Topic: Pakistan’s democracy remains a victim of its colonial heritage
Written By: Maria Arshad
Outline:
1. Introduction
a. British Raj and colonial India
b. Impacts of colonial institutions, practices, and ideas on Pakistan’s political culture
resulting in weak democracy
2. Pakistan - Overdeveloped state structure (Hamza Alavi)
a. Military bureaucracy oligarchy: antithetical to democratic values
b. Marxian analysis of class structure and democracy in Pakistan
I. Metropolitan bourgeoisie / ex-colonists class
II. Strong feudal class
c. British Army and Bureaucratic officials and their assumed racial superiority
3.
Means of Production, Taxation, Plundering, and Weak post-colonial economy
a. Means of Production
b. Excessive Taxation of Indian goods
c. Plundering resources and wealth of India
1. Utsav Patnaik estimates wealth pilfered by Britain
II. Deteriorated Health and Education Sector
d. Weak Post-Colonial Economy of Pakistan
4. Weak Civil Society, Strong Bureaucracy and its Patron-Client relationship with
Bourgeoisie
a. Weak civil society
b. Strong Bureaucracy during Colonial time
I. Patron-Client relationship with Urban bourgeoisie
c. Privileged bureaucracy and bourgeoisie in post-partition Pakistan
5. Conflict Between Pakistan and India and strengthening of Military in Pakistan
a. Strong Military-Bureaucracy in British India
b. Radcliffe’s arbitrary mapping of partition
c. Conflict between India and Pakistan
I. Expansion of Pakistan’s Military
II. Economic hurdles post-partition and defense limitations
d. Strong Pakistani Military at the cost of other institutions
e. Military Alliances with other organizations
6. Centralization of Power post-partition and Military Interventions
a. Centralization of Power
b. Jinnah’s overturning of legislative assembly
c. Control of sales tax by the Central government
d. Marshal laws and failed constitution
7. Way Forward
a. Supremacy of political institutions
b. Curbing army’s influence in politics
c. Resolving internal geo-political crises through political means rather than military
tactics e.g. Balochistan, Gilgit etc.
d. Extensive bureaucratic reforms
e. Reformation of Education system
f. Enhancing political socialization and voter turnout
g. Strong civil society
h. Strengthening social fabric by curbing socio-economic inequalities.
8. Conclusion
Pakistan’s democracy remains a victim of its colonial heritage
Since the liberation and partition of Colonial India, Pakistan has been unable to uphold true
democratic values across the board because the country inherited its state institutions and
constitution from Imperialist Britain, which had set itself up to plunder the resources of the
Indian colony and run its institutions solely for its own benefits and not the welfare of the
colonial subjects. Britain entered India in the guise of businessmen of East India Company and
gradually turned across centuries into a colonizer and imperialist power. The British replaced the
pre-colonial aristocracy and warlords with a military and bureaucratic establishment that
maintained law and order on the one hand and ensured huge profits through exports and tax
collections for Britain. While Britain maintained its control over India, it set in motion certain
institutions, practices, and ideas, which simply did not die away the day Britain left in 1947 but
were inherited by the newly-liberated states of Pakistan and India. Those inherited institutions,
such as military and bureaucracy, practices, such as centralization of power, extravagant defense
expenditures, and ideas, such as sedition laws, have been restraining Pakistan from becoming an
efficient democracy.
Prominent sociologist, Hamza Alvi1, proposed that Pakistan inherited an ‘Overdeveloped state
structure’ from the British, as the military and bureaucracy were equipped with undue supremacy
in the colonial times and the situation persisted into the post-independence period. As per Alvi,
the military and bureaucratic machinery of Britain was strengthened by the support of the
Metropolitan neo-colonialist bourgeoisie and landed classes and the situation remained effective
in the post-independence period, too. As a result, the indigenous bourgeoisie and the general
population failed to subordinate the colonial state-apparatus of military-bureaucratic oligarchy.
The situation resulted from the fact that after the 1857 War of Independence, the British crown
took formal control of the Indian colony from the East India Company and increased the
numbers of British soldiers in the Indian Army to strengthen their imperialist grip on the
subcontinent. Also, British officials controlled the colonial army and bureaucratic infrastructure,
while maintaining a hierarchical relationship with the local Indians based on racial superiority.
Although the functions of bureaucracy and military were to enforce rules and regulations and
protect the country from foreign invasion, the military in British India was entrusted with
maintaining the British Raj by keeping the masses under control by any means possible, which is
why the military was kept outside of Parliamentary rule. When time came for the liquidation of
British Raj, these institutions became even stronger and more developed and they became
relatively more autonomous in absence of check and balance. Their autonomy in the state
structure was further reinforced by lack of political leadership in the newly found state of
Pakistan. In the absence of direly needed reformations in state structures and the constitution, the
1
The State In post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh by Hamza Alvi
military-bureaucratic oligarchy kept expanding its wings and subjugated the country under their
own power through repeated martial laws and relentless control of foreign policy.
Another aspect of the evolution of democracy that Alvi proposed lies in the means of production
in Colonial India: From a Marxian perspective, development of bourgeoisie class/upper middle
class that consist of lawyers, entrepreneurs, traders etc. was crucial to the historical development
of democracy because this class defeated the feudalism in Europe. Had India been allowed to
develop into prosperous towns without any interruption, its bourgeoisie class would have
overpowered the feudal class as happened in Europe and led the pathway for bourgeois
democracy2. Britain made this impossible by draining its Indian colony of surplus wealth. The
East India Company began installing railways after 1826, which was subsidized by taxes from
the local people but the revenue from tickets went to the British coffers. In addition, after the
industrial revolution, the British sucked raw resources from the far corners of India, shipped
them to factories in London, Manchester, and Lancashire, and then resold the industrial products
to the local people and the local products, which were mostly produced by hand, could not
compete anymore. As a result, this circle of export and import impoverished the Indian economy
over the following decades, making the people more and more dependent on the British Imperial
powers, not to mention the famines and droughts caused by British mismanagement of local
resources. Utsav Patnaik3 estimated from her research that the British pilfered at least £9.2
trillion wealth from the Colonial subcontinent, which included the present-day Pakistan, too. As
the British took out foreign exchange earnings of Colonial India, it stunted the capability of the
country to embark on the journey of industrialization and this hampering of development in
industrial terms persisted in Pakistan long after the British left. Patnaik argues that if the
immense wealth was spent within the subcontinent, the British would have left a far better health
and welfare system behind themselves. The British established the bureaucratic system of district
administrators, who were just collectors and were instituted to strengthen the British tax
collections from the subcontinent. Pakistan after independence retained a drained economy that
was technologically poor and had a bureaucratic system in place that had no tradition of welfare
activities and local spending on health and education. Apart from exploiting the natural resources
of India, only industries with non-competitive products were let to be established hence an
artificial bourgeoisie class was established by them which remained loyal to the colonial masters.
This ex-colonist class, therefore, continued to maintain its influence in post-colonial Pakistan and
only maximized their own interest in collaboration with the feudal class and religious right of
Pakistan sabotaging the struggle to enforce democratic polity.
Because of the colonial means of production, Pakistan inherited a weak civil society after
independence as there was observed almost no increase in income per capita between 1900 and
1946 although India had experienced second largest surplus export earnings before 19294. Civil
society, a tier of institutions between the masses and the state, checks the highhandedness of the
state and strives for the democratic cause. It is an outcome of urbanized class and consists of
2
The State In post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh by Hamza Alvi
3
British Raj siphoned out $45 trillion from India: Utsa Patnaik by Ajai Sreevatsan
4
British Raj siphoned out $45 trillion from India: Utsa Patnaik by Ajai Sreevatsan
human right organizations, activists, media, labor collectives and political parties etc. However,
in case of the colonized India, the urban bourgeoisie partnered with the British colonizers in
maintaining law and order through military and bureaucracy, which is why Asim Sajjad5 calls
them ‘junior partner to the British’. The way the British maintained a distance from their colonial
subjects due to racial arrogance, the same attitude was extended by the urban bourgeoisie and
their members in military bureaucratic infrastructure. Asim Sajjad argues that the urban
bourgeoisie of Pakistan are contemptuous of the backward masses and entertain no patience for
the mess of democracy. Dr. Zafar A. Bokhari6 also considers that the Pakistan’s bureaucracy is a
colonial residue and that it has been enjoying more power than the democratic institutions of
Pakistan. He argues that the executive branch of the state has more power concentrated in it and
is controlled directly by military and civil bureaucracies at the expense of the judiciary and
legislature. The latter two serve the purpose of rubber stamps, while any legislation in the
country is initiated by the civil and military bureaucracies. Additionally, Bokhari argues that the
British established a ‘patron-client relationship’ between the bureaucracy and urban bourgeois,
feudal lords, and religious leaders. The colonial administrators co-opted the urban bourgeoisie,
tribal leaders, and feudal lords by providing them patronage in the form of titles, pensions, land
grants, and in return, they ensured collection of revenues and political stability. This state of
affairs persisted after the independence and the bureaucracy retained a strong influence over the
local elites and bourgeoisie through patronage. That is why the bourgeoisie and elite along with
bureaucracy enjoyed exclusive privileges and powers after the independence of Pakistan and
together ensured the suppression of democratic values and civil society because these elite
groups benefited the most from the above-mentioned conditions in the decolonized world and till
the day has a vested interest in perpetuating and maintaining the current system.
The military-bureaucratic establishment in the Colonial era remained efficient in protecting the
interests of the British and entertained no fantasies of development in the subcontinent. As late as
1936, the government spending on agriculture was 3 percent, while more than 50 percent
spending was focused on the military and police. It is no wonder that Independent Pakistan
maintained the same high spending on the military now that the government had a permanent
enemy and a threat in the form of India. The British made the blunder of appointing Sir Cyril
Radcliffe, who had not explored the region before drawing the maps of the borders between
India and Pakistan, whose decisions left an unresolved conflict between the two nascent
countries. Although Pakistan had wished to become a liberal democracy as per the proclamations
of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Kashmir conflict reversed the situation and the second Governor
General of Pakistan Khawaja Nazimuddin stated that religion was not a private affair and given
that Pakistan was an Islamic state, not every citizen deserved equal rights7. Along with an
overpowered bureaucracy, Pakistan grew into a militarized state after independence from British
and partition with India due to its weak administrative structures and a consistent threat posed by
India along the border, especially in Kashmir. Ayesha Jalal8 foregrounds the supremacy of the
military in Pakistan after partition by arguing that Pakistan focused on defense establishment
5
The Bourgeoisie Trap by Asim Sajjad Akhtar
Pakistan’s Bureaucracy: A Legacy of British Colonial Era by Dr. Zafar A. Bokhari
7
India–Pakistan Relations by Pankaj Dodh
8
The State of Martial Rule: The Origin’s of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defense, chapter: Constructing the State
by Ayesha Jalal
6
against both inner and outer threats. She argues that the central leadership of newly-liberated
Pakistan was vulnerable due to ‘unprecedented demographic changes’ and meagre financial and
human resources post-partition. As a result, any political opposition within the country was
interpreted as a threat to the sovereignty of the state. Besides, the hostilities on Indian border
soon after partition pushed Pakistan to divert its insufficient resources to strengthen the military
defense. Pakistan’s Kashmir policy incurred extravagant expenditures of defense establishment
from the national exchequer. In this way, the defense of the country was prioritized over the
rehabilitation of refugees in millions from India, establishment of industrial units, and setting up
an apparatus of central government. Moreover, after the Kashmir conflict in 1948, Jalal argues
that both India and Pakistan began expanding their defense. Due to lack of leadership and strong
state infrastructure, Pakistan’s military came to the forefront in a few years after the partition and
became the arbiter in matters of state, economy, and policy. Furthermore, Ayesha Jalal9 argued
that the Pakistan’s military could only strengthen itself at the cost of other state institutions. The
military also engaged with the international capitalist system and formed alliances, such as
General Ayub Khan Joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization in 1954 and Central Treaty
Organization in 1955. Pakistan also made alliance with the United States in the following
decades due to the situation posed by the cold war, which further strengthened the power of the
military in Pakistan.
After the partition, the government of Pakistan retained its imperial legacy of a centralized
government and issued ordinances which were legitimized by the constitution adapted from the
Government of India Act of 1935. The legislative assembly acted as a sovereign authority in
Pakistan, which could amend and make new laws and restrict the powers of governor-general.
However, the then Governor-General of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah overruled the decisions
of legislative assembly through the approval of cabinet and according to Ayesha Jalal10, Jinnah
thus perpetuated the viceregal system of British Imperialists. Additionally, due to the threats
posed by India, the administrative and financial powers of the newly liberated Pakistan were
concentrated in the center. In case of sales tax, the 1935 Act vested its powers on the provincial
legislature; however, due to immense defense expenditures, the rules were revised by the center.
First, modifications were made in the existing constitution to enable the center in taking the
taxation under its fold. Two years later, given that the situation had not improved, it was
recommended that the sales tax would remain with the center for two more years. The East
Bengal province did not concede to this arrangement and nonetheless, a bill was implemented
that authorized the center to take care of the sales tax for two more years. This one issue of sales
tax represents the growing distrust between the center and provinces. Besides, the first
constitution of Pakistan was delayed by nine years and was rejected by Awami League – the
largest political party of the time. Due to lack of consensus among different ethnicities and
political parties in East and West Pakistan, Martial Law was imposed by Ayub Khan in 1958 and
implemented a new constitution in 1962 through executive order. The political events of the first
decade after partition staged a course for Pakistan’s destiny in which the military became
stronger than other institutions of the state and true democracy became a far-fetched dream.
9
Historian Ayesha Jalal on Military Rule in Pakistan; interview with Ajaz Ashraf at Scroll.in
The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defense, chapter: Constructing the State
by Ayesha Jalal (Page 62)
10
Though the problems eroding Pakistan are grave and have been instituted across many decades,
there are certain steps which could be taken to overcome the problems and foster a democratic
culture. The process can be commenced by curbing the domination of state institutions, such as
military and bureaucracy over political institutions. Both civilian and military leadership need to
facilitate the proper development of civilian supremacy. Moreover, the whole training syllabi of
both civil and military bureaucracy needs to be changed and reformed according to the
democratic values. Unelected institutions must not remain privileged and must be made
accountable to the legislature and judiciary. The political dynamics of the country need to be
reinvented: national level political parties need to be formed to overcome growing polarization
and provide fair representation to each individual and each group or identity. Adding to this, the
already existing geo-political problems like that in Balochistan or Gilgit need to be handled
carefully. It is high time that political solutions are sought out for internal crises rather than
resorting to military tactics and suppression of dissent. Moreover, Sanctity of separation of
powers must be withheld with the true spirit of federalism. Last but not the least, the education
system needs to be reformed and decolonized; uniform, coherent and up-to-date set of policies
must be formulated and effectively implemented to enable citizens to think freely and become
responsible citizens.
To put the whole discussion in nutshell, various factors have been responsible for Pakistan's
failure to experience a steady consolidation of democracy over its seven decades of
independence as it failed to eschew its colonial practices to reform its state institutions and make
them prone to democracy. Rigid and powerful military-bureaucracy oligarchy coupled with
concentration of power in the center seeped from the British Raj into post-colonial Pakistan and
made the democratization of the state very difficult, if not impossible. Not only that, the
weakened democracy that came out of the independence from colonialism bred more problems
than it could solve, such as ethnic and religious polarization, persecution of minorities,
corruption, weak civil society, economic problems and deterioration of the education system
among many others. Unless a series of well-formulated policies are implemented to restore
democratic values and purge the state infrastructure of its ravenous problems, democracy will
become more and more difficult to attain.