Has democracy failed in Pakistan?

In light of the current political crisis in Pakistan, many political observers have raised the question of whether democracy has failed in the country. To address this question, we must examine the factors at play.
According to some experts, it is not democracy itself that has failed in Pakistan, but rather the failure of the political class to effectively operate within the democratic system, which has been successful in many other parts of the world. Countries like India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and distant working democracies such as the UK, USA, Germany, and France serve as examples.
So, what went wrong in Pakistan? Why couldn’t we achieve what India did? There are several reasons why democracy has struggled to take root in Pakistan. One significant failure in the early years of the country was the politicians’ inability to establish a constitution and establish a system of checks and balances for the various branches of government. As a result, the bureaucracy, both civil and military, gained a dominant position in the political landscape. The frequent changes in government allowed the bureaucracy to exert significant influence.
Within the bureaucracy itself, the military branch gradually became more powerful over time. This ultimately led to the military takeover in 1958, which completely depoliticized the country. Politicians were persecuted, demonized, and imprisoned. To legitimize its rule and improve its international image, the Ayub regime introduced a system called Basic Democracy, which created an electoral college to elect the president.
However, Basic Democracy was not genuine grassroots democracy; it was designed to maintain General Ayub’s grip on power. The politicians who aligned themselves with him were handpicked puppets and cronies, not genuine representatives of the people.
Ayub’s quasi-democracy collapsed in 1969, followed by three years of General Yahya’s martial law and five years of democratic rule by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). This was followed by another 10 years of military rule under General Zia. Subsequently, there was a continuous cycle of power play between the PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), along with a period of eight years under Musharraf’s martial law.
We are currently in the latest phase of democratic interregnum, with the PPP, PML-N, PTI, and the current Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM). However, political instability persists, and the country remains in a state of uncertainty. Will democracy survive, or is there a possibility of another military takeover? This question is on everyone’s mind.
When we analyze the tumultuous political history of Pakistan, we can trace the original mistake back to the derailment of democracy in 1958. Since then, the country has oscillated between military rule and semi or quasi-democracy, with the military, as a more organized institution, largely retaining control. Many analysts hold the army accountable for the failure of democracy in Pakistan, but politicians are equally to blame.
Beyond the political maneuverings of the early fifties, politicians have also failed to uphold democratic principles when given the opportunity. Leaders like Bhutto, in their quest for absolute power, attempted to crush opposition parties, which ultimately led to their own ousting from power. This power struggle created an opening for military intervention.
Pakistan’s political leaders often espouse their commitment to democracy, but when in power, they often act like autocrats and dictators. This behavior undermines the culture of tolerance and accommodation essential for the flourishing of democracy. Bhutto, as an example, exhibited such tendencies during his time in office. The PPP and PML-N followed suit in the 1990s, and Imran Khan took a similar path during his nearly four-year tenure. Currently, the PDM is targeting Imran Khan in a similar fashion.
Some analysts accuse the establishment of orchestrating behind-the-scenes maneuvers to keep politicians at odds with each other. If this is the case, why do politicians allow themselves to be manipulated and act as puppets? The answer is quite simple: a lust for power, greed, and an insatiable desire for self-aggrandizement. The harsh reality is that politicians often engage in the game of democracy to serve their narrow self-interests rather than working towards the greater good of democracy, which is the welfare of the people. Furthermore, there is a lack of democracy within political parties themselves, with the two major parties functioning as family fiefdoms for all practical purposes.
If we examine the history of Pakistan, we can observe that over the past few decades, politicians have amassed immense wealth. Prime examples of this are the Sharif and Zardari families, along with their associates. On the other hand, the majority of voters, the people of Pakistan, have remained impoverished and deprived of basic necessities.
Unfortunately, democracy has not brought tangible benefits to the voters. The Pakistani experience suggests that democracy has become a tool in the hands of politicians to enrich themselves. Consequently, they often disregard the fundamental rules and norms of democracy, such as tolerance for opposition and genuine concern for the masses, who are the cornerstone of a democratic system. Unless politicians learn and embrace these basic principles, democracy will remain an illusion, and they will continue to be manipulated by those in power.