The first transition to a democracy was a marvel in Pakistani politics almost 70 years in the making. It was the promise of a movement towards a truly representative governing system. An escape from the entrenchment of periodic military rule, a chance to create functional institutions and lay-down long-term political and economic reforms. Yet, the gradualist approach of state-building within a dysfunctional democracy has not paved the way for any such reforms in the near-future.
More importantly, the lives of the general public remain largely unchanged. The struggle against constant military intervention within the democratic set-up, the incompetency of incumbent governments and a failure to evolve democratic institutions have crippled the democratic development initiatives which were perhaps predicted in the post-Musharraf years.
Despite the advent of democracy, external intervention exists within the political system. The political elite are still subservient to influence from other state institutions and public policy is rarely independently formed. The courts are run by the military, rangers have open access to all of Karachi and its political mass, a military operation in the north dictates the national and foreign policy and foreign-debt servicing regulates the economic policy. The fault lies perhaps not always at the end of the inward influences on the political system, but rather in the frailty and incompetency of the governing bodies. Very little has been done to improve the inherent workings of the parts of the state apparatus which have been handed over to other stakeholders.
The state institutions are incapable of implementing democratic policy reforms. The economic decisions are crippled due to the inability to sustain growth without foreign-aid, which always has strings attached. The law enforcement agencies are unable to perform duties in Karachi without assistance from the military while the judiciary has been unable to convict terrorists without sub-leasing the interpretation of justice to the military in the form of military courts. The incapacity of these civilian institutions to function has invited the military to exert influence. This continued dependence on military assistance in governance is a major deterrence in achieving democratic growth.
Another major obstacle in democratic growth is the absence of political plurality in Pakistan. There is a substantial lack of ideological diversity causing a lack of representation in the parliament today. The political parties can be divided between the religious and ethnic parties, the confused People’s Party, the reactionary Tehreek-e-Insaf and the capitalist Muslim League (N). There continue to exist large barriers to entry in the political system, causing a lack of representation of the middle-class, the working class and fringe groups.
The financial obstacles to mainstream politics are perhaps the reason that socialist, secular, liberal and other ideologically varying parties fail to substantiate support during elections. Without a true diverse mixture of ideas floating in parliament, it is difficult to reach truly democratic ideals of popular representation and substantive debate.
The two successive democratic governments have brought about little reform to produce a conducive environment for democratic evolution. Trust-building between the populace and the government institutions needs to be strengthened through anti-corruption drives and efficient reforms. The service delivery of the bureaucracy needs to be highlighted and questioned. The law enforcement agencies need to be depoliticized and their contributions need to be highlighted. The judiciary needs to be reformed to introduce major reforms to be able to function for sensitive cases without exposing the witnesses and judges to security concerns. The exchequer needs to shift priorities to focus funding and efficiency on important sectors such as health, education and energy. The increased dependence on foreign NGOs and governments for service delivery in these sectors needs to be reduced for sustainable growth to be possible. The use of politics and diplomacy should be the priority when dealing with political parties in the south and the calls by political stakeholders for military intervention in politics needs to be discouraged.
However, the failure of these governments to actively introduce reforms or their general incompetency is by no means a fair reflection on democracy as a system of governance. The failure of a democratic government are far too often seen as failures of the system and are made the basis for calls for external intervention. However, a democracy must go through a process to activate its self-correcting mechanisms and become sustainable. This can only happen once a conducive environment is made for such a growth to occur.
The current cracks in the political system fail to allow for democratic principles and institutions to grow and become self-sufficient. However, it must also be noted with certain skepticism that the failure to address these issues also serves the interests of certain stakeholders. The civilian incumbents are satisfied with creating a political oligarchy by not allowing for diversity or pluralism. While the external stakeholders are intent on maintaining certain influence within the decisions made by the government. The reforms for democratic growth can only takes place once the stakeholders find it in their interest for such an evolution to take place. The call for electoral reforms are made on the streets and not from inside the parliament, the parties resign to protest military action in Karachi and the stakeholders are more than happy to assist every-time the parliament fails.
