The high inflation; the shrinking individual and national savings; the gnawing unemployment and poverty; the helplessness; the crumbling law and order situation in three small provinces, with insurgency in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and the Dacoit Raj in the third; the intensifying political tug of war; the ruthless use of the state’s coercive power in derailing the political process and paralysing national institutions; the brutal torture of political leaders and activists; the increasing restrictions on expression; and the falling credibility of the Election Commission and the judiciary, have taken a heavy toll on the endurance of the populace.
The elite and the ruling class are unconcerned and unmoved. They are busy strengthening their grip on power instead of meeting the basic human needs of the people, including education, health, clean drinking water, and the safety of life and property.
We have reduced dear Pakistan to the status of the poor countries of Asia and Africa. A federation of four political, cultural and territorial entities, a country of 240 million people with a youth bulge of 38 per cent, this country has not been treated well during the past 78 years, derailing it from its path towards a representative political system to advance as a mature nation of honour and dignity, to learn from its past mistakes and forge ahead with renewed resolve and clarity. This trajectory required continued democratic exercises, including the election of representative political institutions through a free and fair vote and the change of governments.
Reduced to the status of a banana state, as General Musharraf and his handpicked Prime Minister used to say, Pakistan is today struggling for its territorial, political and economic survival. The survivability of a country does not lie in its military strength or the heap of nuclear arsenal it possesses. It needs much more for its successful existence. These include political stability, economic viability, fair distribution of national resources, the rule of law and equality before the law, fair play and justice. Over-reliance on the state’s kinetic power is no guarantee of a country’s security, as displayed by the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The case study of Sudan clearly elaborates how over-centralised governance based on authoritarianism, the suppression of the political, economic and cultural aspirations of the people, and the usurpation of their resources engender political chaos, insurgency, militancy and violence. General Omar al-Bashir ruled Sudan for over 30 years. His predecessors, including General Ibrahim al-Aboud, Jaafar Nimeiry and Abdul Rehman, also ruled the country for 25 years.
South Sudan, with its overwhelming Christian population, never felt secure under the military generals from the North and, in the absence of a democratic and secular polity, finally gained independence as a result of the UN-supervised referendum in July 2011.
We have had defective and brief cycles of democracy, with military leadership pulling the strings from behind the scenes, followed by long periods of military rule
The military created the Janjaweed militia to suppress the insurgency in the Darfur region. Later, this militia was converted into the Rapid Support Forces in 2013. Today, the army and the RSF are engaged in full fratricidal war. This civil war has overcast the very future of this large Muslim country. Sudan, though the guardian of the White and Blue Niles—flowing through its vast territory and merging in the capital city of Khartoum—has been infamously known for chronic poverty, hunger, maladministration and corruption.
How authoritarianism, suppressing the political aspirations of the populace, led to the ruination of the political, social and economic structures in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Yemen should have been an eye-opener. Egypt has fallen back into autocracy, with Libya, Syria and Yemen struggling to prevent likely territorial disintegration as a result of insurgencies and civil wars. These countries have been pushed into an age of darkness as far as representative and democratic governance is concerned.
Our political experience is also deeply depressing. We have had defective and brief cycles of democracy, with military leadership pulling the strings from behind the scenes, followed by long periods of military rule. Our civilian leadership never showed seriousness towards constitutional rule in the true spirit of democracy. Though the death of General Zia in August 1988 seemingly ushered in a democratic era, successive civilian regimes were never allowed to govern. Civilian Presidents with draconian powers always breathed down their necks and sent them packing at the behest of the security establishment.
Mohtarma Benazir genuinely won the elections in 1988 but was never allowed to govern. Nawaz Sharif emerged as the leader of Punjab from the hatchery of the establishment. He was groomed and launched by generals to hinder Benazir’s ascent to power. But when he grew too big for his boots in 1993, his government was dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Again, his army chief, General Musharraf, deposed him in October 1999 and sent him into exile.
The former army chief publicly admitted to having helped Imran Khan ascend to the throne. He hardly put up with the hybrid political system for over three years. His political foes and the establishment considered him a spent political force and showed him the door through a no-confidence motion. His unexpected rise as a political giant posed a formidable challenge to his political foes and the establishment. In his unprecedented popularity, he lost sight of his vulnerabilities and committed political blunders. He left parliament and dissolved his provincial governments in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Worst of all, he resorted to a head-on collision with the most powerful institution in the country, which, as the history of Pakistan shows, has always fought back to preserve its domineering position. This tug of war is continuing unabated. He suffers, and his supporters suffer. The people of Pakistan suffer. It is not difficult to foresee the consequences of a prolonged political tussle. At stake are democracy, the Constitution and constitutional rule, and the credibility of the judiciary. This casts a reflective and sombre shadow over the country’s political horizon.
Apparently, everything has fallen apart—politics, the economy, the judiciary, the sanctity of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the rule of law. This situation, as it prevails in the country, does not inspire confidence among the populace.