MARCH 23 is celebrated as the Pakistan Day, because on that day in the year 1940 the Pakistan resolution (at that time called the Lahore resolution) was passed. However, it has another significance. On that day in the year 1956, the country, hitherto governed under the Government of India Act 1935 and the Indian Independence Act 1947, shunned its dominion status and became a republic with the promulgation of its own constitution.

The 1956 constitution was the fruit of deliberations of two constituent assemblies—seven years by the first and two years by the second. It provided that Pakistan shall be a parliamentary democracy with effective executive powers vested in the cabinet responsible to a popularly elected National Assembly. Pending the popular elections, the Constituent Assembly was to serve as the National Assembly. The idea was to set up a government representing the popular will in both its composition and actions.

However, as the events unfolded themselves, the idea of a responsible government has not been realised. Democracy in Pakistan has had a chequered history. Twice the country’s constitution has been abrogated (1958 and 1969) and thrice suspended (1977, 1999 and 2007). No prime minister has yet completed his or her tenure. They have been either dismissed by ambitious presidents or adventurous generals or forced to resign. Parliament in Pakistan has seldom if ever been its own master, and has been used generally as a rubber stamp to validate the decisions made elsewhere. These are hard facts and make even a robust optimist sceptical about the future of democracy in the country.

The political system of Pakistan is not strong enough to grapple with the challenges facing the country and remains vulnerable to extra-political interventions. After every ten years, the democratic process is disrupted in the name of saving the country. Consequently, our political culture is markedly deficient in healthy political conventions, such as respect for institutions and rule of law, which lie at the heart of democracy.

On paper, Pakistan may have all the ingredients of a democratic system. However, merely having a democratic system, though exceedingly important, does not guarantee the preservation and growth of the democratic order. For, as Aristotle pointed out, there may be a difference between what a political system on paper is and how it actually works. The political system created by successive constitutions has been a democratic one in form but has seldom been made to work in a democratic fashion. What really guarantees the preservation and growth of democracy is strong democratic institutions.

But this can only be achieved if politicians on both sides of the political divide make their personal and party interests subservient to those of democratic institutions and work for the success of democracy. When democratic institutions are strong, transfer of power is smooth. But when these are weak, the transfer of power is likely to be a crash landing.

Strong and stable institutions are essential for growth of democracy. Not only do they protect a democratic order against extra-constitutional steps; they also provide a stable and predictable environment for the growth of democracy. Unfortunately, in case of Pakistan political institutions could not be developed, which is a capital cause of its democratic instability. Governments have by and large shown little respect for institutions. It is customary on the part of political leaders to clamour for independence of institutions when out of power but staff them with their own loyalists, perceived or real, when in the government.

For instance, almost every government in Pakistan has tried to impair the independence of judiciary. Ziaul Haq under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) and Pervez Musharraf first under the Legal Framework Order (LFO) and then under the PCO invited only “pliant” judges of the superior courts to take oath, while the rest were sacked. Z.A. Bhutto amended the constitution (through fifth and sixth amendments) to control the superior judiciary. Throughout the tenure of Ziaul Haq, the Chief Justice of Pakistan was not confirmed and the incumbents worked on acting charge basis.

In 1994, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto elevated Justice Muhammad Ilyas to the Supreme Court and then appointed him as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. He was used by the government for making political appointments in the High Court. Some of these appointments were so controversial that they led to the Supreme Court verdict in the famous Judges Case of 1996. The Nawaz Sharif government got the Supreme Court attacked to prevent it from hearing a contempt of court petition against the Prime Minister.Both Z.A. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif as prime ministers sought to consolidate their position by trying to control the army instead of strengthening political institutions. Both successfully removed one Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and each appointed a “loyal” junior officer as COAS. However, both were dislodged from power by their respective COAS.

Musharraf, until he was forced to step down in August 2008, ruled like an absolute ruler, amending and suspending the constitution at will. Though a democratic set-up was installed in 2002, it was democratic only in name. Parliament was no more than a rubber-stamp, which validated every Musharraf decree and also elected him twice in uniform to the office of president. Since a docile parliament was no threat to him, it was allowed to complete its tenure and instead the judiciary, which showed signs of independence, faced his wrath.

A strong political system embodies a consensus among political forces against political authoritarianism, which is the hallmark of a truly democratic polity. In India, for instance, there are parties of the right, centre and the left, which may differ on certain issues but all agree that India should be a multiparty democracy. Probably it is this agreement that more than any other factor has prevented any military adventurer from stepping in. Conversely, in Pakistan, military takeover has always found a lot of political support and sympathy. As one author puts it, “Most Pakistani politicians have the habit of appealing to the army when cornered by opponents.”

A democratic system should be tuned to serving the people, who must have high stakes in the continuation of the democratic process, otherwise they will care little whether a civilian or khaki rules them. Democracy in the end means empowerment of the people. Economic emancipation is an important component of the people’s empowerment. Hence, in most of the countries, such as those of western Europe, pro-people economic growth has played an important role in the strengthening of democracy.

Although, on the whole, Pakistan’s economy has grown at a healthy rate; the benefits of the economic growth have not trickled down to the ordinary people. That is why the increase in per capita income has been accompanied by widening income disparities. As one economist points out, if growth and prosperity exclude large sections of the population, the potential for social strife increases. Consequently, the faith in the political/democratic process erodes and the military is increasingly seen as a peace maker.

As far as job creation and poverty alleviation are concerned, most civilian governments have not come up to the expectations of the people and were unable to implement their economic agenda. One reason may be that nearly half of the federal government’s budget is allocated to debt servicing and defence expenditure leaving a narrow fiscal space available to it to undertake developmental projects. Presently, public resources are increasingly being spent in the war on terrorism at the expense of social sector development. Besides, the current wave of terrorism is having a telling impact on the economy and the people most severely affected are the poor and low-income sections of society. In such circumstances, people tend to be disenchanted with democracy.

The February 2008 elections brought back the PPP to power amid promises to establish a responsible government and restore the powers of parliament curtailed by the seventeenth amendment to the constitution. After dilly dallying over the repeal of the seventeenth amendment during last two years, the government is finally amending the constitution to get rid of the aforementioned amendment and other constitutional anomalies.

In 1972, Prime Minister Bhutto had warned: “Looking into the future, if we messed it up, if we didn’t make the parliamentary system work, if our constitution breaks down, then there is the possibility of the army stepping in again”. Regrettably, Bhutto himself did not pay much heed to this warning. One hopes that his present-day successors would do so.