Why democracy didn't take roots in Pakistan?
Vinod Kumar
"AN intensive debate is raging in the country about revival of democracy" says Ghulam Kibria in his article "Why democracy didn't take roots" (Dawn April 22, 2000) and then goes on to observe "What is missing in this debate is an in-depth analysis to identify real reasons because of which democracy did not work in Pakistan but in India it did."

Otherwise a very thought provoking article, it fails to identify the real reasons for the failure of democracy in Pakistan. I will come to this later -- let me first review his article.

He goes on to list the various reasons, like lack of education of people and politicians in democratic fundamentals, illiteracy of the masses, division along provincial, linguistic and ethnic barriers, leadership having become a family affair, etc. among others for the failure of democracy in Pakistan. He even goes on to list castes as one of the reasons -- I thought castes was the curse of the Hindus alone and Pakistan being Islamic society should be free of the castes.

He then returns to kafir bashing. He says " The Muslims of India suffered from all this social sickness but to the leaders then, Hindus and the British were the only problems." Had Kibria read the history right he would have known that it were the Hindus (also the ancestors of the majority of those who are Pakistanis today), who were enslaved and were the victims of Muslim atrocities through centuries of Muslim rule -- but if it pleases Ghulam Kibria that the Muslims suffered because of the Hindus -- let it be. Let him have his moment of satisfaction. If putting the blame on others could solve problems, no-one in the world would ever had any.

On all those counts that Kibria believes have prevented democratization of Pakistan, India was no better than Pakistan in 1947 when the Muslims decided to form an Islamic nation. As a matter of fact, in most fields, Muslims held better position as compared to the Hindus. Even today India (read Hindus) has (have) far more divisions along provincial, linguistic, ethnic and caste lines than Pakistan does. In addition India has the religious minorities problem also which Pakistan, thanks to its far-sightedness, in its own way, solved at its very inception.

Coming to the basic question -- why democracy did not take roots in Pakistan?
As a matter of fact, Kibria has answered the question in his article when he noted that "(T)he first and foremost condition for growth of democracy is acceptance by all the sovereignty of the people" but failed to pursue it further. Democracy demands men make laws to govern themselves. It is the acceptance of this premise that democracy has succeeded in India and it is the rejection of this very premise that democracy failed to take roots in Pakistan.

No society can live outside the parameters of its basic ideology; and not only the ideology but the very raison d'être of the existence of Pakistan is Islam. Though India is not a religious Hindu state but Hinduism is still the soul of India and still guides the way India thinks and acts. It is the basic difference in these ideologies that has made democracy a failure in one and success in another even though in all other respects both countries are twins. It is when religion comes into play, the two part company.

As Kibria noted and I repeat, "the foremost condition for the growth of democracy is acceptance by all the sovereignty of the people" and this very basic requirement of democracy is quite contrary to the basic ideology of Islam. Islam says "all sovereignty rests in Allah" and any ruler that rules the Ummah rules as "vice-regent of Allah". The Ummah can elect the vice-regent but neither the vice-regent or the Ummah has right to make laws to govern themselves -- the laws have already been 'revealed' in the holy Koran. Only the Ulema can interpret them and the Ummah follow what the Ulema interpret. In Islam, Ummah is created by Allah and have no independent existence or will. Islam is a monotheistic faith and thus allows no diversity either in the concept of their God to suit the individual or the mode of worship or life. Every individual has to fit the preconceived mold -- no diversion is allowed.

It is not without reason that most Islamic scholars have declared democracy, which gives sovereignty to the individual, an un-Islamic concept.

To the contrary, in Hinduism, the individual is the most important factor. Each individual is urged to search the truth for himself -- even the authority of the Vedas -- the highest regarded scriptures of the Hindus -- is not to be accepted if it does not pass individuals' search or interpretation of the truth. With the concept of multiple manifestation of Hindu gods, diversity is the norm rather than the rule. I will not be far off if I were to say, in Hinduism each individual creates his own god or at least worships the god of one's own choosing. Hindu scriptures are man made and evolve with time. No such freedom is allowed in Islam. Islamic laws, as revealed in the Koran, are immutable and unalterbale.

Even in democratic India, the Muslims don't want to live by man-made laws but by Sharia -- the laws revealed by Allah.

Democracy did not fail in Pakistan because of illiteracy or castes or ethnic differences or linguistics or any of the other reasons put forward. The Indians, as already said above, were no more literate, only marginally if at all, than the Pakistanis. And as far as castes, ethnic differences or linguistics are concerned, Pakistan does not even come close to the problems India faces.

Other than religion, the people of both India and Pakistan come from the same stock, were part of the same nation, share the same history, had the same opportunities in pre-partition days. If any, the Muslims had an upper edge over the Hindus on two counts: firstly the Muslims had ruled India for centuries and then under the British, the Muslims were given preferential treatment in government jobs (and in army) in excess of their population proportion.

The real reason why democracy failed in Pakistan is the ideology Pakistan is wedded to. Sadly, this is true of any Islamic country. Pakistan is not unique in this respect. A quick glance at all the Islamic nations around the world will prove the point.

The day Hinduism becomes a minority religion in India, it will be no different from Pakistan.

Can Pakistan ever be a democracy?
Author: M. S. N. Menon
Publication: Tribune India
Date: October 18, 2002

No, not in a thousand years!

India took a thousand years to get into the spirit of democracy. That spirit has stayed with us. Today, it is part of our reflex, part of our character, part of our civilisation.

We are told that the recent election in Pakistan was “free and fair.” But what triumphed was not democracy, but fundamentalism — to be precise, Talibanism. This was, of course, feared when the Al-Qaida and Taliban forces took shelter in Pakistan.

Washington is, perhaps, alarmed. But it could have anticipated. It failed to heed the warning. For the first time, religious parties have made an impressive showing in Pakistan. Thanks to Uncle Sam’s ineptitude.

But we will be making a serious mistake if we surmise that the infection is confined to NWFP and Baluchistan. It has infected half the armed forces, the intelligence services and a good part of the bureaucracy.

And yet we were told that, under American pressure, Musharraf was engaged in combatting fundamentalism. That was, of course, a lie. How can it be true when he is the patron of the jehadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Only the US State Department can fool itself to believe that he is engaged in promoting democracy. But, then, the USA has always been partial to dictators.

Much has been made of the war against terrorism. What are the facts? Operation Enduring Freedom has not gone beyond Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is still Taliban and Al-Qaida territory. Will NWFP, Baluchistan and the Pashtoon territories of Afghanistan strike for independence? If they do, Punjab will be isolated. And Sindh may like to break loose from Pakistan.

Today the Taliban (mostly Pashtoons) and Al-Qaida forces are re-grouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan to take over the region. And Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still there to guide these forces. The future of Pakistan is indeed bleak. Hence the continuing danger to India.

How is it that democracy failed to take root in Pakistan? For good many reasons: because, for one, for more than half its life, it has been under military rule. And the military rulers not only suppressed democracy, but also encouraged the anti- democratic forces.

But there are more profound reasons for the failure of democracy. And it has to do with Pakistan’s genesis. The region of Pakistan was notorious for its feudal and tribal background. More so the Punjab. It provided soldiers to the British empire. Naturally, the British extended special patronage to these feudal elements. The region was rich and fertile, had the best irrigation system and was dominated by Muslims. They did not support the demand for Pakistan. Why should they, when they were already masters of the region?

The demand for Pakistan came from areas where the Muslims were in a minority. That is from the Gangetic plain and peninsular India. If they had migrated to the Pak region, they would have perhaps changed the dynamics of Pakistan. But they did not. When partition did take place, only a few million left. But even they were not welcome in Pakistan. They had to live in ghettoes and were called mohajirs. Thus, they had no impact on the character of Pakistan. Jinnah’s dream turned into a nightmare.

So, the areas which fell to Pakistan remained feudal and anti-democratic. It has remained so even to this day.

Parties and politicians were equally responsible for the failure of democracy. Even after Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was executed by the military regime, his daughter, Benazir, did nothing to curb the power of the army and the intelligence services.

As for Nawaz Sharif, he encouraged the growth of the very forces — the fundamentalists — who were anti-democratic. For their want of gumption, they are cooling their heels in foreign lands today.

True, twice there were “fair” elections in Pakistan: once in 1953 when the Bengalis threw out the Muslim League from East Pakistan. Naturally, the Punjabi establishment was so enraged that it dismissed the East Pakistan government. The second time was in 1970, when Mujibur Rahman won the national election. Again, the western wing of Pakistan could not permit the ascendence of the East.

The military rulers have made a mockery of democracy. Thus both Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf held fraudulent “referendums” to establish their legitimacy. But only 5 per cent of the electorate voted for Zia and 10 per cent voted for Musharraf!

But in the final analysis, the failure of democracy in Pakistan has to do with the nature of Islam and the role played by religion ins society.

Musharraf told mediamen on May 4, 2002, “Allah has placed me in this position.” Naturally, what God had proposed, no man could set aside. It is as simple as that in Pakistan. And he claimed, he was carrying out the “vision” of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan!

One would think that the Pakistanis are deeply religious. This is by no means the case. Justice Munir of Pakistan posed the question: “What is Islam and who is a Muslim?” during an enquiry. This is what he writes after his extensive talks with the Ulemas and Maulanas: “No two learned divines agreed on this fundamental.” No wonder, Pakistan is a highly arbitrary society. There can never be any consensus (Ijma) although Muslim societies are based on Ijma. Ijma is thus a fraud in these circumstances.

By insisting on the finality of the Prophet’s revelation and the immutability of both the Koran and the Sunnah, Islam has denied itself self-renewal. Early Islam, however, did produce an intellectual class — the Mutazilites. There was growth of philosophy and science. But all these were suppressed when free enquiry led to loss of faith. By emphasising the primacy of the Umma, the individual was devalued, and Ijma was misused to suppress dissent.

Indeed, the concept of democracy can threaten both Umma and Ijma, for it encourages individualism. But individualism is taboo in Islam. But where there is no individualism, there can be no democracy.

__________________
Devil-may-care

My friend, pakistan is a complicated state .Because its both secular and ideological though Turkey is a similar example but its linked to euorpe but pakistan to south asia region specially with india and Russia so for implementing democracy in paksitan u have to choose a different form of democracy then Turkey ,malysia or USA .Why democracy cant work in pakistna because my brother have already said that one factor is ethincism but another friend denied this by giving USA example but Comparing USA ethonisim with pakistan is unfair becasue here we think ethincins representer as Jiyai sindh or MQM . They are not even commited to their own race. In any democratic country u have to give constiutiaon right ( here i am not talking about provincial right) . But federal have again and again used provinces by strenghting one sardar instead of another .In bhutto era Akbar bhugti was bestwoed honourship and razaq bhugti was in jail .To me no paksitani ruler was wrong either he was beaurocrate like iskrandar or military man like yahya or zia or democratice leader like bhutto ,benazir bhutoo or nawaz sharif . .They all were good and they all were saving paksitan as musharaf is doing right because paksitan works as just a strategicla partner for ameirca so the democracy is indirectly linked to US pol;icies in a certian time period specially in these sixty years when in ealrier time world was Unipolar and now its one polar .So We need to be carefull while cticizing differnet instiuation of pakistan . We must see our limits . Democracy will work in paksitan but it will take both time and change .Change in world scenerio ,in internaitonal politics and specially in coming twenty years so this time we must focus on education ,collabration and saving federal so that people came to d4ecide that whether they have to be sindhi ,paksitan or musluim because paksitan is important bot hideologically and strategiclaly .

__________________
I criticize because i am not an authority and i love because i do not mean it .

The above mentioned al reasons r valid especially those mentioned by tauqeer kurd but no one mentioned the basic cause. The enforcement of
1935 act was the main reason n which al authorities were vested n the personality of viceroy(governor general)before partition & n one person rule there s no democ. as we r experiencing now. this system was more fascinating 4 pakistani ruling elite and they adopted 8 4 pak. one can cite the example of india where 1935 act was enforced after parti. but dnt forget that indians introd. their own const. n 1950 & we took 9 yrs & still we r under that influence

hey can budy plz tell me somrthing abt TYPES OF WARFARE

9/11 may have displayed the changed nature of warfare most graphically, but the change itself can be dated back to the advent of nuclear weapons, which altered the whole conceptualisation of war itself. What one has seen since then has been the development of a dialectical approach to war and strategy.

On the one hand, the implied non-usability of nuclear weapons has altered the nature of war with the focus being on how to use the weapons politically. So, Clausewitz has been stood on his head in that politics has become a continuation of war by other means. Hence one has seen the evolution of notions of Cold War1 and Limited War.2 Nuclear weapons have also altered the nature and dynamics of strategy, especially in the context of nuclear deterrence. Here, traditionally, nuclear deterrence has been premised on the mutual vulnerability of the two antagonists. A reflection of this was the ABM Treaty signed between the US and the then Soviet Union.

On the other hand, one has seen efforts to restore the viability of warfare through the development of tactical nuclear weapons, depleted uranium weapons as well as conventional Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and other high-tech systems, which have altered the parameters of war fighting itself. The Gulf War was a reflection of this and the war in Afghanistan, on the part of the US was another reflection of this new trend to fight war "from a distance." Air power, with high-tech systems, now really has come into its own as it is used to prepare for the entry of minimal number of ground troops for mopping up operations. The war zone now has expanded into space also as a result of technological innovations, especially the planned deployment of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) systems by the US. BMD also aims at trying to restore the credibility of nuclear war again and in the process it will destroy the notion of nuclear deterrence, premised on sustaining mutual vulnerability.

So, where are we at present?

In many ways, technology is now defining the nature of war, at least at the level of the major powers. Developments in information technology and precision weapons have led people to declare that there has been a revolution in military affairs (RMA), allowing for quick decisive victories, minimal casualties and collateral damage. But what has been even more revolutionary has been the political shift in the nature of war, with major powers now highly unlikely to go to war with each other. So, asymmetrical conflicts are becoming more common – with efforts to sustain a military effort under an international guise. Within asymmetrical conflicts, a most dangerous possibility may well be a future war without any fighting at all, through cyber war destruction of C4I systems,3 so that weapon systems are also made non-functional before war can even commence. Also, on the part of the major powers, there is a growing intolerance of casualties for oneself and a growing acceptance of casualties on the side of the enemy.

Within the Pakistan-India context, how far are these contradictory approaches relevant? The nuclear dilemma is prevalent but the stage of developing PGMs and high-tech systems for warfare "from a distance" is still not a reality. So, within the above context, to understand the nature of future war, or wars, one needs to first understand the types of military threat that prevail. The type of war will reflect the type of threat being operationalised. What types of threats and warfare can one envisage for Pakistan within the framework of its perceived threat from India? The question is important because it impacts doctrines and weapon systems’ development.

Types of Threat and Nature of War

I - Conventional

Within a conventional mode, one can envisage three types of threats:

All-out conventional war between Pakistan and India. However, the risks of an uncontrollable escalation into a nuclear exchange here would be tremendous, especially given the need for Pakistan to go for a one-rung nuclear escalation ladder.

Limited War, for instance of the Kargil type; or, border skirmishes/hot pursuit along the LoC. This is an increasing possibility – as being witnessed presently - where the attempt by both parties would be to gain local advantage and keep the war deliberately limited. Air power becomes very important in this context, through precise military targeting and the threat of possible expansion if limitations are not observed. Whereas in the past, there was an assumption in Pakistan that the use of air power would expand a conflict, now the use of air power may keep a conflict limited by precise military targeting and limiting one’s own ground casualties – especially if no territorial control is sought.

Limited War of the high-tech variety where ground troops are not involved in the main fighting. Here also air power can come into its own – without the need to use ground forces, purely against military targets, especially in terrain where ground access is difficult.

High-tech warfare, since both countries are developing these capabilities. The Indians, especially, are not only acquiring state of the art radar and laser weapons technology, their Technology Experiment Satellite (TES), launched on October 22, 2001, has given India a real military edge. Also, developments in IT technology means that one can conduct or be subjected to a C4I war – which could do extensive damage to guidance weapon systems and war-fighting capabilities, with no direct military exchange taking place. Also, high-tech capability multiplies the C4I capability while undermining the same of the enemy.

II - Nuclear

Pakistan, with a lack of spatial depth, cannot afford the lux-ury of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons since, in terms of nuclear weapons, it cannot distinguish between the tactical, battlefield arena and the strategic war area. So, until a second strike capability is perfected and weapons made more precise with lower circular error probabilities (CEPs), Pakistan would have to go for counter-value targeting, with a one-rung escalation ladder in terms of an all-out war. Counter-value targeting would focus on Indian urban and industrial centres – the critical ones already being within the present reach of Pakistani delivery cap-abilities. Counter force targeting becomes a viable option as the nuclear weapons and delivery systems become more precise and as second-strike capability is developed.

Basic Components of Pakistan’s Nuclear Force

A separate missile command structure, primarily premised on land-based missiles on mobile launchers (till such time as second-strike capability and solid fueled missiles are ensured), would be the immediate mainstay of Pakistan’s nuclear force, with additional nuclear-tipped air and sea launched missiles as well as nuclear bombs relying on PAF delivery systems. The PAF has embarked on a force multiplier programme with upgradations and induction of increasingly offensive weapon systems. Also, the use of bombers allows a lot more flexibility in terms of targeting. With land-based missile systems targeting counter-value targets, the air force would still, to some degree, continue to play a support role for the army in the theatre of war. However, hostile strike aircraft become a factor. How they will be able to impact on the mobility of strategic forces on the ground has yet to be assessed – but a lot will depend upon the radar capability of India’s Russian-acquired A 50s (AWACs). The Indians have also got access to Israeli Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and Pakistan needs to consider their impact as well on the development of its missiles and their deployments.

From an operational point of view, it would be desirable – till Pakistan can perfect hardened silos and second-strike capability – to have a wide and flexible dispersal on mobile launchers. But with the range of the A 50s, Pakistan may need to push deployments into Balochistan, which means increasing the effective range of its missiles. Dispersal and flexibility also raise questions of costs, political control and high physical security and communications links. All this will also impact on Pakistan’s conventional force deployments – both in peace time and in war. Here, also, the role of the air force becomes critical – in terms of information gathering and surveillance.

III- Unconventional

Within the framework of unconventional threats, the most likely military threats and engagements would be:

Low intensity conflicts (LIC)

Terrorism – transnational; subnational; state

Unconventional warfare is the most likely war between Pakistan and India – in fact, at many levels it may be an ongoing process until the resolution of the Kashmir issue and establishment of détente. This is because of the ongoing militant freedom struggle in Indian-occupied Kashmir and India’s inability to deal with it militarily and unwillingness to enter into a dialogue with Pakistan to resolve the conflict politically. India continues to allege that the struggle is being directed from Pakistan with infiltrations across the LoC. So, India periodically revives military action along the LoC as well as threatening Pakistan with escalation of military action. After 9/11, India has kept up a sustained policy of trying to bring Kashmir into the ambit of the international war on terrorism.

There are also transnational linkages across South Asia between groups involved in violent ethnic and other political struggles in South Asian states, including Pakistan and India – so there is a constant threat of military aid and assistance across national boundaries for these groups. The terrorist threat is a constant factor in this region and Indian efforts to keep Pakistan under pressure means that Pakistan needs to prepare for efforts at destabilisation of its domestic polity through various means.

LIC and psy ops will be the mainstay of any such operation. In fact, this war form dominates the entire South Asian theatre – and is the only form that still relates to a "South Asian" framework, given the reach of Indian missiles and the new "Southern Asian" strategic parameters now being identified by India, stretching from the Middle East to the Far East.

Conclusion

Within this framework of the multiple levels of military threats Pakistan faces, there is a need to do the following:

Ensure the security of the country’s strategic assets, especially the nuclear arsenal, particularly through a strong command, control and communication structure. A beginning has been made in this regard with the creation of the National Command Authority (NCA).

Develop trimmed, state of the art conventional force structures with a cohesive C4I set-up.

Alongside, a specialised, unconventional war-fighting structure needs to be developed with the necessary technological skills.

Perhaps, most important, there is a need to have a more extensive cooperative framework of functioning between the three Services. While in theory there should now be total coordination between the three services in terms of doctrine and induction of new weapon systems, with the existence of the JCSC and the Nuclear Command Authority, the reality is different. Each service still tends to opt for weapon systems in isolation from the other services. As for operational coordination, while it has become more institutionalised, there are critical occasions when it falls short. Even at the level of R&D, each Service seems to be "going-it-alone." Take the case of UAVs where four different agencies are conducting research on their own with no exchange of information between them. That is one reason why there continues to be a debate over the relevance or otherwise of the JCSC. Yet, within a nuclear framework, there is a greater need for inter-services coordination and the evolution of clear-cut roles for each service in differing threat scenarios – especially given the fact that limited military encounters may well become an all-out nuclear war, unless strict parameters are adhered to.

__________________
You are an eagle, flight is your vocation:
You have other skies stretching out before you.

Dear Waqar Abro,

The above post of your's is originally a writing of Dr. Shireen M. Mazari and is copied from [ www. issi. org.pk/journal/2002_files/no_2/comment/1c.htm ]


This is to remind you that discussion corner aims to discuss isuues with arguments based on sources, copy/paste will lead you towards negative ranking in evaluation. Kindly mention the source of information if you're quoting someone other's work, DO NOT CLAIM IT TO BE YOUR WHEN IT'S NOT.


Everyone else,

Sorry for interrupting the discussion.



Regards,

__________________
||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete

For democracy to flourish, there needs to be freedom. And freedom can be classified into three categories. They are:

1. freedom of speech.
2. independent judiciary.
3. economic freedom.

I am happy to say that freedom of speech has now established itself in the country and the judiciary too is moving every day towards more and more independence. But economic freedom has been totally neglected.

The major problem that Pakistan faces today is that of provincial autonomy and distribution of resources. The neglect of the smaller provinces is a clear testimony to this. Furthermore, the distribution of revenue among provinces is extremely skewed and unfair.
That is why there is so much inequality in various regions. With Punjab being extremely rich, while Balochistan, NWFP and interior Sindh are destitute.
It should also be noted that urban Sindh, especially Karachi, has also been neglected by the government.
All this creates friction between federating units and allow intervention of military in politics.

__________________
" Woods are lovely dark and deep But i have promises to keep And miles to go before i sleep "

Dear fellows;

I have read all your discussions; you all are right in discussing the failure as well as successes of democratic trends in Pakistan. However, I have seen that members are not able to express themselves in an organized way.

I recommend each aspirant of CSS that one should express each and everything he/she thinks of about the topic, rather than breaking your thoughts in several posts. Moreover, one shouldn't copy paste the articles from other websites; rather one should provide the essence of the idea mentioned in the article. There are several benefits for a single, well-discussed and well-thought post:

1. You will learn how to organize the topic and its material.
2. It would help you in your Essay paper.
3. Moderators and other members will be in ease to analyze your discussion.
4. You would prepare an answer that might be helpful in the exam.

Now, come to my opinion regarding the topic:

PAKISTAN AS A DEMOCRATIC STATE

Introduction

Throughout the checkered history of Pakistan, we see that there have been differences in having a consensus regarding; the constitutional provisions and their Islamic nature; provincial autonomy; distribution of resources among provinces; and several other issues. Because of all these bickering, we allowed military interference in state affairs; lost half of our country in 1971; divided our people along ethnic, linguistic, regional dispositions; given a free hand to the dictators to hold power at their own pleasures; allowed foreign interventions in our domestic affairs.

Still we are unable to unite ourselves, that is the reason that enemies of Pakistan have drawn the map depicting it dividing into different smaller countries; Balochistan, Pakhtonistan, Punjab, Mahajiristan. One would amaze to know that recently the US media continuously played ads of a book written on this division of Pakistan.

Democracy in short is the independent working of the four institutions in any true democratic state; they are:
1. Parliament
2. Executive (government)
3. Judiciary
4. Media

Let us see the state of democracy in Pakistan.

Why democracy has failed in Pakistan?
Democracy is not only making laws that a government would enforce upon others to follow. It is a conscious effort for realizing its values, i.e., to promote freedom of one's conscience and to protect rights of citizens and provinces.

In Pakistan, people at the helm of affairs look for democracy on papers, and still after the passage of 60 years we are discussing how should our constitution look like. If our leaders realized that democracy is actually not formulating a very cogent and well-defined constitution; rather, it is actually promoting its values by taking them figuratively as their utmost task.

Example:
Let us see other democratic countries, as how they are able to promote it. In Indian constitution, it was well-written that president can dismiss the parliament, i.e., Lok Sabha. But, we do not find such an instance throughout Indian history; although, several corrupt government have been there, but no president of India wielded his power. Why is it so? It is because of their conscious effort to promote democratic norms and prevent any instability in nation.

The monarch in Britain could also wield such power of dismissing the "House of Commons; but there is no such instance in British History. Why so-called "protectors of Pakistan" have failed to make Pakistan a genuine democratic country? It is due to their thirst for holding the luxury of Power under their false promises of making Pakistan a true democratic and Islamic country.

Plight of 1973 Constitution
The only constitution of Pakistan accepted by all shades of opinion is "1973 Constitution". However, it was amended seventeen times that lost its real essence and value. Most of the amendments were based on some ulterior motives of the nation's power holder. No leadership actually thought of the interests of Pakistan; the only purpose was either to prolong one's tenure in holding of power or to modify it as situation demands for the need of the power holder.

President Musharraf after reviving the Article 58 (2b) has tried to repeat the same history of dismissal of democratic government by the whims of a President. The formation of NSC (National Security Council) has minimized the importance of the parliament. Moreover, he is holding office of the President as well as Chief of army staff, which finds no clue in any democratic country of the world.

Plight of Judiciary
Judiciary has always been deliberately kept in pressure and isolated from the affairs of state. Even when it was required to perform its duties, the powerful politicians tried to intimidate the superior judges and even resorted to violence, as happened during the tenure Nawaz Sharif government; his supporters attacked on the premises of Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1996.

In the past, we see that superior judges gave their judgment in favor of the usurper of power "under the doctrine of state necessity". The superior judges were always under extreme pressure at the risk of their lives from the executive and military dictators. How could justice be dispensed, when Judiciary itself needs justice and freedom from the intervention of military and politics?


Plight of Executive (government)
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz has become a pawn under the hands of General cum President Musharraf. He is no doubt a great technocrat but there is lack of his leadership role in making any decision for the interest of Pakistan.Why a general is holding all the powers of state functionaries? Why does he think himself the sole protector of Pakistan's interests?

It is because of our history in which more years have been passed under military rule. However, when any political party took the leadership role, the others as opposition were united to degrade and defame it. There were lack of sincerity both from the opposition parties as well as parties leading the government. They were all determinant to ignore the process of dialogue and listening to each others views, which is one of the way of promoting democratic norms.

Plight of Media
In the past, military as well as civilian governments have always gagged media. They did not allow any private channel and state run channel was wielded as a tool for promoting the rulers credentials. Newspapers, magazines, and other sources of information were punished for presenting the true picture of the scenario. While East Pakistan was smoldering with intrigue of separation, the people in West Pakistan were not aware of their plight.

Today, we see media is free to some extent for the first time in the history of Pakistan. However, there are frequent incidences of state tactics of reining the affairs of media. PEMRA (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) recently tried to intimidate several sources of information by threats of the passage of a Bill for more strict media regulations. Dawn Newspaper has been deliberately punished by some government departments for writing the truth of their inefficiency. One of the example is of FPSC which did not advertise the CSS 2007 Exam date announcement in Dawn newspaper; however, it was their routine to advertise in Dawn each year.


Conclusion
Our leaders are merely repeating our country's deplorable history and do not learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. They should remove their arrogance and selfish motives in the interest of their nation and country. The military should be conscious of the need of time that today a nation cannot survive by only having weapons of mass destruction. In order to be within the names of developed nation, we must promote democratic institutions of state and be conscious of democratic norms.

__________________
Lo! man is in a state of loss. (Al-Asr:103:2) And every small and great thing is recorded. (Al-Qamar:54:53) And guard yourselves against a day in which ye will be brought back to Allah. Then every soul will be paid in full that which it hath earned, and they will not be wronged. (Al-Baqara:2:281)