English Essay 29-12-2014 you can make outline by yourself Pakistan in Mirror of Democracy Pakistan came into being on the 14th August, 1947 as a result of the vote of Muslims in undivided India. The Muslims rallied under the banner of the All-India Muslim League and demanded a separate homeland for themselves where they could shape their lives according to Islam, and enjoy the fruit of independence as citizens of a sovereign state. The Muslims had a genuine fear that under the domination of Hindus who were in majority, their culture would be totally eclipsed and they would have to live in perpetual economic backwardness. As a perpetual minority their economic position would have grown worse. In the words of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, who delivered his address at the University of Kansas in 1950 (U.S.A), eloquently dealt at length the circumstances leading to the creation of Pakistan. “Thus to the Muslims in that part of the world freedom from British rule meant practically nothing unless it meant freedom from the domination of the Hindu majority also.” The Muslims thus marched under the dynamic leadership of the Quaid-e-Azam of the All-India Muslim League and demanded Pakistan, which was eventually to become a font of democracy for the prevalence of rule of law and justice. In short, Pakistan is the result of the aspirations of Muslims to order their lives according to the Islamic tenets based on merit and justice. Pakistan’s future is linked with democracy. One may say that ballot is one of the factors leading to the establishment of Pakistan. It’s most unfortunate that the Constituent Assembly that was to frame a Constitution for Pakistan, failed to do so though it continued extending its life and remained in office for seven years. It was later on dissolved rather controversially by the then Governor General, Ghulam Muhammad. Hence there were no direct elections to the Parliament/Central legislature before or after the promulgation of the 1956 Constitution. However, elections were held in the Province of Punjab in 1951, which were alleged to be rigged and became controversial. The then Chief Minister Mian Mumtaz Daultana was blamed for the rigging of the elections to keep the Muslim League in power. The next elections in East Pakistan were held in March 1954, which were thought to be fair as the ruling Muslim League lost the elections. The opposition parties by forming an alliance known as “United Jagtoo Front” won 223 out of 309 seats. The Muslim League was routed. The West Pakistan establishment was blamed for creating a rift amongst the opposition parties for preventing them from implementing their manifesto. The people of East Pakistan felt disenchanted and blamed openly the West Pakistan establishment. Another blow came when the National Assembly elections to be held in January 1959 were pre-empted by the imposition of Martial Law in October 1958 by the then President Iskandar Mirza. The direct elections to the Parliament were thus not held from 1947 to 1970, which was a negation of democracy. During Ayub’s regime, under the 1962 Constitution direct elections to elect the President, National and Provincial Assemblies were abolished and Basic Democracies System was adopted. It was to act as Electoral College, and 80,000 basic democrats (40,000 each from East and West Pakistan) for the election of the President and members of National and Provincial Assemblies. It is not amiss to mention here that late President Ayub Khan got vote of confidence from the basic democrats through a referendum. He became President for five years and gave the 1962 Constitution. Three elections were held under the Basic Democrat System resting on the 1962 Constitution. In 1965, Miss Fatima Jinnah was the candidate of the opposition for the office of the President. She opposed late Ayub Khan. The Electoral College was alleged to have grossly been manipulated in both the wings, more so in the West Pakistan. Bureaucracy was used for siding Ayub Khan. The governors in both the wings were considered to be the stooges of Ayub Khan. Elections were rigged in favour of Ayub Khan through coercion, bribery and blackmailing. The manipulation was done at the express wish of the governors. The people got the impression that elections were rigged to defeat Miss Fatima Jinnah. The sanctity of ballot box was violated. With the departure of Ayub Khan (not constitutionally) Yahha Khan imposed Martial Law in Pakistan. He promised to hold general elections on the basis of direct franchise. The elections were held in December 1970, which were considered fair, impartial, in which Awami League swept the polls in East Pakistan and PPP emerged as the majority party in West Pakistan. Unfortunately, the military government headed by Yahya did not accept the results and the events took the turn in a way as to lead to the secession of former East Pakistan. A wave of shudder runs through one’s spinal cord to recall the sad incidents leading to the secession of East Pakistan. Pakistan map reshaped after military coup. The next general elections were held in March 1977 to the National and Provincial Assemblies under the 1973 Constitution. The opposition labelled the charges of rigging against the PPP in power. Mr. Z.A. Bhutto acknowledged that Provincial Assemblies elections were not representative in nature due to the boycott of the opposition. He offered the opposition to hold these elections again but the offer was not accepted by the opposition. It led to political agitation. Bhutto’s regime was overthrown through a military coup and Zial-ul-Haq took over as the new ruler of the country. The Martial Law continued till February 1985, when elections were held on non-party basis. Political parties could not take part in these elections on the basis of their manifestoes. Prior to holding elections in 1985, General Zia assumed Presidency for five years through the holding of referendum in December 1984. The referendum was considered a hoax. Next elections were held in November 1988,, which brought BB brought to power at the centre and the provinces of Sindh and NWFP. The opposition parties through an alliance of IJI, emerged as the majority party in Punjab. The government in Punjab was formed by Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (MNS). There were complaints that ISI manipulated elections by bringing about certain parties into alliance of MI. There were reports that ISI spent huge amounts of money to support IJI. Even these elections were reputed not to be fair. The general elections of 1990 also do not have the stamp of impartiality or fairness. It is said that through these elections were meant to oust PPP at the Federal/Provincial levels. The establishment succeeded in manipulating the elections through ISI. All the known vices were witnessed in these elections to ensure the victory of IJI. The next elections were held in 1993. It is said that Nawaz Sharif (NS) fell out of favour with the establishment. The establishment was instrumental to the break up of the IJI in that Jamaat-i-Islami contested elections on its own, thereby splitting the vote of IJI and bringing about victory of PPP candidates in close contest. It is reported that the elections in 1997 brought MNS to power as against the PPP. Even there were reports that the interim government at the centre was inclined towards NS. The presentation of the foregoing facts shows that the establishment that be in Pakistan has been manipulating the results in its favour in elections. Only two elections, one in 1954 in East Pakistan and national elections held in December 1970 were reputed to be fair without the interference of governments in power. The establishment and the party in power stand for winning elections at all costs. All sorts of fraud devices are used in achieving the desired results in elections. The people seem to have lost faith in the electoral process, which is established by a declining turn out of voters in the general elections from 1988 to 1997. The parties in power have been destroying the sanctity of the ballot box through rigging and other devices of fraud to keepselves them in saddle of power. So far we have discussed how the governments in power try to stick to power through tile manipulation of rigging and other vices of electoral fraud. Pakistan remained without a constitution till 1956 and the 1956 Constitution was abrogated by Iskandar Mirza through the imposition of Martial Law in October 1958, which opened the way to further coups in time to come. The civilian rulers of earlier era belonging to Muslim League were mostly honest as no financial scandal was reported in the newspapers. The corruption amongst the rulers commenced after the 1958 Martial Law. The political leaders mostly belonging to PPP and League promoted cronyism. They indulged in corruption and built their private assets. BB/NS are involved in various cases of corruption pending in different courts. BB transferred huge amount of money to foreign banks. It is a case of plunder and loot. NS also fortified his economic empire. This was done at the cost of the national interests. That is how the leaders have been promoting their vested interests. It goes clearly against the spirit of accountability, which is an integral part of democracy. Democracy cannot thrive in an environment of non-accountability. It must be pointed out those political leaders, owing to mismanagement; misgovernance invite the khaki to topple the civil rule. The masses welcome the military rule initially, but later on when it gets prolonged and generates its own vices, masses get disillusioned with it. It is a sort of vicious circle that is repeated over time. Our civil rulers seem to be in league with the Khaki to come and go on account of their misdeeds. No civil government completes its tenure of office and it soon goes out. The result is that it does not help mature and strengthen political institutions. Stable political institutions are a sine qua non of democracy, which Pakistan has not been able to evolve owing to the frequent disruption of the political process. Military rule falls heavily on institutions, which alone could guarantee nation’s survival in times of crises. Hence the door to military rule needs to banged permanently. Our politicians must grow wise to avoid the recurrence of conditions that are favorable to the emergence of military rule. It’s most unfortunate that our superior courts have been justifying military rule at different times through the invocation of the doctrine of state necessity. The judiciary has been recommending extra constitutional measures to tide over periods of emergency and that has considerably weakened the hold of law. A nation that does not live by its constitution lands itself into the realm of necessity, which runs contrary to the spirit of law. In other words, frequent invocation of the doctrine of necessity has weakened the constitution. It does not appear in its original pristine form. Democracy gets set back when the constitution is held in abeyance and the law of necessity takes precedence over it. Democracy is a rule of law, which demands respect for law from the practitioners. It can not grow its firm roots in. the soil of a country where the danger of ‘Necessity’ looms large on the horizon on account of the lapses of rulers. One of the reasons why democracy is fragile in Pakistan is the scuttling of the civil-rule-process and its replacement by the military rule. Our politicians wish permanently to relive the sordid history. Another factor which has contributed to weaken democracy is the lack of tolerance on the part of every ruling government. A running government does not tolerate opposition, while the latter when comes to power through elections adopts the same hardened attitude and falls heavily on the opposition of the time. There is a lack of the culture of tolerance, which greatly accounts for the unsuccess of democracy in Pakistan. Our politicians must learn to co-exist with political adversaries, who have every right to hold their views that may be in conflict with those of the government in power. It is necessary for parliamentarians to undergo schooling in the art of tolerance. Traditions of tolerance need to be laid down and upheld under all conditions. Tolerance thus is a necessary though not a sufficient condition for the success of democracy. Culture of tolerance needs to be nurtured through more and more doses of democracy. Let us bang the door to military rule in time to come for the assimilation of the virtues of democracy. Ignorance and illiteracy cannot go hand in hand. With 49 per cent of literacy, one should not expect democracy to work successfully. If we wish democracy to succeed, we must through appropriate social planning raise literacy to the highest level. A high literacy rate creates awakening among the masses, and that could go a long way to improve the working of democracy. A literate population would rise above parochial consideration, bradarism and vote for candidates that it considers deserving. The hold of clan/class is very strong in rural areas in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, where bradari considerations outweigh merit, competence etc. The best way to dismantle these social barriers is to ornament people with education. Someone has rightly said that education will play its role effectively in the growth of democracy when economic living condition of the masses improves. Democracy is a gift of the Industrial Revolution to the West. The economic condition of people improved through rapid industrialisation. The income per capita increased and the standard of living rose to a high level. The electorate became independent, economically speaking. The basic economic/social needs of the masses stand met in the western society. The electorate does not depend on anyone. Here in Pakistan, a vast majority of population is bound by shackles of serfdom. A poor haari cannot go against the wishes of his landlord, as he neither owns land nor a dwelling. He lives on the land of his master and can be ejected anytime. The poor landless haari thus has no will of his own and is bound to carry out the orders of his feudal landlord. It also calls for the abolition of landlordism in Pakistan through progressive land reforms. The point is that democracy cannot be sustained without making the electorate independent economically. This can take place through poverty alleviation by generating employment and increasing the income of the poor section of the society. However, in view of colossal magnitude of poverty, it may not be possible to dent it effectively, though a moderate level of economic development may bring about some improvement in the living standard of the masses...
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:55:22 +0000