ONE bitter truth confronts us today on the 59th anniversary of our existence as an independent nation: in terms of democratic evolution, Pakistan today is where it was in 1953. That year rankles in memory, for in 1953 Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad took a decision whose ramifications are still with us. He not only dismissed the Nazimuddin ministry (followed by the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly the next year), he involved the army in politics by making army chief Gen. Ayub Khan a defence minister in the reconstituted cabinet formed by Mohammad Ali Bogra. This marked the starting point for the army’s repeated interventions in politics and the gradual depoliticisation of civil society. Once in the cabinet, Ayub developed his own ideas about the ruler and the system the country needed. In October 1958, in collaboration with Gen. Iskander Mirza, the first indirectly elected president, Ayub seized power, abrogated the 1956 Constitution and dissolved the National Assembly. Twenty days later he parted company with Mirza, exiled him to London and became absolute ruler.

This was the first full-fledged military takeover, which also set a precedent for other Bonapartists to intervene in politics and give “systems” to the people. Doing away with the parliamentary form of government, with which the people of the subcontinent had been familiar in varying degrees, Ayub made a new constitution that was presidential in character and provided for indirect elections to the office of the head of state and the national and provincial legislatures. Ayub was not all evil. He did some good things, which included the abolition of the jagirdari system and the introduction of some form of land reforms (though the implementation of the reform laws left much to be desired), the signing of the Indus basin water treaty with India and the beginning of the country’s industrialisation. But the problem lay with the system, for it collapsed when he was out of power basically because it did not have the people’s confidence. Even though Ayub said he wanted to create a durable system which the people could understand and which was suited to their genius, the fact was that when he resigned in 1969 following countrywide agitation, his system collapsed because he handed over power to army chief Yahya Khan, who abrogated the 1962 Constitution.

Gen. Ziaul Haq, who seized power following the PNA movement against vote rigging by the PPP government, overthrew Z.A. Bhutto’s elected government. This he did precisely when the government and the opposition were on the verge of clinching an agreement on fresh elections. Zia adopted an Islamic posture in his public speeches, promised to hold elections within 90 days, but went on to hang Bhutto and rule for 11 years as a military ruler while remaining army chief. In spite of his best efforts, Zia could not do away with the 1973 Constitution because it was enacted by the people’s representatives. Nevertheless, to ensure unabashed personal rule, Zia disfigured the basic law’s parliamentary character and introduced a new clause (58-2b) that allowed him to sack an elected prime minister and dissolve the assembly. So jealously did he guard his absolute power that he sacked his own protege, Mohammad Khan Junejo, dissolved the assembly and again violated the Constitution by giving an election date which was beyond the 90-day limit provided for in the Basic Law. In the putsch and 11 years of tyranny, Zia found some willing collaborators among politicians. They collaborated with him in the judicial murder of the country’s first elected prime minister, took part in partyless elections and helped Zia draft the draconian laws which are still with us.

Eighteen years after Zia’s death, things do not seem to have changed much. Like Zia, Gen Musharraf is ruling us as both head of state and army chief, the 1973 Constitution has once again been mauled and the infamous Article 58-2b, which had been repealed by the political government, been revived. On top of that, there is a national Security Council which the general-president heads, thus completely subordinating the elected prime minister to the whims of the military. More regrettably, as with Zia, some politicians are collaborating with Gen. Musharraf.

The future appears murky, because it is not clear when, if at all, President Musharraf will shed his uniform. The guidelines of a political system for this nation were laid down by Jinnah when he made it clear on several occasions before and after independence that Pakistan would be a democracy in the sense the word is understood the world over. The “systems” given by the Bonapartists have failed to give Pakistan stability, because the people had no share in their crafting. If we are not to suffer the consequences of the mistakes that our leaders continue to make — and this is a tall order — there is no other way out except that this country must have unadulterated democracy. There is no room for the military’s role in politics. The elections due next year will be a test of the military’s sincerity not only to democracy but to Pakistan itself. They must be truly transparent, with an even playing field for all political parties, and they must be organized under a caretaker set-up with a truly independent election commission ensuring honest polling and counting. As for President Musharraf’s own future, he has no choice but to give up his uniform and enter politics as a civilian if he thinks he has a chance after the expiry of the mandatory period before a government servant can take part in elections.

Thanks for sharing your views over this issue. You have mentioned both good and bad aspects of military rules with more emphesis on bad aspects. Then you have considered some civilian politicians, who supported different military rules, as responsible for the failure of democracy in country. According to you military systems have failed to give stability to the country whereas Gen. Musharraf has the claim that he has saved Pakistan. He considers it as an achievement of his regime. Secondly you have not pointed out weak points and flopped policies which were adopted by the so called democratic rulers. The title of your post is 'authoriterian rule vs democracy'. You already have gone through the post on the topic of 'failure of Pakistan to develop a political system', by new member Miss Naqvi. She has shown in her post that democratic leaders of our country always have ruled or at least tried to rule the country in authoritarian style.

Secondly please also see my comments about the failure of democracy in Pakistan in following thread. Your point of view is invited for those issues also, as are disscused in the referred thread.

http://www.cssforum.com.pk/compulsor...html#post20571

Thanks!

Khuram

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????

@hira iftikhar rana

It is nice to read this DAWN editorial article again but you did not cite it. i think you should cite it if you are copying something from somewhere, so we could approach the original source for the sake of future updates.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/08/13/ed.htm

BTW in today's DAWN, the editor has edited the opening sentence of this article like this:

In our editorial headlined “Authoritarian rule and democracy”, published in yesterday’s (Sunday) Dawn, the opening sentence should have read,” One bitter truth confronts us on the eve of the 59th anniversary of our existence as an independent nation: in terms of democratic evolution, Pakistan today is where it was in 1953.” The editor regrets the error.

Thanks
Regards

__________________
The world is my oyster!