By Syed S. Hussain
New York
A question asked over and over again in the context of the political culture in Pakistan is: Why has democracy failed to find roots in Pakistan? During the last fifty plus years of existence, Pakistan has not found a workable democratic system. For more than half of this period the military has ruled the country. Hence, it is a pertinent question to identify the possible dynamics that have inhibited democracy in Pakistan.
The problems of democracy in Pakistan are the cumulative result of many factors, of which three stands out: Colonial bequest, ideological confusion, and military incursions. In this article the effects of the colonial factor would be discussed, and the other two would be taken up in subsequent articles.
After more than half a century of independence, talking about negative effects of colonial past as an impediment to the progress of democracy, might appear far-fetched. Unfortunately it is not so. Like most countries going through post-colonial convulsions, Pakistan too has problems in adjusting to the changed situation. Many of today’s failures in adjusting to the requirements of a modern day world are embedded in the past.
Colonial rule, by its very nature, is an antithesis of democracy. Rule of law, freedom and equality are the least of the priorities of a colonial power. Essential attributes of successful colonial rule are generally two: creating a special class amongst the subject people for local support, and a policy of ‘divide & rule’. The special classes help in subjugation of the people, and the divide-and-rule stratagem helps in creating division. Together they prevent any challenge to the colonial power.
The British followed this policy remarkably well. During their over a century rule in India, they created not one but two special classes to assist them. One was the feudal class with rural background, and the other the western orientated bureaucracy.
To be sure, the feudal class was not an entirely British invention. Centuries of rule by kings and princes had already put rajas, maharajas, nawabs, waderas, tribal chiefs and sardars in place in India. The British just patronized them to their advantage. As a bargain this group was bestowed with immense economic and political leverage.
The bureaucracy on the other hand was their creation; a special class, local in color but British in attitude. They became the backbone of the British Indian administration and served the British with great loyalty. They too were bestowed with great prestige and privileges.
In the policy of ‘divide & rule’ the British were even more successful. Their task was made infinitely easier by the presence of hundreds (nay thousands!) of ethnic, religious and sectarian groups and societies in India. Many of these groups were already antagonistic towards one another and they just needed the right sort of selective patronage for full-blown hostility.
After the creation of Pakistan, a train of circumstances made the country quite susceptible to the stranglehold of the privileged classes. Mr. Jinnah died soon after independence and before he could give the country a constitution. His deputy Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan was also removed from the scene early (through assassination in 1951). This brought to power a leadership, which predominantly had a feudal background and mentality. The bureaucracy joined hands to serve its interest. Later, the military took over the power, with the feudal lords and the bureaucracy supporting them. Another class in the shape of industrial barons was added to this group.
Once in power this group set about to devise ways and means to firmly entrench themselves. They were already the beneficiaries of the colonial system and they did anything and everything possible to maintain the status quo. As they understood the local system even better than the British, they were extremely successful, in using the colonial methods to rule, especially the concept of ‘divide & rule.’
Democracy or its promise were not of much concern to them. This explains the lackadaisical approach to acquiring a constitution in the initial years and subsequently the willingness to do away with it on the slightest of pretexts. Unlike India, which inherited more or less similar conditions, the lack of constitutional framework in Pakistan opened the country to arbitrary rules. A tradition of subjective legal indulgence arose in the country, which in turn retarded the process of the rule of law.
As was bound to happen, the shenanigans of these groups in tandem retarded the growth of a democratic edifice in Pakistan. As their self-serving agenda could best work in an autocratic system, this situation gave rise to an opposition to democracy. To them true democracy, and by implication, rule of law, was not desirable.
This was precisely the scenario about which the Quaid-i-Azam had expressly warned. In his presidential address at the 30th session of the All-India Muslim League in Delhi on April 24, 1943 he had declared: “In Pakistan there will be a people’s government. Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and the capitalists who have flourished at our expenses by a system so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so wicked that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood.”
About the dangers of various divisions in the society, while addressing the First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, Mr. Jinnah observed: “Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long ago.”
Strong warnings! They unfortunately had no effect, and this group has continued to follow its personal agenda. Various reports and surveys have provided certain numbers outlining the power and influence of these groups. The famed 22 families (now said to have doubled) control 60% of the total industrial output in the country. A World Bank study indicates that 44% of the farmland in Pakistan is owned by 2% of the households. Yet another estimate puts the number of important landowning families in Pakistan to around 50,000.
Their numbers in the political field are even more staggering. A study indicates that close to 75% of the total elected representatives in Pakistan have been, and/or are big landowners, industrial barons or tribal chiefs. Such figures just illustrate the influence (mostly in negative terms) this group has had and continues to have over politics in Pakistan.
Syed S. Hussain is a political analyst. He has post-graduate degrees in Political Science, International Relations, History and Law. E-mail: Sharafain@aol.com