Why has democray been sidelined so often in Pakistan?

[MilesTogo]

---

---

I think Islam is not a direct problem in Pakistan's case but is used as a tool to fool masses to serve the interest of powerful sections both internal as well as external.

[Patriot]

I do not know Pakistan's history in enough detail to understand whether or not the military interventions were, in fact, necessary. That is, were some or all of the military takeovers opportunistic on the part of men like Zia? Could the civilian political system have worked itself out of the "emergency" if given a bit more time by the military? Perhaps the Pakistani military establishment has too high an opinion of itself. That is, they have developed a culture that inculcates a sense that they alone can save the nation. A culture of contempt for the civilian politicians as being corrupt and incompetent. Perhaps the military generals are equally incompetent to manage the affairs of the civilian government and they are saved from the temptation of being corrupt by their cushy lifestyles in their senior military enclaves paid for by the GoP.

Well General Zia as well as General Ayub/Yahya coup was 100% illegal.GOP was running just fine however it must be noted that Bhutto removed General Gul Hassan from COAS post who was a very profesional and apolitical soldier and Bhutto also removed PAF aircheif and put his cronies on top positions and thought Zia was a very loyal crony which resulted in his death.The only true coup was General Musharraf coup which was actually counter coup to Nawaz Hijacking plot.Although Musharraf should have handed over government too in 2-3 years like Turkish Generals.

[dk33]

I think Islam is not a direct problem in Pakistan's case but is used as a tool to fool masses to serve the interest of powerful sections both internal as well as external.

It has been used as a tool by both military and civilian leaders, but how has that retarded democracy?

[MilesTogo]

It has been used as a tool by both military and civilian leaders, but how has that retarded democracy?

I was looking at "Democracy" as a form of governace that is expected to translates the will/wishes and dreams of people into reality and in some cases has ability to educate\convince\change masses opinion about unrealistic/unethical/irrational wishes considering factors like long term sustainable welfare and development. Although I think there are examples that other forms of governement can deliver better or similar results.

I don't necessarily think that a civilian government is a 'democratic' governement. (my definition)

You are right when you say civilian and military governments both have used Islam as a tool to the disadvantage of the interests of the nation. Moreover, I also think at some points in time Pakistan rulers may have been a victims as well when outside interest groups use Islam against them. It has become like thick cloud that prevents regular people to clearly see various powerful sections for what they are really worth.

The answer lies with intellectual's who can see beyond Islamic clouds and are able raise the right issues. I have a feeling that this group of society is gradually getting stronger in Pakistan.

[Neo]

To fully embrace democracy we need to educate our society first. As long as the country (i.e. rural parts) is run by feudal lords democracy is merely a tag.

Under the current circumstances I'd prefer a semi military rule a la Musharraf over any democrratic government we've had sofar.

[intruder]

I read book 'divided by democracy' by Aitzaz Ahsan and Meghnad Desai, which gives good insite the process in pakistan, I found it good read!!

[dk33]

I was looking at "Democracy" as a form of governace that is expected to translates the will/wishes and dreams of people into reality and in some cases has ability to educate\convince\change masses opinion about unrealistic/unethical/irrational wishes considering factors like long term sustainable welfare and development. Although I think there are examples that other forms of governement can deliver better or similar results.

I don't necessarily think that a civilian government is a 'democratic' governement. (my definition)

You are right when you say civilian and military governments both have used Islam as a tool to the disadvantage of the interests of the nation. Moreover, I also think at some points in time Pakistan rulers may have been a victims as well when outside interest groups use Islam against them. It has become like thick cloud that prevents regular people to clearly see various powerful sections for what they are really worth.

The answer lies with intellectual's who can see beyond Islamic clouds and are able raise the right issues. I have a feeling that this group of society is gradually getting stronger in Pakistan.

I don't think the use of Islam as a tool has distracted the people from the failure in providing services and development - it has primarily been used to cement political alliances and standing. Zia did it because he genuinely believed in moving the country in that particular direction, and was deeply unpopular.

Bhutto however pandered to the religious right to shore up support from them, but that never changed his basic appeal with the people based on 'roti, kapra aur makaan' (food, clothing and shelter).

Nawaz Sharif tried religion as well - his attempt to amend the constitution towards the right and appoint himself 'Amir-ul-Momineen' failed however, and his failure to brig about tangible change in the lives of Pakistanis meant that a large number of people welcomed the coup by Musharraf.

So while religion has been used as a tool for various reasons, I don't agree that it has been able to 'hoodwink' the masses into not recognizing the failures of the governments.

[wtf]

I see Democracy as something that is very difficult to sustain. US,Canada and Australia are probably the most continuous examples. (The last two being legally monarchies) . Europe went back and forth, and only after 1970 (Franco) has Western Europe been democratic. East block was arguably not Democratic until 1989.

African countries which got independence in the 60's are still struggling to have a stable democracy. Egypt has had democracy for a while, but they are theoretically still under a state of emergency!! (Hosni Mubarak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) .

South America has had enough coups, but are democratic now in one form or the other.

I think the right question to ask is what would cause democracy to work ?

[wtf]

My belief is that in a democracy, as long as the 3 branches of the government, press and military (theoretically executive branch) do not have a balance of power, it is bound to fail.

If the military is powerful, they'll take over. If it is the press that is powerful you'll see media moguls rule the country or state exercise control over press (Italy, Russia -both partial). If Judiciary has more power they'll take over (I am not sure if Iran counts as a judicial takeover of a government or a legislative one).

And about all the Pakistani people talking about corrupt politicians, it is not the politicians who fail you, it is the systems. If you set up a system where only the corrupt will come to power, you'll have cycles of corrupt rulers and Military (seen as non-corrupt). I don't think by nature or culture India, Pakistan or Bangladesh is very different when it comes to corruption.

India could theoretically have not had a democracy. Communists could have taken over in the 60's if they had gotten Bihar or Andhra to switch (they got Kerala and WB) , or if China had pushed through to West Bengal. Later in 70's military could have staged a coup during Indira Gandhi's emergency. One single man (head of army Tapishwar Narain Raina) refused to take sides and that changed India's history. It finally got democracy back on track when Indira got voted out of power. At the same time Military was pushed down the reporting hierarchy so the balance of power was against a later day takeover. (Only in the last few years has Indian gotten a central military command).

About the corruption issue - TN Seshan had a large part in cleaning up the political mess. Before his time, the richest people would win because they would outspend everyone else or go capture election booths. In the longer term, with economic liberalization, that would have in some 10-20 years have lead to corporate control of politics or a fascist system. By giving real power to the election officers, he changed the way elections were fought. Congress lost power, BJP came in only to lose it again.

[jeypore]

I see Democracy as something that is very difficult to sustain. US,Canada and Australia are probably the most continuous examples. (The last two being legally monarchies) . Europe went back and forth, and only after 1970 (Franco) has Western Europe been democratic. East block was arguably not Democratic until 1989.

African countries which got independence in the 60's are still struggling to have a stable democracy. Egypt has had democracy for a while, but they are theoretically still under a state of emergency!! (Hosni Mubarak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) .

South America has had enough coups, but are democratic now in one form or the other.

I think the right question to ask is what would cause democracy to work ?

The need for freedom, the need to create your own opportunities, the need for justice, need for representation, and especially need for freedom of religious belief and not forced upon. I for one see Pakistan failing in two regards, representation of other provances and need for opportunities.

[wtf]

The need for freedom, the need to create your own opportunities, the need for justice, need for representation, and especially need for freedom of religious belief and not forced upon. I for one see Pakistan failing in two regards, representation of other provances and need for opportunities.

The "need" does not work. People need the same thing everywhere more or less. (Maybe less need for freedom in a religious society, but that is debatable). A lot of people would want all this, but unless they somehow manage to set up a system which will deliver their wants it does not seem to work.

I see it as starting an old motorcycle whose battery has run out. You need to work to get it running, but after a while the battery gets charged and it continues. Nevertheless, if the handle is bent or the tyre has problems from storage, at some point or the other, the rider will fall off.

In India's case we got it running and the bike has tons of problems, but we manage to fix the issues just in time (Rajiv Gandhi discovering India was nearly bankrupt, Emergency, 2-3 near wars with Pakistan etc.). In the past the gas mileage has been atrocious, but with some foreign mechanics help it works much better. What has not given us trouble is the military which is really nice.

Oddly, in my analogy the engine is the economy, finances is the gas tank, the guages are the press etc. The only role I can think of for a military is the horn !!! Maybe not quite exact. If I may stretch my example a bit, I would say that Pakistan is the case of a small high-revving motorcycle.
They zoomed about a lot (Pakistanis would say because Indians challenged them to race with them or taunted them). Now the battery was drained by the horn and they stopped midway. After that they have decided that it is a better idea to push the bike, charge the battery and keep the horn running (so that they can scare away the old Indian motorcycle) rather than try and ride it again.

Apologies if I am offending someone here. The analogy is really stretched and not quite exact . I am trying to respond to the comments saying some prefer "semi-military" than democracy.

[typewriter]

To fully embrace democracy we need to educate our society first.

Pardon the comparison with India again, but the literacy level in India is similar to Pakistan, yet democracy is the one true solid stone upon which India rests. So where exactly does education come in the picture?

[le_souriceau]

Sorry if someone offended.

But from side looks like all indians here greatly concerned to prove that their country is better than Pakistan... in every topic. But if this were true, then why would constantly talk about it? Like mantra.

[batmannow]

To fully embrace democracy we need to educate our society first. As long as the country (i.e. rural parts) is run by feudal lords democracy is merely a tag.

Under the current circumstances I'd prefer a semi military rule a la Musharraf over any democrratic government we've had sofar.

my dear GEN, sir!
great to see, you writting those words!
i fully, back your idea, & i think its "THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION" sooner or later?

[third eye]

---

---

The ans is very simple.

Democracy clashes with vested interests in Pk - PA, Feudal lords etc as it asks for accountablility.