consumers have
become active consumer and fact checkers to counter check the information
presented on the same issue by different news channels. This is the starter of
contents credibility cavity created by media houses. Moreover, many viewers are
returned to print media. High rating craze and breaking news have totally spoiled
the professionalism and ethical values of media.
Ali (2010) said the main reasons of polarization in Pakistan are fundamental
changes in the society, where media liberalization, information technology and
globalization have interconnected communities and civilizations. In Pakistan intense
radicalization, socio-economic decline and explosive population growth has created
polarized political opinions.

Democracy and illiteracy do not move together

Democracy is the form of government where masses rule over the country indirectly by electing
their leadership, and it will only succeed if the people are aware and literate.
Democracy cannot bear its fruits in an ignorant and illiterate environment; because only a
learned society or a country can grasp the essence of democratic norms and cultures. It is evident
from the current world scenarios: countries, with improved literacy rates, have managed to
strengthen democratic setups. Whereas, countries having the majority of the masses illiterate are
struggling to adopt this form of government.
Fundamental virtues of a democratic set up in a country such as justice, rule of law, liberty,
equality, transparency, meritocracy, accountability, tolerance, and at last, rights, and duties of a
state and its citizens can only thrive in an educated society. One of the reasons is that uneducated
people find it tough to understand the fruits and dividends of sticking to the democratic norms
and virtues mentioned above.
Firstly, in a democratic culture people chose the leadership themselves i.e. by the process of
voting. If the majority of people are literate and educated, they will certainly have the capacity to
chose the right and capable leadership by whom the whole country will be governed. whereas, on
the other side, a society with the majority of illiterate people will not have the capacity to choose
the right men for the right job because illiterate people are easily fooled and molded by the
political leadership of a country filled with illiteracy.
Secondly, an illiterate society lacks the most important virtue of a democratic setup i.e.
Accountability. It is a virtue that enables people of a democratic country to hold their rulers and
public office holders accountable for their performance. This virtue enables people to elect their
leadership based on their performance and not just on mere slogans. If a society promotes the
virtue of accountability in a democratic setup, its leadership becomes capable of delivering on
the promises and policies mentioned during election campaigns. Whereas, on the contrary,
promises and policies mentioned during election campaigns become mere slogans once the virtue
of accountability is taken out of the system.
Thirdly, a democratic society believes in equality. Not only this but people of a truly democratic
setup promoted social, political, cultural, and economic liberties. All citizens, regardless of
cultural, linguistic, and religious differences, are equal and free to live their lives as of their own
will. Whereas in an ignorant society, despite having democracy, people believe in feudalistic
norms, cultural ill practices, and patriarchy. There is a major gap between the life of an elite and
the poor, the elite takes it their birthright to rule whereas the poor are always considered to be
ruled. Despite having democracy, in an illiterate society, politics is only controlled by the
powerful elite families regardless of their capabilities.
Fourthly, in an illiterate society political leadership lacks vision. The majority of them believe in
power politics i.e. they contest elections not to change the fortunes of their country but just to
win elections and control the seat of power. This lack of long-term thinking among political
leadership and will of sacrifice for the betterment of their country in an illiterate society pave the
way for undemocratic forces to take over the country, especially in countries like Pakistan
having witnessed half of its life being ruled by military rulers. This results in the collapse of the
democratic set up in the country of illiterate masses.
Lastly, educated people are easily governed i.e. they tend to follow government rules and
regulations ultimately making look governance easy, whereas, uneducated masses are hard to be
ruled as they tend to follow their own rules hence making look governance easy and ultimately
resulting in bad governance.
Following are some of the stats to compare the democratic virtues like religious and political
freedom, tolerance, accountability, and so on, between a democratic country with fewer literacy
rates and a democratic country with higher literacy rates.
As per the democracy index, 2019 published by Statista, the top ten most democratic countries
are those having greater literacy rates i.e. Norway tops the list of countries having most
democratic norms having a literacy rate of 99%. Switzerland which comes 10th on the list had a
literacy rate of 99% too.
Moreover, as per the report published by freedom-house, comparing the civil liberties and
political rights among different countries and rating them based on ground realities. The report
suggests that the following countries: Norway, Sweden, and Finland have scored 100/100
compared to other countries when the above-mentioned virtues of their countries are rated.
Moreover, when the literacy rates of these countries are taken into account, they are rated as
having the same literacy rates of 99% in each country. On the contrary, while observing the same
list, when we shed light upon democratic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh having a
literacy rate of around 59% and 70% respectively, both countries are scored as 38 and 39
respectively.
Besides being listed almost at the bottom in the list of countries having greater political and civil
liberties compared to other democratic states, illiterate democratic countries are again termed as
“countries of particular concern” when rated among the ranks of countries having religious
freedom among its people. Religious activities and freedom are practiced in the majority of the
democratic states having a greater number of educated people. whereas, religious minorities
seem to be living a difficult life despite having democratic setups in the countries having greater
illiteracy rates. As per the annual 2019 report of “United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom democratic country like Pakistan is grouped with countries of particular
concern with respect to the religious activities and freedom.
Finally, the stats related to the most important virtue that if found in a democratic society, helps
in achieving and maintaining democracy in its true sense i.e. accountability was indicated in a
report “voice and accountability index 2018” published by the global economy website. As per
the report, Norway again tops the list of countries having the greatest rate of accountability and
social freedom. When the light is shed upon other democratic countries like Pakistan and
Bangladesh having lesser literacy rates, unfortunately, the results are not so bright, as Pakistan
and Bangladesh are ranked at 143 and 139 respectively out of 194 countries in the list of
countries having virtues of accountability and social freedom.
The role of media in eradicating illiteracy and strengthening democracy is undeniably
significant, backed by compelling facts and figures. Media, in its various forms, serves as a
powerful tool for disseminating information and knowledge to the masses. According to
UNESCO, there were approximately 750 million illiterate adults worldwide in 2020, a staggering
number that underscores the urgency of addressing this issue. Media, through its educational
programming, documentaries, and journalism, plays a crucial role in combatting illiteracy by
providing accessible and engaging content that promotes learning. For instance, initiatives like
"Sesame Street" have helped millions of children develop early literacy skills through television.
Furthermore, media literacy education has gained traction as a means to empower individuals
with the critical thinking skills needed to navigate today's information landscape. In a
democracy, an informed citizenry is essential, and the media fulfills this role by keeping the
public apprised of political processes and facilitating civic engagement. During elections, media
outlets provide comprehensive coverage, which can significantly impact voter turnout and
political participation. However, challenges such as misinformation and media bias must be
addressed. Still, the potential for media to eradicate illiteracy and strengthen democracy remains
evident, making it a crucial player in shaping the future of informed and engaged societies.
Investments in Education Infrastructure: Pakistan has recognized the importance of investing in
education infrastructure as a means to tackle illiteracy. The government has allocated a
significant portion of its budget to the education sector over the years. For instance, Pakistan's
budget for education in the fiscal year 2021-2022 was approximately 4% of its GDP, reflecting a
commitment to improving education infrastructure, including the construction and renovation of
schools, provision of learning materials, and training of teachers.
Promoting Literacy Programs: Pakistan has implemented various literacy programs to target
illiteracy directly. One of the notable initiatives is the National Commission for Human
Development (NCHD), which aims to promote literacy and education in marginalized
communities. The NCHD has launched programs such as the National Literacy Program (NLP)
and the Basic Education Community Schools (BECS) program, which focuses on adult literacy
and non-formal education, respectively.
B. International Organizations' Role in Promoting Education:
UNESCO and Global Literacy Campaigns: Pakistan has benefited from the support of
international organizations like UNESCO in its efforts to combat illiteracy. UNESCO has been
involved in literacy campaigns and initiatives within Pakistan, providing technical assistance,
expertise, and resources to strengthen the country's educational infrastructure. The "Literacy
Initiative for Empowerment" (LIFE) project, supported by UNESCO, has aimed to enhance
literacy rates in Pakistan by developing curriculum materials and training teachers.
Collaborative Efforts to Combat Illiteracy on a Global Scale: Pakistan has participated in
collaborative efforts with international organizations and neighboring countries to address
illiteracy. For instance, Pakistan is a member of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC), which includes initiatives for education and literacy within its
framework. These collaborative efforts facilitate the sharing of best practices and resources to
combat illiteracy regionally.
While these efforts demonstrate a commitment to addressing illiteracy in Pakistan's democratic
context, significant challenges remain, including disparities in access to education between urban
and rural areas, gender inequalities in literacy rates, and the need for more robust teacher training
programs. Nonetheless, the combination of government initiatives and support from international
organizations underscores the ongoing commitment to eradicating illiteracy and strengthening
democracy through education in Pakistan.
While concluding the discussion it can therefore be contended that democracy, indeed, is the
most popular and most suitable form of government for the people in this modern age of
globalization. But democracy will only flourish and bear its fruits once the people are well aware
and learned so that they are capable to choose the right people for the right job. It is the rule of
the masses and will only succeed if the masses are aware, educated, and literate. Countries that
have invested in strengthening their educational systems and have strived in making people
aware.

Democracy in Pakistan: Hopes and Hurdles

Pakistan was conceived as a modern democracy; the whole struggle for the attainment of
Pakistan was based on the basic principle of democracy, that the people must have their say in
the government. Although during the early days of Muslim political activism, Muslims of the
sub-continent were propagating the safeguard of their rights as a minority, the founding fathers
of Pakistan firmly believed that only through democracy Muslims can have their rightful place in
the political body of India. Allama Iqbal reiterated the fact that the creation of a Muslim majority
province in the Northwest of India would be very beneficial for the whole of India, and such a
province would protect India from any invasion of ‘ideology or bayonet’ from the West. After
independence, several impediments were faced in the path of establishing democracy in Pakistan.
Allan McGrath, in his book ‘Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan’, elaborated all such
elements that did not allow democracy to find a strong foothold.
Democracy in Pakistan was never allowed to establish and function. One of the major factors in
this regard is the fact that Pakistan is still following several characteristics of medieval society in
its rural areas. It is important to understand that the quantum of the rural seats in the national and
provincial assemblies is much greater than those of urban areas. Feudalism still has strong
existence in Pakistan. In such political setup, the masses under the influence are not allowed to
have their own opinion and they only vote for those who are supported by their feudal lords.
Although these shackles are being challenged, and in some cases broken, there is still a lot to be
done before people are completely free to have their opinion and exercise it.
Another major impediment in the path of democracy is the Sardari and Tribal system. People
practising the Sardari system hardly deviate from the decision taken by their Sardars and the
whole vote bank goes to the candidate of their liking, which may shift from election to election.
From a political evolutionary point of view, democracy was introduced by the British in the sub-
continent over a century earlier, amidst the shifting of education from tradition to the modern.
The exponents of modern education at that time were able to soak the ideologies of politics and
understood the significance of it. However, the quality education provided by the British was
only available and limited to handful of people living in urban centres, especially centres which
had British presence in them.
Unfortunately, the Muslim majority provinces that became Pakistan in 1947 were mostly ignored
by the British, resulting in the masses there being unable to aboard the ship of modern politics,
which is why they are still far away from true political democracy. One major evidence of this
fact is that until now ‘electables’ play a pivotal role in the formation of the government in the
national and provincial assemblies. In the 1937 election, the first general election in the history
of the region, the results showed that independent candidates were able to secure around 30 to 40
percent of total seats in Muslim majority provinces. The fact that independent candidates still
dominate electorates against major political parties in their respective constituencies speaks
volumes about the gulf between political democracy and the masses of Pakistan.
On top of these foundational issues, the tug of war between the institutions of Pakistan accounted
for further delay in achieving a true democracy. On the eve of independence, Pakistan was
forced to prove its right to exist as an independent nation and faced existential challenges in the
form of refugee crises, financial issues, hostility on both Eastern and Western borders, and
administrative crises. Quaid-i-Azam made a plea to British officers after taking charge as first
Governor-General that they should stay in Pakistan and continue their services. There was a
vacuum in almost every occupation, and the most evident one was the complete lack of political
leadership that could cater to the whole of Pakistan as one nation and uphold the singularity of
Pakistan over provincialism.
The vacuum was filled by bureaucracy, immediately after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan
in 1951. The bureaucratic elite, which consisted of the able administrators recruited and trained
by the British to work efficiently, took charge over the country and pushed the political
leadership to the back seat. Their greed for power made them avoid democracy and continue
their administration. In their bid to keep politicians away from governance, they introduced
service members into politics by making General Ayub Khan the Defence Minister. Later in
1958, Ayub Khan gave the bureaucrats a taste of their own medicine by removing bureaucracy
from politics in the same way the bureaucrats had replaced politicians earlier.
Since then, Pakistan moved away from true democracy. Even the constitution of 1962 was
unable to provide any hope of democracy and met eventuality by the hands of its creator in 1969.
The prolong denial of sharing of power and electoral representation based on the democratic
principles culminated into the bifurcation of Pakistan in 1971. Unfortunately, as a society we did
not learn our lesson and once again entangled in the same power struggle.
The constitution of 1973 came as a ray of hope for democracy; however, too many clouds were
caste over it by the altercations it endured at the hands of various regimes that ‘amended’ the
document to further their cause - to the point that the original constitution was completely
mutilated. Major amendments, such as the 8th amendment in 1985 and the 17th amendment in
2003, changed the nature of the constitution and favoured centralism and authoritarianism, which
was utilised by their creators to push their own agendas.
The 18th amendment, passed in 2010, was an attempt by all political entities of Pakistan to
restore the constitution to its original form. It was developed and passed through the parliament
with consensus. However, once again, the basis of the constitution - the parliamentary system - is
being challenged by one major political party, which favours the presidential form. They have
embarked upon the debate and are even hinting towards constitutional amendment once they
regain power with 2/3 majority according to their claims.
Pakistan has gone through a long and uneasy evolutionary process as a democracy. We have had
three constitutions, several amendments, dictatorial authoritarianism, midterm elections and
dismissals of popular governments and recently, the passing of the first successful vote of no-
confidence against the sitting Prime Minister. Still, it seems that in the coming years major
overhauling is needed to have a stable political democracy. Pakistan, after 75 years of its
creation, is still waiting for its first ever democratic government to complete the full
parliamentary term of five years without any glitches. If we as a society let an elected
government complete its five-year term, regardless of our liking or disliking, it would go a long
way toward establishing true democracy and establish its legitimacy.
A major hope for democracy in Pakistan lies in the fact the military will not come forward to
impose its direct rule by dismantling the democratic system, as it did in past, because of two
major reasons: Firstly, the military government is not recognized by the international
community and is subject to various economic sanctions. Pakistan, is currently in the process of
development because of the initiation of CPEC, cannot afford sanctions at this critical stage. Our
sensible and well-trained army knows this fact very well. Secondly, martial law is often imposed
under the patronage of a super power. At present, Pakistan’s relations with the USA remain
abysmal. Therefore, the army will avoid taking rein of the government directly. As such, martial
law is now obsolete and the democratic government will continue to rule Pakistan.

Another hope for democracy in Pakistan is created in the form of maturity among the democratic
leaders. In past, one Democratic Party conspired against another ruling party and stalled
democratic progress. For example, Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) staged protest against
Zulifqar Ali Bhutto after 1977 general elections claiming the elections being rigged. The issue
could have been resolved through political settlement, but they demanded the removal of Bhutto
and imposition of Islamic rule. Consequently, the military got an opportunity to impose martial
law under Zia in 1977 and obstructed the path of democracy. Besides, Nawaz Sharif, while Chief
Minister of Punjab, created problems for Benazir Bhutto and tried hard to remove her
government. Similarly, Benazir Bhutto played a role to remove Nawaz Sharif in 1993. The both
democratic leader celebrated ouster of each other from the government and distributed sweets
among their supporters. At present, the democratic leaders avoid taking such actions that could
impede the democratic progress. For example, during 2008 PPP government, Nawaz Sharif was
engaged in verbal war with Zardari, but did not stage protest to remove him. On the other hand,
Zardari got an opportunity to remove Nawaz government during Imran Khan continuous protest
in Islamabad. However, he realized that it would play in the hand of anti-democratic elements.
Thus, the democratic leaders have now turned mature and avoiding taking any step that could
harm the civilian rule.
The good performance of successive democratic governments has also contributed towards the
well being of the democracy in Pakistan. The democratic governments are heading towards
betterment. For instance, the existing government is better than previous government and the
upcoming will have undergone even more improvement. The democratic government of Pakistan
Peoples Party, from 2008 to 2013, faced numerous challenges of extremism and terrorism.
However, the next democratic government under Nawaz Sharif successfully resolved those
challenges and brought peace. The existing government under PTI is facing daunting economic
challenges but is taking stringent measures to overcome them. Thus, the better performance of
the governments has proved that fact that civilian can also run the country effectively and has left
no room for the army to interfere in the administration directly.
The smooth transfer of power by two democratic parties to another one has enhanced the chances
of democracy to flourish in the country too. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, two
democratic parties have completed and transferred their power to the third one. It has created a
proper line for power transfer in the future, which is fundamental pre-requisite for the glory of
democracy in any country. Before, it was witnessed that the transfer was not smooth and created
room for the anti-democratic elements. For instance, as mentioned above, had the democratic
leader, after the elections of 1977, not created problems for power transfer, the military would
have not imposed martial law. It was because of non-agreement on the transfer of power in past,
democracy could not survive for a long time. Thus, the smooth transfer of power, now, will
ensure the continuation of democracy in Pakistan.
The reform in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and its improved performance is
another ingredient that creates a hope for democracy in Pakistan. At present, the prime minister
with the consultation of leader of opposition appoints the chief election commissioner. The
ruling government cannot appoint its own commissioner to get the election rigged. Besides, a
proper mechanism for the appointment of the members has also been devised to ensure the
transparent elections. It can be proved from the recent appointment of the two members of the
ECP. In 2019, the two vacant seats of the members of the ECP could not been filled since eight
months despite the constitutional provision for filling the seats in 45 days. It was because the
federal government under Imran Khan and opposition could not reach a consensus on the names.
In a surprise move, the government appointed the members without consultation, but the chief
election commissioner refused to administer the oath of office to these appointees and claimed
that the appointment was not based in accordance with the provision of constitution. Thus, it is
reached that the reforms in the ECP is playing a vital role in promoting the democracy by
conducting smooth and transparent elections.
The citizen of Pakistan have, now, turned aware about their rights to rule the country and it is a
good sign for the development of democracy. Before, many citizens welcomed the dictator
because the democratic leaders failed to improve their lifestyle. However, the people in uniform
could not satisfy their needs as well. As a result, they have turned against dictators too. At
present, almost all the citizens speak against the martial law and blame the military for their
present poor conditions. Now, instead of welcoming their rule, they will stand against them in
the same way the people of turkey blocked the prospects of military rule by lying before the
tanks. Thus, the local citizen, now, loathes martial law and it is a good for the prosperity of
democracy in the country.
A major hurdle, of course, is the indirect interference of the military in the democratic
government. The military not only frame foreign policy of Pakistan, but also implement it. The
civilian has no say in the policies towards India, Afghanistan and the US. Besides, the head of
Intelligence bureau or other sensitive institutions like defense is always retired military officer. It
means that the civilians are not trusted with the sensitive policies. Currently, many retired
military officers are occupying some important posts. For instance, the federal Interior minister
is Ijaz Ahmed Shah. He is a former head of Intelligence bureau and a retired army officer.
Besides, Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa is serving as the Special Assistant to the Prime
Minister on Information and Broadcasting. He is retired Pakistani three-star general. Thus, the
indirect rule of the military does not bode well for the democracy in Pakistan.
The feudal lord system is acting as the stumbling rock in the way of democracy in Pakistan.
Democracy relies on the votes of the local citizens. However, in Pakistan, some feudal lords
enjoy full control over the authority and decisions of people in their respective areas. Normally,
these feudal lords own thousands of acres agriculture lands and almost all the people living in the
villages act as their farmers. These people rely on them economically. It is, therefore, during
elections, they vote only a candidate told by their feudal lords. They do not act on their own
interest, but over the command of their superiors. In many cases, these feudal lords contest
elections themselves. Consequently, they win the elections no matter how corrupt they are and
from which political party they contest. Thus, the system of feudal lord is the basic hurdle in the
way of democracy in Pakistan.
The fact that, almost all the democratic leaders are corrupt, also contributes to the fragility of the
democracy in Pakistan. They mostly work for the wider self-interest rather than the interest of
the country and its citizens after being elected. They also favor the non-transparent appointment
of the government servants to fill the institutions with their own people. Besides, they use the
public funds for their personal expenditure and deem it below their dignity to not make piles of
illegal money. They use the same money to win the elections. It was proved by the recent
accountability campaign of PM Imran Khan. Under his drive, the main leaders of the two main
democratic parties were arrested on the account of corruptions. The panama leaks also revealed
some names of the democratic leaders including farmer PM Nawaz Sharif. Because of their
corruption, the local people dislike democracy and some time talk in the favor of the
authoritarian rule. Hence, the corruption of the democratic leaders is blocking the route of
democracy in the country.
The poor literacy rate of Pakistan is negatively affecting the performance of the democratic
governments very badly. It is known fact that the democratic system is successful in the
countries where the literacy rate is good. It is because; a person with good education background,
knows the importance of his vote and uses it properly for the betterment of the country. As a
result, efficient democratic leaders are elected that grab the rein of the country. Because of this
reason, democracies are bearing fruitful results in the developed countries like the US and is
completely collapsing in those countries where the literacy rate is poor. In Pakistan, with around
50 per cent illiterate people, democracy has failed to improve the lifestyle of the people and
solve the existing crisis faced by the country. Thus, it is not wrong to say that inadequate literacy
rate is causing damage to democracy in Pakistan.
The cripple economy of Pakistan also hampers the democratic progress. The better economic
position of any country is directly proportional to the prosperity of democracy. The democratic
system evolved from Greece because the export of the wine improved its economic position and
thus a demand was raised for the civilian rule. The system remained successful. However,
democracy has performed poorly in the countries facing the economic crisis. Take a classical
example of Pakistan. The biggest hurdle faced by the PM Imran Khan is the major economic
challenges faced by the country. These crises have not only made it difficult for his democratic
government to focus on the other issues, but also created bad feelings among the citizen
regarding the system. As such, the poor economy of Pakistan is acting as a biggest hurdle in the
way of democracy.
An association of democratic nations must be formed to protect young democracies around the
world including Pakistan from the threat of the dictators. The strong democratic nations like the
US and European countries should extend their support to the civilian rules during crisis.
Democracy needs support and the best support for democracy can come from other democracies.
Had there been an association of democratic nations, it would have been difficult for the dictators
like Zia and Musharraf to impose martial law in Pakistan. Alarmingly, in Pakistan, the military
rule received generous financial support from the US, while the civilians were sidelined every
time. Thus, the only way to sustain democracy in Pakistan is to form an association of
democratic nations at the global level.
It is imperative for the indigenous democratic leaders to improve their performance and work
hard for the betterment of the civilian to win their support. Democracy needs the cooperation of
the local citizens to flourish in any country. However, the most of the democratic leaders are
corrupt in Pakistan and has failed to show distinguish performance. As a result, democracy has
become infamous in the country. Had they worked with faithfulness and honesty to improve the
lifestyle of the people, it would have been nearly impossible for the dictators to impose direct
rule. It was because of the inefficient of the democratic leaders that the citizens never resisted the
military. Otherwise, they would have lay before the tanks the same way the citizens did in
Turkey when a dictator tried to impose martial law there. Thus, the democratic leaders need to
improve their performance to block all the route of anti democratic elements.
As such, it is reached that there is hopes as well as hurdles in the way of democracy in Pakistan.
Some events like inability of the military to impose direct rule under current circumstances,
mature leadership as compared to past, better performance of successive democratic
governments, smooth transfer of powers by the democratic parties, improvement in the
performance of the ECP and awareness among the people regarding the civilian rule, have
created hope for democracy in Pakistan. In the contrast, some other events like, indirect
interference of the military in the democratic governments, feudal lords system, corruption of
democratic leaders, alarming literacy rate and poor economy of the country, have caused hurdles
in the way of democracy in Pakistan. Keeping in view this situation, an association of democratic
nations must be formed to save democracy from the anti-democratic elements. Besides, it is
imperative for the democratic leaders to strive for improving the lifestyle of the local citizens to
win their cooperation. Thus, democracy in Pakistan faces both hopes and hurdles and it is
important to remove impediments to further flourish the civilian rule.

Democracy is a culture rather than a process

The Democratic process is the process through which people elect their representatives after a
certain period through publically-held elections. The victory in elections of a political group or
party results in the formation of a government. This democratic process may or may not be able
to provide the basic necessities of life to the citizens, however, it forms the basis for the
transition of government from one political party or group to another political party or group.
The level of maturity in the political process varies from country to country. In some countries,
democratic institutions are well-groomed and hence provide the necessary political stability
whereas in other countries the democratic system has not evolved, and hence those countries
mostly suffer from political turmoil. The continuity and stability of the political process resulted
in the evolution of a culture known as the democratic culture.
The democratic culture does not mean the mere continuation of electoral politics in a country
rather it proves very beneficial for the general public at the grass-root level. The fate of the
political parties functioning in a democratically civilized society does not revolve around a
particular family or a group of people. All races, religions, and genders are free to participate and
attain high positions in the political hierarchy according to their sincerity with the cause and their
leadership skills. Political parties are also responsible for publishing manifestos mentioning in
detail how they will deal with the problems once they come into power. The representatives of
the political parties also convey their message to the public through electronic media, print
media, and public canvassing. In stable democracies, ordinary people have good political sense
and knowledge of contemporary issues. Thus they can judge from the manifesto, and the
leadership of a political party that how sincere is that particular party with the masses. The
educated public is ready to reject and give the opportunity of governance to another political
party in case the political party fails to deliver.
The other thing which is worth mentioning is the formation of shadow cabinets and the framing
of the policies by the political parties that they would follow after coming into power. Political
parties follow the "right man for the right job" policy and people are trained on how to run their
ministries in case they come into power. Each and every candidate knows the problems of the
general masses and usually has a clear mind on how to deal with the situation. In democratically
civilized societies, elections are held in a free and fair environment without any political
intervention and political parties on the losing side admit the victory of their opponents. No post-
election protests or sloganeering takes place in such societies. The political leadership remains in
contact with their voters and the public even after their election to assembly and high posts.
Cultured democracy results in freedom, equality, and justice for all. No one is put behind bars or
is restricted in his free will or free speech. Though everyone has the freedom to express views,
no one is allowed to use abusive language against the leaders or religious figures of a
community, and none is barred from his religious practices or ceremonies. The state delivers
justice to all the sections of the society irrespective of their caste, religious affiliation, race, and
economic condition and no one is considered above the law. The state does not promote any
racial, religious, or gender discrimination; instead, it deals with an iron hand with those elements
which are involved in activities breaking the rules of the state. As the fourth Caliph of Islam
Hazrat Ali said,' No government can run a state without justice". Quran stress consultation while
deciding matters of governance but in the view of Islam the true Islamic State is the one which
not only elects rulers through people's will but the state also delivers to the people.
Democratically tolerant societies have free electronic and print media. The media is free from
any political or governmental pressure and points out the wrongdoings of the political leadership
and problems related to the public. They are not rendered to any restrictions or prohibition if they
act within the ambit of law and free to expose corruption or immoral acts of the ruling class.
Apart from the media, civil society, and NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) also play a
very active role in highlighting issues related to the public interest. The government also gets
valuable inputs from policy organizations, thinkers, and intelligentsia to solve people’s problems.
In Pakistan, our elite has not allowed this democratic culture to develop and become ripe with
time because of the frequent military coups and interventions in the civilian sphere and
confrontations between political rivals. The history of Pakistan shows us that we have
experienced four military takeovers in 1958, 1970, 1978, and in 1999 excluding the period in
which the military used to call shots from the backseat. This has more to do with the civilian
incompetence and inability than with the army hegemony because the military has come to fill
the gap left void by the civilians in their political infraction. The decade-long political
uncertainty and non-serious of the political elite resulted in the military takeover in 1958. Almost
the same was the situation in 1978 and 1999 when political governments were overthrown. In the
1990s two political parties fought each other on the political turf and helped non-democratic
sections in their bid to get held off the civilian governments. In 1970 Army General Ayub Khan
handed over the reins of power to his other comrade General Yahya Khan. His tenure resulted in
the collapse of the country.
The problem with our democratic system is the hegemony of a few families over the political
parties. Almost all the mainstream political parties revolve around one person or another. The
father is succeeded by his son and his son then succeeds him and this cycle goes on. These
influential people never allow young blood to come to the top to deal with the crisis faced by the
country. The manifestos published by the political parties merely become pieces of paper, which
no one studies due to the lack of political awareness and illiteracy. Half of our population is
illiterate and even most in the remaining 50 percent do not focus much on the issues surrounding
us. Political parties also don’t accept the results in case their opponents win.
Most of the candidates use to be illiterate and do not have the vision and will to solve problems
of the masses. On top of that, a significant chunk of candidates tends to be from the elite class
and landlord families. They don’t have any knowledge about the problems faced by the poor but
somehow elect themselves through the baradari system and financial resources. However, if the
big landlords find it difficult to get elect themselves through general elections, they adopt an
alternative way of rigging the elections by bribing police and other relevant institutions which
can impact the elections. Expecting sincere efforts from such people who have no knowledge of
the problems faced by the public at the grass-root level that they will solve problems related to
the public will be a mere dream or illusion.
In Pakistan, the state does not provide the environment for the public to enjoy freedom, liberty,
equality, and justice. The government imposes restrictions on the right of free speech and the
right to identify issues from time to time. Some of our popular private media houses are also
under the influence of several influential people or political parties, and thus they present biased
views. The unbiased sections of our media are still immature and will need time to evolve
according to the situation. Media also receives threats from certain sections of society if they
report issues that can dent the reputation of those sections. The views of civil society and
intelligentsia and opposition are not given the importance they required in the wake of
constitutional legislation and policy framing. Legislations take place mostly behind closed doors.
To develop a democratic culture and to cope with political instability we need some reforms in
our system of governance and way of politics. First of all, we need to educate our nation about
political happenings in the country and across the globe. This will help raise political awareness
in short terms. The political awareness in illiterate people will help us temporarily, but we need
to educate our children right from the start to produce critical and politically-aware minds. This
will also contribute to breaking the hegemony of a few families on the political sphere of
Pakistan. More educated people mean that more people will thoroughly study the election
manifestos of the political parties and will educate other people too about contemporary issues.
More educated young minds will join electoral politics and as a result, a change in the
governance structure will come sooner or later.
We need a system that filters corruption-free and transparent leadership from the corrupt political
lot. This system should also provide a rig-free election environment where every person can cast
a vote to whichever political party he wants to. The political leadership should also be made
responsible to accept the results of the election held under such a transparent system and should
not be allowed to hold violent protests in the aftermath of elections. The elected representatives
should also be in constant contact with the public, the community leaders, and prominent
personalities in the society which can help them guide towards the solution of issues.
The government should also protect the fundamental rights of human beings. No one should be
allowed to usurp freedom of speech, freedom of action, and freedom of formation of political
groups and unions. Each and every citizen should be treated with equality irrespective of caste,
creed, culture, religion, etc. Women should also be given equal opportunities and they should not
be hindered from taking part in the political process. Free and timely justice should be provided
by the state to its citizens, and no one should be given the right to snatch away the rights of the
poor sections of the society. No one should be allowed to force someone to change his religion or
beliefs.
Vibrant media and a vibrant civil society are the order of the day for the evolution of the
democratic process into a democratic culture. Media; both print and electronic should be allowed
to work freely without any political or state pressure but under some norms and injunctions.
There should be some rules and regulations for the media to put an end to the widespread
sensationalism and the race of breaking news. Civil society should also play an active role in
educating people and raising awareness among the public.
Civilian leadership should also play a much mature role while dealing with political issues. The
government should consult opposition on all matters dealing with the public interest, and equal
importance should be given to their views. The military leadership should also limit their role to
what they were ought to. The speech of Quaid-e-Azam is a solution to all the problems in which
he told that Army will obey the elected representatives. Last but not least, we as the citizens of
Pakistan should also perform our duty of voting for honest people in general elections.
The onus now falls upon us whether we want our society to thrive as a real cultured democratic
society or not. The answer surely is yes, but we need to give our democratic process some time
to let it evolve into a stable and enduring governance system. The evolution with time will
remove discrepancies and will bring a democratic culture that revolutions can never bring. Look
at the democracies in the United States of America and the United Kingdom which produced
fruitful results but after a lengthy evolutionary of decades and centuries.