"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

PAKISTAN got independence in 1947. Quaid-e-Azam, the founder as well as the first governor general of the state, was committed to parliamentary form of democracy. Unfortunately, he could not withstand his illness for long and died a year after independence. Liaquat Ali Khan, a dedicated prime-minister elected from Eastern Pakistan was unacceptable to the ruling elite of West Pakistan and was subsequently eliminated from the political scene in 1951. Since these devoted leaders could not survive long, the country plunged into the quagmire of political instability due to lack of sincere leadership. After the death of Liaquat Ali Khan, clashes for power began. Politics turned into a wrestling arena. Nazimuddin, the then governor general, stepped down to grab the seat of Prime Minister, which promised greater authority and power. As ill-luck would have it, he was soon kicked off by Governor General Ghulam Mohammad in 1953 undemocratically with the support of some military personnel and the Chief Justice. It was actually the first military coup assiduously preserved in the facade of parliamentary form. Prime Ministers made a queue then. They came and left frequently. Ministries were dissolved over nights through unconstitutional means. Howsoever, the politicians of West Pakistan managed to cobble a constitution in 1956 based on ‘parity principle’ between East and West Pakistan. By this time ‘One Unit’ was formulated by integrating the four provinces of West Pakistan to avert the dominance of East Pakistan. After-all how could the elites of West Pakistan quench their thirst of power if they were to be dominated by the rightful majority? But, the threat of permanent East Pakistan majority prevailed notwithstanding the efforts taken by politicians to forestall the situation. Promulgation of the newly framed constitution called for elections. It was apprehended that any government that would emerge in result of these elections would be dominated by Bengal. There was only one remedy to this situation: postpone the elections indefinitely. Since the procrastination couldn’t be dragged long, military had to be called in to ‘save’ the country (from elections).

Ayub Khan, the first military dictator, took over the country as Chief Martial Law Administrator in 1958 with the support of some villainous politicians and the Chief Justice unethically legitimized it under the stamp of “necessity”. He first suspended the constitution to assume unquestionable powers. Now either the politicians had to play the game according to his rules or they were out of it. The politicians are generally more concerned about their own well-being rather than national interests. They succumb and the coup succeeds. Since a dictator doesn’t have his roots in the public, he has to derive support either by manipulating political parties or kneeling down before foreign powers. Ayub Khan introduced “Basic Democracies” to perpetuate his rule as it’s always easier to manipulate results of indirect elections when the number of voters is small. After rigging the elections, the parliament that is elected, is in a better position to serve the interests of their illegitimate father. Ayub Khan was uncomfortable with the parliamentary-type constitution of 1956, thus, he gave birth to a new constitution in 1962 which turned him ‘invincible’. This constitution turned the Government into a hyper-presidential one. Presidential governments are easier to be transformed into dictatorships compared to parliamentary ones. He ruled as a king, however, a few wrong moves in the end left him with no choice but to step down facing sheer humiliation. He handed over the reign to his half-brother Yahya Khan, another military chief, who was supposed to bring democracy at home. Yahya Khan held elections in 1970, which were reasonably free and fair. This raised the fears of election of a Bengali Prime Minister in the parliament and ultimately, a Bengali dominance. Thus, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, leader of the majority party in West Pakistan, craving for authority, preferred to disintegrate the country rather than sharing power.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto emerged as the almighty Prime Minister of West Pakistan. He started ruling the country in his own idiosyncratic way. The first and foremost task ahead him, was to design a workable constitution on Westminster model that could shift the powers from President to Prime Minister. He succeeded. The Westminster model can transform into a dictatorship in absence of checks and balances. This system has been working effectively in England since the Monarch has a check over the Prime Minister, but in Pakistan there is no monarchy at all. Bhutto introduced a few amendments to adjust himself properly in the seat. Nonetheless, he soon fell prey to a deadly virus of megalomania. He held referendum in 1977 to demonstrate a vote of confidence in him. He could have easily won it however he preferred not to take any chance. His darling bureaucracy over-rigged the elections to please him. This paved way for another military coup under General Zia-ul-Haq. He overthrew Bhutto and executed him subsequently. Zia-ul-Haq, as his strategic forefathers was fond of unqualified dictatorial rule. He first suspended the constitution as all the military rulers do. Then he introduced the 8th Amendment which gave him the steering wheel by turning the government to hyper-presidential type. He held elections once in 1985, but barred political parties from taking part in it. He used Article 58-2(b) to dislodge Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo undemocratically. He gave rise to the menace of religious extremism in Pakistan and the nation is still paying the price of it. He destroyed the total political fabric of the state. Pakistan had to bear him for 11 years until he died in 1988 in an allegedly pre-planned plane crash. It was after his death that the country saw 11 consecutive years of weak civilian rule under Benazir Bhutto (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif (PML-N). Their rule proved to be more authoritative rather than democratic. Benazir twice and Nawaz once were taken off their hot-seats by the application of Article 58-2(b). Ridiculed Nawaz amended the constitution to invalidate that article in his second term. Since their rules were full of corruption and highhandedness they couldn’t strengthen the political infrastructure and another military coup under Pervaiz Musharraf ousted Nawaz Sharif in 1999.

With the appearance of General Pervaiz Musharraf at the scene the country plunged into severe economic and political crises. Musharraf legitimized his coup under the graffiti “necessity” as traditional. He was unconstitutionally authorized to rule by the parliament and the judiciary. He introduced a Legal Framework Order (LFO) and presented the 17th Amendment under which he formulated National Security Council (NSC) headed by military and revived the 8th Amendment under which he could dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve the Assembly at his discretion. The former placed the civilians under the thumb of military and the later gave him authoritative powers to bring unruly politicians under control. He set the same rules of the game as his predecessors, and could kick out anyone who foul-played. This way he derived his support from the politicians. However, both his Seventeenth Amendment and LFO were unconstitutional. According to the charter, only parliament after negotiations and certain legal procedures can amend the constitution however his amendment was thrust down the throats of people forcefully in an undemocratic way. He formed the Mullah-Military Alliance (MMA) to support him. Musharraf, like his predecessors disqualified political parties from taking part in elections. He is holding the posts of COAS as well as President. When asked to shed off the uniform, he promised to drop it before Dec. 2004. Nonetheless, he reneged since it’s the military acting as a stick through which he settles down his scores. After-all, being a military ruler, one does not have to be accountable to anyone for one’s action.

Musharraf revived the 8th Amendment by his ugly ancestor which was suspended after the 13th Amendment by Nawaz Sharif. The sole purpose behind this was to snap his fingers and make the Prime Minister and his crew dance to its tune. He also formed the National Security Council (NSC) to torment politicians that disagreed with him by charging, convicting, and torturing them. In democracy, opposition and pressure groups i.e. print and electronic media have a right to criticize and oppose government policies. Such voices affect government policies to a larger extent. Democracy comes with consideration of public opinion since it’s a government for the people. But, Musharraf simply rides the horse in his own distinct style. Whatever he does and says is above the law and there are no chances of reservations about it. All he does is constitutional and legal. Nobody has any right to question about his moves. Musharraf, with his magic wand, introduced Devolution Plan in 2001. It is a Local Government system that has allegedly brought democracy to the grass-root levels. It has been a general observation that this plan has made it easier for the ruling elite to settle down small fiefdoms in districts. The supporters of the ruling elite are gifted districts for their unqualified loyalty. To rig the elections have become a game of the left hand for him now. Musharraf has failed to understand that rather than bringing democracy in the centre he is trying to experiment with the districts. In reality, Devolution takes place from the Centre to provinces however this plan has simply reduced the role of provinces. If Musharraf is sincere enough, he should better uphold the sanctity of parliament and the constitution. He should not follow the same lines as his predecessor Zia-ul-Haq, who said: “Constitution is just a bunch of papers, which I can tear apart whenever I please”.

By comparing the political scenarios of different countries with that of Pakistan, we can evaluate the extent of disorder. India, our close neighbour, who got independence simultaneously with us, is world’s biggest democracy today. It may be because India was ruled by a sincere leader Jawaharlal Nehru for the first 17 years. India’s first stable constitution was written within 3-4 years after freedom while ours took 26 years. The efforts of the devoted Indian leaders have laid strong foundations of democracy in Indian Political System. However, in Pakistan, sincere endeavors have been inadequate. Weak and immoral civilian rules introduced military into politics and military perforated the political fabric. These intermittent military coups can be prevented by introducing an amendment in the constitution, declaring military coups illicit and acts of high treason. Or we can simply abolish the posts of chiefs of armed forces and hand over their responsibilities to the head of the state just like in America. When there is no chief, there is no coup. The other reason for weak democracy is weak political parties. We have weak political parties because they’re numerous and small. Big and few political parties are much stronger and help in consolidating democracy. Let’s take the examples of America and Britain. In both these countries there are only two strong political parties, Republicans and Democrats in the former, Liberals and Conservatives in the later. In both these countries, one of the either parties rules and the other forms the opposition. Also, India has only 2-3 strong parties like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Indian National Congress (INC) and Socialists. We could also form 2 or 3 political parties, but strong ones. If that’s not possible, the parliamentary system can be replaced with a Presidential one which could be dealt with by the people directly. Pakistan is a federal state but in reality it is extremely unitary (strong centre). Provincial autonomy should be enhanced and central authority should be curtailed. This will render politics a fruit lack of taste for impious people. Presently, Punjab is dominating the political arena due to its large population. The Central Government could propose some formula to create equality among the provinces so that no province feels a sense of deprivation. Either Punjab can be fragmented or authority could swiftly be shifted from National Assembly to Senate (which has equal representation from all provinces) because democracy comes with equality.

Rulers in the history of Pakistan have created a big mess. They have amended the constitution to serve their own interests. All such amendments should be deleted / reversed. Democracy comes with choice of people. The very system fails when the mode of selection i.e. elections, is rigged. Fair and free elections are the top most requirements for a healthy growth of democracy. The Election Commission of Pakistan should be liberated from all kinds of political influences. Rule of law should prevail. Constitution should be the supreme law. The sanctity of Constitution should be preserved. Justice should be imparted. It has been observed that the judiciary has never gone against the government in history. All this needs separation of Judiciary from the Executive to foil any unethical pressure to serve vested interests. The Supreme Court judges can be allowed tenure of lifetime (until they voluntarily resign) with attractive emoluments. This will evaporate the fears of dismissal from the Executive in case any pressure on them is resisted. Equal fair play should be allowed to all. Freedom of speech and actions should be granted. The members in the Assembly should be allowed to play their part. Every policy and law by the government should be based on the consensus of majority. Merit-oriented examinations should be introduced for the bureaucracy. The civil servants have played a vital role in rigging elections in the past. Those who resist lie in eternal peace with a label of Officer on Special Duty (OSD), away from the perks and privileges of the esteemed institution. Political pressure on them should be taken as a legal offence and prosecuted in courts. Democracy is the only political system that can be acceptable to the people that are ruled. Benefits of democracy can be seen all around us. All the developed and rapidly developing countries today are predominantly democracies. India can be quoted as a very close and relevant example.

This is my rough essay on the above mentioned subject. Criticism and suggestions are welcomed. Errors and omissions; are expected, should be pointed and padoned forthwith.

Assalam Alaikum,

I like to applaud your effort that you have exerted to write a very important and critical essay. Thanks for sharing your valuable thoughts with us all.

As we have already discussed the issue in great details in private regarding this issue, I see no reason to ellaborate on them any further.

It will be interesting to see the worthy suggestions of other valuable members, on this very important issue.

Thanks.

Dear bro Memon,
i read your essay...as far as the format is concerned,its brilliant,,just try to insert few small paras as well.....
as far as goes the matter,i totally disagree and disapprove,for you have presented quite a gloomy picture regarding a prospective issue...this suggests a pessimistic view of the affairs that is never expected of a young future CSP aspirant...i mean you seem to have tried to blame in all only the leading elites of Pakistan....why dont you see the poor,handicapped genesis of Pakistan...why dont you see the graph of eduacation,socio-cultural evils and economic paradoxes of a newly fought out country like Pakistan...leave apart the international politics.
If democracy is govt of people,by people ,for peolpe...it is the people of Pakistan who should first of all deserve it..it is an achievement,not a blessing from above
educate your nation,build institutions,nourish them,strengthen them,revitalize your economy...this is an answer in my view..
Always salute the rising sun my dear....

Regards,best wishes

Salaam,

Sir, you have been really kind to me. Thank you so much for extracting some time for reading my essay.

I really appreciate your recommendations. Since you've approved the pattern with slight modifications, I will try to construct all my essays on the suggested model.

I will try to be more positive in my next essay! The next essay will be presented within 10-15 days. I will look forward for your comments on it! Thanks again!

Gracias!

Regards,
Adil Memon

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

"the politicians of West Pakistan managed to cobble a constitution in 1956 based on ‘parity principle’ between East and West Pakistan. By this time ‘One Unit’ was formulated by integrating the four provinces of West Pakistan to avert the dominance of East Pakistan. After-all how could the elites of West Pakistan quench their thirst of power if they were to be dominated by the rightful majority? But, the threat of permanent East Pakistan majority prevailed notwithstanding the efforts taken by politicians to forestall the situation. Promulgation of the newly framed constitution called for elections. It was apprehended that any government that would emerge in result of these elections would be dominated by Bengal. There was only one remedy to this situation: postpone the elections indefinitely. Since the procrastination couldn’t be dragged long, military had to be called in to ‘save’ the country (from elections). "

"Yahya Khan held elections in 1970, which were reasonably free and fair. This raised the fears of election of a Bengali Prime Minister in the parliament and ultimately, a Bengali dominance. Thus, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, leader of the majority party in West Pakistan, craving for authority, preferred to disintegrate the country rather than sharing power."

Adil Bhai, a point of fact is disturbing me:

Previously you mentioned that any fair election under the regime of “one unit” would lead to easy victory of parties belonging to East Pakistan. Later on you say that Yahya Khan hold ‘free and fair’ elections in 1970 which ultimately resulted in Bangali Dominance. The essential fact missing here is that before holding the elections, Yahya Khan first canceled the “one unit” regime.

The anticipated result, in my assessment, of introducing the “one unit” regime was to ensure that East Pakistan may not get the easy victory.

When this scheme was finally cancelled out by Yahya Khan (for reasons which I do not fully understand), then actually Bangali Dominance became easy in the case of any free and fair elections.

Yahya Khan, as far I understand, did not want any dominance of East Pakistan but then why he cancelled out the “one unit” regime, and then also hold free and fair elections? In other words, the confusing thing is that if Yahya Khan really did not want the dominance of East Pakistan then why he canceled the "one unit" regime?

Salaam,

Sorry for being late, was in a jungle .

Brother Khuram, I must say that you've a sharp grasping perception. You are 100% correct that I missed to state the essential fact of 'one-unit' dissolution.

Thanks.

Regarding your query, I myself don't have a clear answer. However let me share what I know.

One unit was formulated with an alleged motive to avert any dominance of East Pakistan with respect to their population superiority. However, when the unit was formed, it was realised that there still was some difference and East Pakistan still enjoyed a slight superiority.

Political bickerings continued. In the end they achieve a compromise on some 'parity-principle' according to which there were two provinces, East and West and both were to be treated equally.

This formula worked for a while, until Mr. Ayub Khan captured the seat and started acting as Zil-e-Ilahi. This wasn't acceptable to the people of East Pakistan and till the culmination days of Ayub, protest was the order of the day.

Yahya Khan, after taking control, was well aware of the cause of previous agitations. Now what I think is that he dissolved the 'One-unit' scheme to appease the frustrations of East Pakistan people. There was no other reason.

Probably, holding free and fair elections was also the need of hour. Or you can call it lack of political acumen in that general.

I will look forward for your comments and rectifications, which are certainly expected.

Regards,
Adil Memon

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

Thanx for update. Please share some other your essay also. Your expression and usage of appropriate vocabulary is outstanding but at the same time I was feeling some spotness in this essay. I mean your way of expression is super but at the same time is not 'stylish' as it gives the feeling of 'spotness'. You surely have all the potential of writing essay in more stylish way.

And I must say that your other posts, other than this essay, do not reflect this spotness so only thing needed is to just incorporate your own common style in the formal essay writing also.

Salaam,

Brother Khuram, thanks a lot for reading and the feedback.

Your complaint is valid. I noticed it after I wrote it. But it's just because of my eagerness to state as many facts as possible. The length of the essay already exceeded the limit (I guess it's 2300+ words).

Anyways, I will keep writing by fits and starts. Please keep visiting this place.

And also, please explain what do you mean by 'stylish'. Do you find that quality in my other posts or no?

Waiting for a response.

Regards,

(Sorry for the late response. This place went under my sight.)

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

!

Actually I recently have studied some stories of Shakespeare and I noticed his way of writing was very 'stylish'. Then I thought there should be some touch of similar kind of 'style' in essay writing, including yours, also.

Secondly, I happened to read some essays of Bertrand Russell, also very recently. I have found in his writings a very nice balance of 'simplicity' and 'style'. Your vocabulary, I noticed, is better than or at least comparable to Russell’s (He does not use many difficult words). Some other people on this forum also show a good command on vocabulary. But along with vocabulary, some effort should be done for bringing some 'literary style' in our own writings.

I never had studied any literature book before. I was accustomed to just simple English because of having commerce background. When I studied Shakespeare for the first time, I realized a wide and fundamental type of difference between a good literary piece of writing and a simple English writing. Shakespeare's structure of English sentences is a whole different thing to that of ours. A complicated structure of sentences can be the reflection of only very complicated, but at the same time, very transparent and clear thought of writer's mind. I was amazed how beautifully Shakespeare depicted his complicated but very clear mind. Then I thought his structure of sentences seems very strange but beautiful, how could he managed to write so beautifully, in such a complicated way and then kept him all the time grammatically very accurate. I really tested his one very complicated and very long sentence on Microsoft Word and the software found no grammatical mistake in it. This thing inspired me very much and I concluded that an outstanding style of writing can only be the product of a very sharp, intelligent and grammatically accurate mind. I am also bound to conclude that a very strange and beautiful accuracy of grammar, as that of Shakespeare’s must have little to do with his formal knowledge of the rules of grammar and must have been more to do with his own very mature and accurate mind.

On the other hand, due to his very strange writing style, I think Shakespeare himself might be fail in our CSS essay exam. So I cannot suggest that a CSS candidate should be as much stylish in his writings. Style of Russell however is good to study and absorb because it has the elements of ‘simplicity’ and ‘style’ both.

And now about your own writing style! I already mentioned it in my previous post that you only need to incorporate your own common style into the formal essay writing. Just like good use of vocabulary makes a difference, so a good writing style, even without extra vocabulary, also does the same. Writings of Russell are good example in this respect.

Thanks!

Salam to all,
@ Khurram

I dont agree with u that in essay Shakespearian style can help...no doubt that shakespeare has a v good style bt is v complicated & his vocabolary is v tough ...v difficult to understand...& in essay simple style is more apprteciated...Bernard Russel is no doubt great writer & his "Unpopular essay"is v good book for Essay writing....Bacon is also good writer of Essay in Eng literature....But never Shakespear can be helpfull in Essay writing at all...

with regards,
Muskan

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.