"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the

people are right more than half the time."

- E B White

ALTHOUGH Pakistan was established on the basis of

democratic modus operandi of political institutions, but
unfortunately 56 years of Pakistan’s independence has got
remarkable influence of military administrative body rather than
the democratic governmental organization. Coup d’etat of Nawaz
Shariff government on October 12, 1999 was dubbed as the fourth
episode of democratic turned militarization of the political
structure of Pakistan.

From constitutional suspension to judiciary, executive and

legislative lobby transaction from democratic setup to military
structure has never been so smooth but a tough ride to the
organizational institutions. Perhaps it would be more judicious to
state that battle zones shifting from barracks to governmental
setup have been witnessed each time when ever coups felt
penchant towards democratic ruling style. However, there’s
always involved a noble cause behind this extensive conspiracy,
either there’s corruption involved or financial forgery, from
ministerial dictatorial powers to serious threats to social security
all the weaken democratic bourgeois institutions contributed at
large to de rigueur military dictatorial engagements in political
setup.

The question is how do we define democracy and then compare

this widely accepted perception towards arrogant aristocratic
dictatorial power. Why there’s always an open option fore military
to invade or to invite uncertainty without any option to exit? Why
the democratic institutional lobby is gripped under weakens
corrupted, destabilized and demoralized features enough to
invade by the outcastes? Or why democratic provisions are
difficult to execute or implement in any environment?

Gore Vidal once stated his views regarding democracy that

“Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are
held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable
candidates.” Three things in Gore’s perception are thought
provoking and acceptably portrayed i.e. elections, issues less
favorable environment and candidature criteria. In this regard
where ever Human Rights execution is prevailing, principle of
equality are adopted, government representative are elected via
general consensus, rigging in elections and in electoral body is out
of question, this scenario represent the democratic style of
government. I must quote an unknown perception in the light of
above definition i.e. “Democracy is a government where you can
say what you think even if you don't think.”

Therefore, to establish democracy, participation by common

people and accountability from top to bottom are the core
principles to cater. To say the least, democracy is a carefully
nurtured political institutional lobby rather than a sacrosanct
concept. Unfortunately, west had restricted the dictatorial Sega to
the religion of Islam. However, Islam is the only religion that
advocate justice in the form of democracy and declared sate power
as a sacred trust. Qaid-e-'Azam the Great Leader & founder of
Pakistan once stated that; “There are no people in the world who
are more democratic even in their religion than the Muslims."
From the Islamic traditions the cure of leadership dilemma lies is
public consultation, participation and anticipation, absentia from
each of the factors will alter not only the credibility of
authoritative public representation but create much hindrance in
the progress and performances of over all democratically
established political institutions.

Democracy is the only terminology that merges political, religious

and philosophical perception across the globe. I can confidently
admit that every politically conscious thinker will advocate that
democracy is a basic right essential to each and every sect of the
society.

On the contrary, dictatorial ruling is based on absolute individual

sovereign power without any inspection and invasion where the
democracy defined by Abraham Lincoln i.e. government of the
people, by the people and for the people remain suspended till the
winds of revolutionary change restore democracy, or in other
words people’s sovereignty. It’s a loss of freedom of expressions,
centralization of authoritarian power, paralytic government
establishment, surrender of rights & responsibilities where
survival of democracy becomes impediment to handle.

Some of the philosophical view points available to reveal the true

identity of democracy againstthe un-Islamic dictatorship in
Pakistan arise from different perspectives each time country faces.
Though it delays the legitimization of dictatorial power in order to
shed the hypocrisy involved in coup d’etat of governments, still
there’s always present a certain degree of resistance, like; it is
wisely said that you cannot make fool all the people all the time.
And it’s a fact that leaving behind democratic process will leave
the image of Pakistan as an un-civilized nation yet not ready to
meet the challenges of the outside world, particularly on
democratic front. As also points out the former democratically
elected Prime Minister of Pakistan Ms Bhutto; “Walking away
from democratisation of nuclear-armed Pakistan could lead to
even more horrific results.”

A quick glance over Pakistan’s political perception is definite to

analyze its historical performance of democratic dereliction to
militarize politics in lieu of rough and frequent transaction from
de-centralization to centralized command, both the diversified
setups as it has evolved over the past 5 decades?
Losing sagacious leaders like Jinnah, PM Liaquat Ali Khan and
Z.A. Bhutto created a never ending vacuum to political set up of
Pakistan as dichotomy rises between democracy and dictatorship
involving an immense pressure from rival neighboring countries,
religious zealots and militant mafia both from inland and abroad.

The turbulent history of democracy vis-à-vis dictatorship

persistence started way back to 1950s when General (Late field
Marshal) Ayub Khan Stages a coup in 1958. In his militarized rule
he contributed new constitution advocated to “Basic Democracy”
at the local level with the intention of switching over to civilian
system. Though economy prospered during his 10 year tenure but
the internal political structure weakened seriously by the
extensive corruption and frequent institutional crisis.

In 1969 after extensive agitation of masses Ayub fell from power,

then comes General Agha Muhammad Yehya Khan’s era, the then
commander-in-chief of the army. Parliamentary set up restored
along with the national elections of December 1970 under
silhouettes of second military regime. However, amid the
depressing civil war resulting bloody episode of Bangladesh
formerly East Pakistan’s independence, Yahya’s military power
came to an end.

Under the clouds of open criticism, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took power
as a CMLA. The credit of introducing 1973 constitution goes to
him. Besides that he was an all rounder in political arena of
Pakistan. His mandate of Roti, Kapra aur makan (Food, clothing
& shelter) makes him the most admirable persona grata in the
history of Pakistani politics. In his tenure certain measures were
adopted to curtail the military sovereignty over the civilian
government. However, like all the regimes, Bhutto’s political
career did not enjoy the fruits of democracy for so long. Wide
spread riots, severe criticism from opposition and deteriorating
law and order situation gave green signal to General Mohammed
Zia-ul-Haq to stage a coup d’etat Bhutto on July 5, 1977 and
recalled the history of martial law third time.

Zia-ul-Haq ruled over Pakistan for 11 Years as CMLA with

suspended constitution and Islamic ideology. The political murder
of Bhutto was conducted during his regime. Illegitimacy is the
much annoyed aspect of military rulers and of course the major
obstacle to the smooth execution of dictatorial powers that
introduced the injection of referendum. Therefore, 1984’s
referendum was conducted to eradicate the stumbling blocks in
order to achieve velvety drive of administrative machinery or to
give coup de grace to legitimize power.

The one Way Street of General Zia’s tenure with the penetration of
infamous 8th amendment in 1973 constitution, later lifting of
martial law in 1985 was marked as added advantage of rulers’
absolute power to dismiss government. One of the distinguish
personality carved out by his dictatorial regime was PM
Mohammed Khan Junejo, who unsuccessfully tried to convert
military control in to democratic rule however, his idea bring an
end to National Assembly in May 1988.

However, General Zia’s death in C-130 crash revives much

awaited democracy and Ms. Benazir Bhutto becomes new Prime
Minister of Pakistan.

On October 12, 1999 while exercising military invasions over

political environment on regularity basis country was once again
dragged under the fourth military ruling favored by plane
conspiracy. The toppled government of Nawaz Shariff from lost
opportunity of contesting elections to imprisonment and then to
exile forced General Musharaff to restore democracy. Second time
in the history of Pakistan referendum was held and won by
General Musharaff.
Later under severe pressure of western super powers in particular
and international media in general, elections were held in 2002.
Although both the democratic leaders were deprived of contest
elections on allegation of corruptions but outcome was
contradictory.

After brief analysis of military influence over democratic set up,

what is quite definite to understand is why there’s always certain
elements involve inviting or invading political institutions by the
responsible armed forces. Or why democratic political institutions
are unable to handle their internal menace or what are the
reasons behind their failure? Or will it be judicious to put entire
blame over ill handled democratic provisions? Why military
personnel’s own hysteric attitude towards the wealth of power
cannot be question, after all channels from barracks to drawing
room contains satisfactory conclusions. Why back to back
dictators are often criticized over the question of disintegration
and hypocrisy?

Speaking from political institutional point of view, Democracy

cannot exist as a permanent form of government because of the
constant people’s pressure resolving or improving state
machinery. I do agree that massive corruption, nepotism,
dichotomy towards central and provincial finances, legislative and
executioner’s powers, low level accountability, unemployment,
foreign strategic pressure, weaker administrative lobby, financial
loot and plunder, excessive violation of human rights provisions,
dilapidated social environment makes over all democratic
scenario instable & insecure by hanging future of democratic
establishment in jeopardy.

Political instability does not portray at all that the channels of

military invasion is the only option left out to resolve the matters
absolutely rely on political sphere. There’s always a room of
improvement in the form of revolution via election, as choosing
peoples representatives by free and fair elections is the essence of
democracy. I strongly believe that revolution by ballot not by
bullet is the best accountable approach involving common man’s
perception can preserve the political ideology. Plus the beauty of
democratic environment always involved or engaged a great deal
of criticism from the opposition benches having vigilant eye over
states affairs, and that enjoy complete absentia under dictatorial
power.

Like the way politicians, political leaders, ministers, judges and

other executive personals no matter how experienced and rhetoric
they are cannot join military band wagon once they entered in the
politics. Then why democracy in Pakistan had experienced a
massive military’s irretrievable engagement. One may agree that a
decorous military front man not necessarily can be a good leader
or an astute leader cannot win the battle zone other than
diplomatic front. Then why there’s a frequent merger of two
diverse classes, when both bear a great burden of responsibility
involving national security and consensus.

Whatever may the reasons of the state’s failure, it is unethical,

unjustified and against the rule of law when it comes to military's
involvement in politics. What they should act to be unbiased is
strengthening armed forces in the line of duty and makes all the
precautionary arrangements to be less influenced over the
political institutions. As suspending constitution, hindering
judicial consistency, involving huge finances in referendums and
elections (often labeled as rigged) each time to legitimize one man
rule is not al all feasible for a country combating with the evils of
financial as well as social victimization.

It is a matter of a great concern that neither dictatorship nor

democratic institution ever employed expeditious accountability
cap-a-pie that could assure justice to all the sects of the under
developed society. However, new accountability institutions with
feasible performances and expeditious services are established
each time new government comes in to horizon. But unfortunately
the end results contain severe criticism involving only lower cadre
or less influential people. That shows the highest degree of
corruption and nepotism engaged at each level of accountability
dealing with the affluent class. As long as the accountability
process enjoy back, fighting with financial, social and political
victimization will remain the prime concerns of state
plenipotentiaries.

Parliamentary democracy is must rather unexpected dictatorial

involvement via coup d’etat and favorable constitutional
provisions that adhere power and position in perpetum.
Therefore, legally and peacefully decentralization, rehabilitant,
restructuring and restoration of democracy is must for the sake of
Pakistan’s social & political integrity.

In my opinion, to bring stability in the political hugger mugger

like situation does not mean to bring army in to power. Instead of
strengthening political administrative lobby, applying quid pro
quo approach over the state affairs can make national security &
integrity more fragile and that Pakistan cannot afford. In order to
cure political evils the role of army should be restricted to provide
alarming information via suggestions.

Dictators should learn their lessons from historical civil

disobedience and change their dictatorial perception, that
ultimate power is the power dedicated by the people to their
representatives that make political leaders more accountable.
Therefore, power remains unexcitable if its existence diversifies
from through proper channel. On the other hand, democracy
without morality is impossible; therefore it is an absolute
responsibility of the democratic leadership to take all the
necessary measures that could save our country from dictatorial
regimes.
No matter how progressive military establishment conceive their
achievable ideas, democracy remain the widely acceptable
perception where fundamental rights, freedom of expression,
preservation of astute political ideology, participation of common
people on equality basis, free society but according to Islamic code
of conducts, legal electoral system, liberty of legislature, executive
and judicial lobby cannot be ignored rather expanded.