The End of Parliamentary Democracy?
Roedad Khan
Pakistan opted for parliamentary democracy at the dawn of independence. Eleven years later,
with the full knowledge of the American Ambassador and the British High Commissioner,
President Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan, his Army Chief, conspired to abrogate the
constitution and stab Pakistan's fledgling democracy in the back. Pakistan's flirtation with
democracy ended in a puff of smoke. There was not a ripple of protest nor any sign of agitation.
Miss. Fatima Jinnah, the revered sister of Quaid-i-Azam, issued a statement: "a new era has
begun under General Ayub Khan and armed forces have undertaken to root out the
administrative malaise and the anti-social practices to create a sense of confidence and stability
and eventually to bring the country back to a state of normalcy. I hope and pray that God may
give them wisdom and strength to achieve their objectives".
"To plunge the army into politics", Ayub Khan wrote in his diary, "was like exposing my own
child to unpredictable hazards". Ayub Khan committed the original sin. He knew that if the
army once got drawn into political life - and this he knew was inevitable - it could not withdraw
itself. It was Ayub khan who inducted the army into the politics of Pakistan. He set a bad
precedent. Others merely followed his example. Why did Pakistan lapse into dictatorship? Why
has parliamentary democracy failed to hold the field in Pakistan? Let us go back to the
beginning, so to speak, and look at the question in historical perspective. Perhaps we can find
the clue to an answer if we glance at what has happened in India after independence. The
success of parliamentary democracy in India stands out in contrast to its 'failure' in Pakistan. "If
one is travelling in Asia", Professor Arnold Toynbee said in a lecture delivered at McGill
University in 1961, "and enters India after having visited some of the other south Asian
countries, one become conscious of a difference in human climate… Here is a country with a
vast area, with a great and growing population, with the narrowest margin of production over
the requirements of bare subsistence, with a low percentage of literacy, and with an experience
of parliamentary government that was only 30 years old in 1947 - the year in which India's
independence was achieved. There has never before been an electorate on the Indian scale; yet
general elections in India appear to be efficiently organized and honestly conducted. The
polling is heavy; the public interest in the political issues is keen. The practical difficulties
arising from illiteracy have been surmounted by ingenious polling devices. In present - day
India, parliamentary democracy is a reality. This is greatly to the credit of the Indian people as a
whole, but even greater credit is due to the modern - minded minority in India that has been
serving the country as a political leaven…"
Pakistanis and Indians are inhabitants of the same subcontinent. We were exposed to the same
Western influences under the same Western colonial regime. We became independent states at
the same date. "The difference in the political outcome", Toynbee said, "is a consequence of the
difference in the respective reactions of Hindus and Indian Muslims to the impact of the west
over a preceding period of nearly 200 years, beginning with the establishment of the British East
India Company's rule over Bengal".
Democracy, in the sense in which it is understood in the West, is foreign to Pakistan and has
very few supporters. Nobody in this country - neither the politicians, nor the judiciary nor the
bureaucracy, nor the army believes in it. Democracy in the West means a political system
marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, independent judiciary, an
independent Election Commission, a neutral, de-politicized civil service, the protection of basic
liberties of speech, assembly, religion and property. In Pakistan, democracy means a political
system marked by rigged elections, absence of rule of law and independent Election
Commission. Constitutional liberalism, as it is understood in the West, is foreign to Pakistan.
Free, fair and impartial elections are rarely held in this country. The resulting governments are
democratic only in name. No tears are shed when they are toppled. In fact, people heave a sigh
of relief and welcome the usurpers.
The military has cast a long shadow over politics in Pakistan even during the period of civilian
rule. Repeated army intervention in the politics of Pakistan has been a recipe for disaster. It has
thwarted the growth and development of parliamentary democracy and destroyed whatever
little faith people had in their political institutions. What is worse, it has eroded people's faith in
themselves as citizens of a sovereign, independent, democratic country. Men are not corrupted
by the exercise of power or debased by the habit of obedience, but by the exercise of power
which they believe to be illegitimate, and by obedience to a rule which they consider to be
usurped and oppressive.
2
The army has struck Pakistan's nascent democracy four times and has been in power for nearly
half the country's existence. It has shown a greater willingness to grasp power than to give it up.
None of the first three army chiefs to rule Pakistan - Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia ul Haq gave up power voluntarily. There is no reason to believe that General Musharraf will act
differently. After taking over, the first task of any military ruler is to address the nation on radio
and television. On each occasion, the coup leaders have summoned as much sincerity as they
could muster and have delivered carbon copy speeches. Ayub Khan pledged: 'our ultimate aim
is to restore democracy'. Yahya Khan insisted: 'I have no ambition other than the creation of
conditions conducive to the establishment of a constitutional government'. Zia ul Haq, the least
democratically - minded of the lot, gave the clearest assurance of all: 'My sole aim is to organize
free and fair elections which would be held in October this year'. Most recently, General Pervez
Musharraf has claimed that: 'The armed forces have no intention to stay in charge any longer
than is absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan'.
A few days after the 1999 coup, General Musharraf's spokesman insisted that while: 'Others
may have tried to hang on to power, we will not. We will make history'. General Musharraf
agreed: 'All I can say', he assured a television interviewer in January 2000, 'Is that I am not going
to perpetuate myself… I can't give any certificate on it but my word of honour. I will not
perpetuate myself'. Later in 2000, Musharraf went a stage further and said, he would respect a
Supreme Court judgement that stated he would remain in office for just three years. In June
2001, however, Musharraf performed a complete U-turn. Following the examples of Ayub,
Yahya and Zia, he made himself President. And in May 2002, he held a dubious referendum
that is the basis of his rule for a further five years.
Pakistan's military rulers have had other traits in common. All of them have placed great
emphasis on constitutional reforms for the better governance of the country. Ayub Khan
devised the system of basic democracy which he dismantled with his own hands before he fell
from power. Fifty four years after Ayub's coup, General Pervez Musharraf, the new military
ruler, said he wants to create a more stable political system by giving the army a permanent role
in decision-making, but there is little reason to believe that he will prove any more capable of
establishing durable political institutions than his predecessors. His idea of a National Security
Council on which the politicians and service chiefs work together is bound to fail. Like Ayub
3
Khan before him, President Musharraf is unwilling to accept that trying to create a hybrid of
military and democratic government cannot and will not work. The danger is that President
Musharraf's authoritarian regime, far from being temporary, will, unless checked in time,
acquire the mantle of legitimacy and permanence. The country will then settle into a form of
government with a democratic façade and a hard inner cure of authoritarianism - an iron hand
wrapped in a velvet glove.
Ultimately, the true guardians of democracy are the people of Pakistan. The lesson of history is
that the only defence against a military coup is strong political institutions and nothing else. A
democratic government can be given to any people, but not every people can maintain it. If
people have no faith in their political institutions; if they have no respect for their political
institutions; if they do not value representative government; if they are not prepared to make
any sacrifice for its sake; if they are unwilling to defend it and if they are unable to do what it
requires, then they would not be able to maintain it. Isn't it a sad commentary on our chosen
representatives that when honour calls, they all abandon the ship and swim ashore to safety?
With such leaders, is it surprising that parliamentary democracy has failed to hold the field in
Pakistan and can be snuffed out by the military any time it likes? "Perhaps no form of
government", said the historian and diplomat Lord Bryce, "needs great leaders so much as
democracy".
Fifty five years after its creation, Pakistan's quest for a stable political order remains elusive.
Our history can be summed up in one sentence. It is the sound of heavy boots coming up the
stairs and the rustle of satin slippers coming down. Will it ever be possible for Pakistan to break
out of this vicious cycle? The argument that democracy has failed in Pakistan or that Pakistanis
aren't ready for it just won't wash. The truth is that democracy was never given a fair trial.
Democratization is a long and complex struggle marked by advances and setbacks. The process
of genuine democratization is gradual and long-term, in which election is only one step.
Without appropriate preparation, it might even be a false step. "Democracy is not just setting up
elections. It is a way of life". Margaret Thatcher observed wisely. "Only then is it irreversible".
Politicians elected during military rule face a difficult choice: they can either cooperate with the
army, thereby losing all their credibility or they can insist that the generals call it a day, restore
4
parliamentary democracy and go back to the barracks, thereby forcing a political crisis. The
future of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan will depend on the choice they make.
We live in a democratic age. Democracy or freedom of choice is not a luxury. It is intrinsic to
human development. Military dictatorships are anachronisms in a world of global markets,
information and media. There are no longer any respectable alternatives to democracy; it is part
of the fashionable attire of modernity. Can it be believed that democracy, which has overthrown
the feudal system and vanquished kings and fascist dictators, will retreat before dictatorship in
Pakistan in the 21st century? Time is on the side of democracy everywhere. And time will win.
5