Pakistan’s Fault Line

Seemab Khan

Peshawar: Pakistan hatched out of the colonial egg on 14th August 1947, justifiably on an ideological basis followed by Islamic democracy and a desire for maximum provincial autonomy. The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan divided the country into four federating units, along with federally administered areas.

Initially, Pakistan was divided into two wings: East and West Pakistan. The East wing was more politically aware and predominantly inhabited by Bengali speakers, while the West wing consisted of various ethnicities dominated by Urdu-speaking elites.

Political turmoil and West Pakistan’s plutocratic attitudes eventually led to the separation of East Pakistan in 1971

Political turmoil and West Pakistan’s plutocratic attitudes eventually led to the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, resulting in the creation of modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh as two sovereign nation-states.

Pakistan has experienced military rule for a significant portion of its existence, either directly or through political proxies. From 1947 until 2012, not even a single elected government completed its tenure and peacefully transferred power to another elected government.

The persistent existential threat from India, inherited from the partition, has contributed to the maintenance of military power, despite failures in governance such as the separation of East Pakistan and the consequences of the Afghan jihad.

The persistent existential threat from India, inherited from the partition, has contributed to the maintenance of military power

Previous military coups were justified either by citing political chaos or internal and external territorial threats (Doctrine of Necessity). However, the country experienced relative economic stability during military rule, aided by financial assistance from the United States for various proxy endeavors, including containing the possible expansion of communism and destabilizing the USSR (current Rasia) during the Afghan war.

During the periods of civilian governments from 1988 to 1999 and 2008 to the present, ‘the establishment indirectly exerts control and influence’. Each political party blames the winning party for election rigging and often points fingers at the establishment for interfering in politics.

Political figures often seek and rely on the establishment’s support to gain control over the government for personal and narcissistic reasons

Recently, Imran Khan taunted the establishment to support him against the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM). This indicates that political figures often seek and rely on the establishment’s support to gain control over the government for personal and narcissistic reasons.

This concept is reminiscent of Machiavelli’s time in Italy, where the state was not just a means to an end but an end in itself, with its own interests.

Furthermore, the prevailing state of affairs and historically plutocratic behavior of the state have shaped a parochial political culture in the country. The political beliefs, attitudes, and orientations of the people toward the political system are often characterized by ignorance and self-centeredness.

The majority of people support political candidates based on personal gain and satisfaction, without considering their political performances

The majority of people support political candidates based on personal gain and satisfaction, without considering their political performances. This contributes to societal backwardness and class distinctions. In contrast, developed and politically aware societies exhibit a “participant political culture” where people actively engage in political life and do not confine themselves to adult suffrage alone.

Liz Truss, former Prime Minister of Britain, serves as an example of such a society. She openly accepted her failure to deliver the mandate assigned to her by the Conservative Party and resigned without hesitation. The current political culture of Pakistan is not satisfactory and according to the true democratic norms. Political culture is basically a dynamic process, attitudes and beliefs of people change according to the circumstances.

Political culture is basically a dynamic process, attitudes and beliefs of people change according to the circumstances

Political ideas of the nation had been badly affected by historically bad governance, either by political leaders or military leadership during marshal laws. Indeed healthy political socialization required a democratic society in which education plays an important role because when people are dull and illiterate, it is then impossible for them to be profitable and active citizens.

Therefore important steps should be taken by the few top political leaders of the nation to strengthen and work on the charter of democracy along with the charter of the economy in order to get rid of political turmoils and military interferences.

More Independent media and last but not least a healthy political debate must be started throughout educational institutions for the sake of proper understanding of the political system of the country and in general.

The writer is a research scholar of political science at UST Bannu.

The article is the writer’s personal opinion.