Phases from 1947 to 1977

By Prof Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by Prof DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

PHASE FROM 1947 TO 1970

‘Muslim League was formed to spearhead the struggle to form the Muslim majority state,  not to run it, and further to make matter worse it had almost no support in the area that constituted Pakistan; therefore, the legal authority  was conferred upon those who were not, and had never been, rulers. Because they were made the recipients of the legitimate symbols of power did not mean their legitimacy superseded that of long-established local authorities. Kinship, tribal, filial, and landed interests wove the fabric of traditional leadership and governance in the different regions of western Pakistan’.(1)

Even Muslim league had will, it had no clout and those had clout definitely they had no will to bring about democratization to replace traditional arrangement of power. unwillingness of the successors of Jinnah to establish democratic norms and institutions was due to little popular pressure against a system that offered scant opportunity to effect representative government respectful of majority rule. Willingness of ordinary citizens to be off the politics and determination of rulers to do so was the part of historical continuum as Ayub Khan drew on colonial history to justified his limited representative system designed to keep ordinary citizens out of politics by ‘claiming that because the Muslim in the subcontinent had historically never known real sovereignty, they would take long as Pakistani to adjust psychology to their new born freedoms.(2)

PHASE FROM 1970 TO 1977

Democracy in democratic period                 

Muhammad saluhuddin writes in Takbeer: Elections are indispensable for democracy, but democracy does not end rather begins once elections are concluded. Election gives legitimacy to party to rule, which has to then legitimatize itself by ruling in democratic way. Leader should demonstrably be open to dissension and believer in coexistence. Bulldozing opposition through the juggernaut of state is dictatorship and liquidating it through gun is fascism. Resorting to either of the method inflicts upon the ruler the title of dictator and fascist regardless of the fact that he is elected or unelected. Obtaining required number of votes does not transform one into democratic leader; the claim of being democratic leader is tested when one is charged with authority to wield power at his disposal. The most illuminating example is found in he general amnesty granted by prophet peace be upon him at the conquest of Makaa to prove that rules of war and rules of governance are different…. To expect generals to establish democratic norms is itself nonsense, it is shuffling of the responsibility….it is the irony that man eulogized as the ‘martyr of democracy’ was the important part of different autocratic regimes. His whole tenure was characterized by unprecedented measures to suppress opposition” Centralization of authority manifested in the duality and inter-relationship of the two roles as Bhutto swore in as the new president and also became Chief Martial Law Administrator.

‘Bhutto gave lip service to the rights of free expression and assembly; he was more comfortable dictating programs that influenced a form of political behavior which encouraged subservience. Bhutto demanded total obedience from his subordinate, fawning loyalty and unquestioning respect from those immediately around him, as well as virtual homage from the masses…... Bhutto was well-suited for Pakistan’s vice regal tradition, and he instinctively ruled Pakistan as he did his Sindhi Larkana estate…guiding the people as shepherd would tend to his flock, or a squire would succor his peasants’.(3)

There was no dithering on his part to squash any dissension that had potential to jeopardize the longevity his rule and was labeled by his own party leaders as fascists and by Wali Khan as ‘Adolph Bhutto.

Bhutto said that ‘Parliamentary systems were exemplary in circumstances of extended tranquility, but Pakistan was a turbulent notion, and free expression was more likely to do harm than good… operating on the basis of viceregalism, Bhutto anticipated governing Pakistan almost indefinitely. Election of 1977 and opposition denouncing the elections as a travesty led to the orders of shoot to kill by Bhutto to FSf. The escalation of deaths did nothing to buttress the Bhutto, and convinced the army that the moment for action had arrived. Bhutto would be denied the use of the instrument of official violence and would no longer be permitted to silence his opposition. Truly believing that ‘heads would roll’ if Bhutto was allowed to remain in power, Bhutto was informed by General Zia that the Pakistan Army was back in the political game and that he, the Quaid-i-Awam, was out ‘.(4)

1.            Baxter, ‘A New Nation in an Old Setting’ Bangladesh, West View Press, 1984, P98-99

2.            Jennings, ‘Military in the Political development of New Nation’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, P160

3.            Hyman, ‘Pakistan’s Politics’ New York, Columbia Press, 1998, P213

4.            Janowitz, ‘People’s representation in democracy’, Chicago, Chicago Press, 2006, P456