short essay on politics in pakistan

Pakistan and its Politics Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Reason for move towards islamic state, impact of islamic state on democracy, works cited.

Pakistan was established as a state in 1947 after a separation from the Indian British Empire. From its beginning, the country has had a turbulent life with political instability and ethnic disputes characterizing its existence. While Pakistan was established as a secular state with a Muslim majority, the country has exhibited over the decades showed signs of evolving into an Islamic State. Such an outcome would have dire consequences for democratization.

The prevailing economic conditions have increased the popularity of Islamic movements all over the country. Farhat notes that most Pakistanis blame bad government policies for the high unemployment, inflation, and lack of access to education and healthcare in the country (121).

Islamists express skepticism over the ability of the secular leadership, which is blamed for Pakistan’s problems. Saudi influence has also been a contributing factor to the evolution of Pakistan into an Islamic state.

Due to the lack of financial opportunities in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been a major destination for Pakistanis working abroad since the 1970s. When the Pakistani workers return home from this Islamic state, they are influenced by the religious teachings of Saudi clerics (Farhat 122).

Western dominance has also accelerated the move towards Islamic reform in Pakistan. After the events of 9/11, the cooperation between the Pakistani government and the United States has increased with Pakistan becoming a key strategic ally. Radical Islamists see this as a corruption of Islam by the West.

Farhat points out that this challenge of the West has become the single most important factor promoting the renewal of Islamic movements in Pakistan today (129). Western dominance has fueled nationalistic sentiments and many people are in support of an Islamic renewal.

Evolution to an Islamic State will hurt democracy in Pakistan. Politicians have been known to employ religious criteria to justify their actions in Islamic states. This will be to the disadvantage of Pakistanis of other religions and Islamic sub-sects.

Ishtiaq observes that While Pakistan has a Muslim majority with 96% of Pakistanis being Muslims, the Muslim community is not monolithic and it contains different sub-sects (195). An Islamic state would therefore threaten democracy since it would give rise to sectarianism in Pakistani territories.

By adopting an Islamic character, Pakistan has enacted many laws that are discriminatory to non-Muslims. For example, the third constitution of 1973 required the president and the prime minister to be Muslims (Ishtiaq 198). Such laws are not in line with the democratic principles that give each person equal opportunity in the state.

The Islamic state will ensure that only practicing Muslims can take up key leadership positions in the country. An Islamic state will also hurt democracy since the ruling elite may resort to Islamic rhetoric to undermine the opposition. Farhat demonstrates that Islamic symbolism may be used to legitimize leadership that would otherwise be voted out in a true democracy (127).

Pakistan is a country with a rich Islamic history spanning centuries and the country was created with these religious and cultural bearings in mind. However, Pakistan was created as a Muslim state and not an Islamic State. The trends articulated in this paper are moving Pakistan towards becoming an Islamic State. If this happens, the democratic values currently enjoyed by the country will suffer as Islamic laws becomes adapted all over the land.

Farhat, Haq. “A state for the Muslims or an Islamic state?” Religion and Politics in South Asia . Ed. Ali Riaz. NY. Routledge, 2010. 119-145. Print.

Ishtiaq, Ahmed. “The Pakistan Islamic State Project: A secular Critique.” Religion and Politics in South Asia . Ed. Ali Riaz. NY. Routledge, 2010. 185-211. Print.

• Communication Techniques in Public Speaking
• Contribution of Marxism and Imperialism in Shaping the Modern International Political System
• Indian-Pakistani Relations and the Kashmir Dilemma
• Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
• Pakistan's Intelligence System After the 1950s
• Political Liberalism Pros and Cons
• Islam: Religious Tradition and Politics
• Islam and Politics: Separation of Religion and State
• Regime Trajectories: Structuralist and Process-Oriented Views
• "Military Rule in Latin America" by Karen Remmer
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 16). Pakistan and its Politics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pakistan-and-its-politics/

"Pakistan and its Politics." IvyPanda , 16 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/pakistan-and-its-politics/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Pakistan and its Politics'. 16 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Pakistan and its Politics." April 16, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pakistan-and-its-politics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Pakistan and its Politics." April 16, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pakistan-and-its-politics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Pakistan and its Politics." April 16, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pakistan-and-its-politics/.

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

The Current Situation in Pakistan

A USIP Fact Sheet

Monday, January 23, 2023

Publication Type: Fact Sheet

Pakistan continues to face multiple sources of internal and external conflict. Extremism and intolerance of diversity and dissent have grown, fuelled by a narrow vision of Pakistan’s national identity, and are threatening the country’s prospects for social cohesion and stability.   

The inability of state institutions to reliably provide peaceful ways to resolve grievances has encouraged groups to seek violence as an alternative. The country saw peaceful political transitions after the 2013 and 2018 elections. However, as the country prepares for anticipated elections in 2023, it continues to face a fragile economy along with deepening domestic polarization. Meanwhile, devastating flooding across Pakistan in 2022 has caused billions in damage, strained the country’s agriculture and health sectors, and also laid bare Pakistan’s vulnerability to climate disasters and troubling weaknesses in governance and economic stability.

Regionally, Pakistan faces a resurgence of extremist groups along its border with Afghanistan, which has raised tensions with Taliban-led Afghanistan. Despite a declared ceasefire on the Line of Control in Kashmir in 2021, relations with India remain stagnant and vulnerable to crises that pose a threat to regional and international security. The presence and influence of China, as a great power and close ally of Pakistan, has both the potential to ameliorate and exacerbate various internal and external conflicts in the region.

USIP’S Work

The U.S. Institute of Peace has conducted research and analysis and promoted dialogue in Pakistan since the 1990s, with a presence in the country since 2013. The Institute works to help reverse Pakistan’s growing intolerance of diversity and to increase social cohesion. USIP supports local organizations that develop innovative ways to build peace and promote narratives of inclusion using media, arts, technology, dialogues and education.

USIP works with state institutions in their efforts to be more responsive to citizens’ needs, which can reduce the use of violence to resolve grievances. The Institute supports work to improve police-community relations, promote greater access to justice and strengthen inclusive democratic institutions and governance. USIP also conducts and supports research in Pakistan to better understand drivers of peace and conflict and informs international policies and programs that promote peace and tolerance within Pakistan, between Pakistan and its neighbors, and between Pakistan and the United States.

USIP’s Work in Pakistan Includes:

Improving police-community relations for effective law enforcement

The Pakistani police have struggled with a poor relationship with the public, characterized by mistrust and mistreatment, which has hindered effective policing. USIP has partnered with national and provincial police departments to aid in building police-community relationships and strengthening policing in Pakistan through training, capacity building and social media engagement.

Building sustainable mechanisms for dialogue, critical thinking and peace education.

Nearly two-thirds of Pakistan’s population is under the age of 30. Youth with access to higher education carry disproportionate influence in society. However, Pakistan’s siloed education system does not allow interactions across diverse groups or campuses, leading to intolerance, and in some cases, radicalization. To tackle growing intolerance of diversity on university campuses, USIP has partnered with civil society and state institutions to support programs that establish sustainable mechanisms for dialogue, critical thinking and peace education.

Helping Pakistanis rebuild traditions of tolerance to counter extremists’ demands for violence

USIP supports local cultural leaders, civil society organizations, artists and others in reviving local traditions and discourses that encourage acceptance of diversity, promote dialogue and address social change. USIP also supports media production — including theater, documentaries and collections of short stories — which offer counter narratives to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

Support for acceptance and inclusion of religious minorities

Relations between religious communities in Pakistan have deteriorated, with some instances of intercommunal violence or other forms of exclusion. USIP supports the efforts of local peacebuilders, including religious scholars and leaders, to promote interfaith harmony, peaceful coexistence and equitable inclusion of minorities (gender, ethnic and religious) in all spheres of public life.

Supporting inclusive and democratic institutions

To help democratic institutions be more responsive to citizens, USIP supports technical assistance to state institutions and efforts to empower local governments, along with helping relevant civil society actors advocate for greater inclusion of marginalized groups. Gender has been a major theme of this effort and across USIP’s programming in Pakistan. These programs empower women in peacebuilding and democratic processes through research, advocacy and capacity building.

Related Publications

Toward a Durable India-Pakistan Peace: A Roadmap through Trade

Thursday, June 27, 2024

By: Sanjay Kathuria

Despite a three-year long cease-fire along their contested border, trade and civil society engagement between India and Pakistan has dwindled, exacerbating the fragility of their relationship. With recently re-elected governments now in place in both countries, there is a window of opportunity to rekindle trade to bolster their fragile peace, support economic stability in Pakistan, create large markets and high-quality jobs on both sides, and open doors for diplomatic engagement that could eventually lead to progress on more contentious issues.

Type: Analysis

How Have India’s Neighbors Reacted to Its Election?

Tuesday, June 25, 2024

By: Humayun Kabir;   Geoffrey Macdonald, Ph.D. ;   Nilanthi Samaranayake ;   Asfandyar Mir, Ph.D.

Narendra Modi was sworn in on June 9 for his third consecutive term as India’s prime minister. Public polls had predicted a sweeping majority for Modi, so it came as some surprise that his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost ground with voters and had to rely on coalition partners to form a ruling government. Although India’s elections were fought mainly on domestic policy issues, there were important exceptions and Modi’s electoral setback could have implications for India’s regional and global policies.

Global Elections & Conflict ;  Global Policy

What Does Further Expansion Mean for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?

Thursday, May 30, 2024

By: Bates Gill;   Carla Freeman, Ph.D.

Last week, foreign ministers from member-states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) gathered in Astana, Kazakhstan. The nine-member SCO — made up of China, India, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan — represents one of the largest regional organizations in the world. And with the SCO’s annual heads-of-state summit slated for early July, the ministers’ meeting offers an important glimpse into the group’s priorities going forward. USIP’s Bates Gill and Carla Freeman examine how regional security made its way to the top of the agenda, China’s evolving role in Central Asia and why SCO expansion has led to frustrations among member states.

Type: Question and Answer

Global Policy

Asfandyar Mir on Balancing Counterterrorism and Strategic Competition

Tuesday, May 21, 2024

By: Asfandyar Mir, Ph.D.

As terror threats emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan rise, many may see counterterrorism as a distraction from other U.S. priorities, such as competition with China and Russia. But investment in counterterrorism can work “preventively, to shield the strategic competition agenda,” says USIP’s Asfandyar Mir.

Type: Podcast

Essay on Election in Pakistan

• November 22, 2023

Kainat Shakeel

Elections in Pakistan aren’t simply a political exercise; they’re an abecedarian expression of popular values and principles. As the nation navigates its political geography, choices play a vital part in shaping its fortune. This composition delves into the multifaceted aspects of choices in Pakistan, exploring their literal significance, the complications of the electoral system, the part of political parties, and the challenges and reforms that define the popular process. 

Literal Perspective:

The roots of choices in Pakistan trace back to its independence in 1947. Over the decades, the nation has witnessed a tumultuous political trip marked by military interventions, political paroxysms, and a gradational elaboration towards popular governance. Crucial mileposts include the first general choices in 1970, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, and posterior struggles for popular rule. 

Electoral System:

Pakistan operates on a mixed-member commensurable representation system, combining first-once-the-post and commensurable representation rudiments. This system aims to ensure fair representation for colorful political parties, reflecting the diversity of the country. Still, it isn’t without its challenges, with calls for nonstop reforms to enhance translucency and effectiveness. 

Political Parties:

The political terrain in Pakistan is characterized by a different array of political parties, each with its testaments, strengths, and challenges. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), led by Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), and the Pakistan People’s Party( PPP) are among the prominent players. Understanding their dynamics is pivotal to grasping the nuances of Pakistani politics. 

Election juggernauts:

Election juggernauts in Pakistan are dynamic, various, and frequently violent. Political parties employ colorful strategies to connect with the electorate, ranging from traditional rallies and door-to-door canvassing to using ultramodern tools like social media. The part of technology, particularly in the digital age, has become decreasingly significant in shaping public opinion during election seasons. 

Voter Turnout:

Voter turnout in Pakistani choices is told by a myriad of factors. Socio-profitable conditions, political stability, and geographical considerations all play a part. Encouraging high turnout is nonstop trouble, with enterprise aimed at educating the public about the significance of communal participation. 

Electoral Challenges:

Despite progress, choices in Pakistan aren’t without challenges. Allegations of apparel, irregularities, and other malpractices have been literal enterprises. Addressing these challenges is essential for fostering trust in the popular process. Recent reforms, including the use of technology for transparent voting, demonstrate a commitment to prostrating these obstacles. 

Women in choices:

The participation of women in Pakistani choices has seen advancements over time, but gender differences persist. Sweats to enhance women’s representation in politics continue, with proportions and mindfulness juggernauts contributing to positive changes. Achieving gender equivalency in politics remains an ongoing bid.

Youth Engagement:

Engaging the youth in the electoral process is pivotal for the sustainability of the republic. Pakistan has a significant youth population, and enterprises to educate and involve youthful choosers are essential for erecting a politically apprehensive and active populace. Youth-led movements and juggernauts have played a notable part in shaping the political converse. 

International Perspectives:

Comparing Pakistan’s electoral system with those of other countries provides precious perceptivity. The transnational community observes Pakistani choices, offering perspectives on the nation’s popular trips. Learning from global practices can contribute to the nonstop enhancement of the electoral process. 

Electoral Reforms:

In response to challenges faced in former choices, Pakistan has accepted electoral reforms. These reforms aim to address issues similar to apparel, enhance translucency, and streamline the electoral process. Nonstop evaluation and adaptation are necessary to meet the evolving requirements of a dynamic republic. 

Post-Election scripts:

The fate of choices in Pakistan involves the confirmation of the government and the perpetration of programs. The transition from choices to governance is a critical phase, and the opinions made during this period have far-reaching counteraccusations for the nation’s future.

Future Outlook:

Anticipating unborn trends in Pakistani choices involves considering technological advancements, changing demographics, and evolving political geographies. As the country moves forward, conforming the electoral system to meet the requirements of an ultramodern society is essential for a robust and inclusive republic. 

Public Perception:

Public perception of choices is a pivotal factor in the success of a popular process. The part of media in shaping these comprehensions, furnishing unprejudiced information, and easing informed decision- timber cannot be exaggerated. A well-informed electorate is the bedrock of a healthy republic. 

Conclusion:

In conclusion, choices in Pakistan are a complex interplay of history, politics, and societal dynamics. From the challenges faced during the electoral process to the post-election scripts, each phase contributes to the nation’s popular fabric. As Pakistan continues its popular trip, addressing challenges, embracing reforms, and fostering broad participation is crucial to a vibrant and flexible republic.

Kainat Shakeel is a versatile SEO-Content Writer and Digital Marketer with a keen understanding of tech news, digital market trends, fashion, technology, laws, and regulations. As a storyteller in the digital realm, she weaves narratives that bridge the gap between technology and human experiences. With a passion for staying at the forefront of industry trends, her blog is a curated space where the worlds of fashion, tech, and legal landscapes converge.

Democracy in Pakistan Essay with Quotations

by Pakiology | Aug 22, 2024 | Essay | 1 comment

Explore the evolution, challenges, and progress of democracy in Pakistan in this in-depth essay . Gain insights into the nation’s rich history, the influence of the military, the pervasive issue of corruption, and the role of civil society in shaping Pakistan’s democratic landscape.

Title: The Evolution of Democracy in Pakistan: Challenges, Progress, and Prospects for the Future

Introduction.

Pakistan, a country characterized by its rich and diverse history, has embarked on a tumultuous journey in pursuit of democracy. Overcoming numerous obstacles, its citizens have tenaciously defended their democratic rights and worked diligently to forge a more equitable society. In this comprehensive essay, we delve into the current state of democracy in Pakistan, recognizing its historical context, addressing the persistent challenges it confronts, highlighting the progress made, and considering the prospects for the future.

The Historical Landscape

Democracy, at its core, is a system of government grounded in the principle of representation, allowing citizens to actively participate in decision-making processes that impact their lives. Regrettably, the implementation of democracy in Pakistan has been marred by a series of military coups and periods of martial law, intermittently disrupting its democratic trajectory. Despite these adversities, Pakistan now operates as a federal parliamentary republic with a president and prime minister at the helm.

The Military’s Influence: A Persistent Challenge

A major impediment to democracy in Pakistan has been the enduring influence of the military on the political landscape. Pakistan’s history is replete with instances of military interventions in civilian governance, including several coups and martial law declarations. This persistent interference not only undermines democratic principles but also erodes public trust in the democratic system. Additionally, intelligence agencies have faced accusations of wielding substantial influence in the political sphere, further eroding democratic institutions and processes.

Corruption as a Hindrance: A Deep-Seated Issue

Another significant challenge is the pervasiveness of corruption within Pakistan. Corruption has become deeply ingrained in the country, with numerous politicians and government officials implicated in embezzlement and bribery. This deeply rooted issue corrodes the legitimacy of the democratic process and erodes public trust in the government. The adverse effects of corruption are most acutely felt by marginalized communities, who suffer from a lack of essential public services and resources.

The Resilience of Democratic Aspirations: Signs of Progress

Despite these formidable challenges, the citizens of Pakistan persistently strive to defend their democratic rights and fortify democratic institutions. In recent years, the country has seen a notable rise in the number of civil society organizations dedicated to advocating for transparency, accountability, and the promotion of awareness regarding democratic rights and freedoms. Additionally, the media has played a pivotal role in promoting democratic values and holding the government accountable for its actions.

The Role of Civil Society

Civil society organizations have emerged as vital agents of change in Pakistan’s democratic landscape. They tirelessly work to bridge the gap between the government and the governed, acting as watchdogs for accountability and transparency. Through advocacy, awareness campaigns, and public mobilization, these organizations have managed to shine a spotlight on the pressing issues of democracy and governance in Pakistan. Their activities range from monitoring elections to exposing corruption and advocating for the rule of law.

Media as the Fourth Estate

The media in Pakistan has undergone a transformational journey, evolving into a vibrant fourth estate that plays a crucial role in promoting democratic values. While media outlets often grapple with challenges such as censorship and intimidation, they continue to serve as a check on government power and a forum for diverse voices. Investigative journalism has uncovered corruption scandals, challenged authoritarianism, and provided a platform for citizens to engage in political discourse.

In conclusion, democracy in Pakistan remains an imperfect yet indispensable system, despite the numerous setbacks and challenges it has encountered. The people of Pakistan ardently safeguard their democratic rights, and the fortification of democratic institutions and processes is pivotal for the nation’s future. The enduring challenges posed by military influence, corruption, and public mistrust can only be surmounted through persistent efforts and sustained citizen engagement in the democratic process. As Pakistan continues its journey towards a more robust democracy, the world watches with hope and anticipation, recognizing the nation’s potential to overcome its challenges and achieve democratic excellence. The path may be long and arduous, but the resilience and determination of Pakistan’s people offer a promising outlook for the future of democracy in the country.

Quotes Related to Democracy

Here are a few quotes related to democracy and its challenges in Pakistan:

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” – Milton Friedman, Economist

“The greatest threat to democracy is not the enemies from without, but the enemies from within.” – Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

“I believe that the real solution to the problems facing Pakistan lies in true democracy and the rule of law.” – Imran Khan, Former Prime Minister of Pakistan

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – John Philpot Curran, Irish Orator and Statesman.

Ask Your Questions

You might like, problems of karachi essay | 200 & 500 words.

Explore the multifaceted challenges faced by Karachi in this comprehensive essay. From overpopulation to traffic...

A True Muslim Essay With Quotations 2023

A true Muslim essay is about the qualities of a true Muslim and how they embody the teachings of Islam in their daily...

Women Empowerment Essay For Students

This women empowerment essay highlights the importance of empowering women for the growth and development of society....

Health is Wealth Essay For Students

In this essay, we explore why health is wealth and why it is crucial to prioritize our physical and mental well-being...

Sir you have used a lot of bitter words in this essay which are enough to awake a nation.😭😭😭😭 But It’s reality I think inshallah one day we will achieve that original democracy which will prevent our basic rights and our motherland…..

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

• class-9-notes
• Friendship quotes
• Scholarships
• Science News
• Study Abroad
• Study in Australia
• SZABMU MDCAT
• UHS Past MCQs
• Universities

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Pakistan’s political crisis, briefly explained

An end to Pakistan’s constitutional crisis. But a political crisis endures.

by Jonathan Guyer

Editor’s note, April 10: Sunday, Imran Khan received a vote of no confidence from the Pakistani parliament, losing his position as prime minister. A vote on a new prime minister is expected as soon as Monday.

One of Pakistan’s twin crises was resolved this week. The other one, not so much.

On Thursday, the country’s supreme court delivered a historic ruling that resolved a constitutional crisis that took shape last week. The court rebuked Prime Minister Imran Khan, a self-fashioned populist leader and former cricket star who is more celebrity than statesman. Khan, the court ruled, had acted unconstitutionally when he dissolved Pakistan’s Parliament last week in order to avoid losing power through a no-confidence vote.

It was a surprising and reassuring decision, experts in the country’s politics said, given the supreme court’s checkered record as a sometime political ally of Khan. On Thursday, the court sided with the rule of law.

But the underlying political crisis that led to the court’s landmark order endures.

Khan outlandishly blamed the opposition parties’ efforts to oust him on a US-driven foreign conspiracy. Now, the Parliament has been restored and will continue with its no-confidence vote against Khan’s premiership Saturday, likely leading to his ouster and extraordinary elections later this year. Khan, for his part, said that he would “ fight ” back.

The broader political crisis, however, can be traced to the 2018 election that brought Khan to power. Traditionally, the military is the most significant institution in Pakistan, and it has often intervened to overthrow elected leaders that got in its way. Khan’s rise is inextricable from military influence over politics , and the incumbent prime minister accused the military of a soft coup for manipulating the election in Khan’s favor.

It was a “very controversial election,” says Asfandyar Mir, a researcher at the United States Institute of Peace. “There was a major question over the legitimacy of that electoral exercise and the government that Khan formed could just never escape the shadow of the controversy surrounding that election,” Mir explained.

More recently, the relationship between the military and Khan has worsened, and that gave the political opposition an opening to act against him. Though it’s not known what role the military played in the supreme court’s ruling, experts note that the harshness of the court’s order suggests the military’s buy-in. “This is part of a larger history of instability in Pakistan in which prime ministers are ousted from power, because they lose the support of Pakistan’s military,” Madiha Afzal, foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Vox.

But “even if the court was influenced by the military, it took the right decision,” she says.

Khan’s position weakened domestically

The political and economic situation set the stage for a challenge to Khan.

After running on a campaign that promised less corruption and more economic opportunity for the poor, Khan has failed to deliver. Inflation is climbing , unemployment is soaring , and a billion-dollar program from the International Monetary Fund has not helped stabilize matters. An international investigation into offshore money from last year, known as the Pandora Papers , showed that Khan’s inner circle had moved money abroad to avoid taxes, in contradiction with Khan’s populist rhetoric.

Khan presided over an anti-corruption witch hunt targeting opposition parties. Indeed, the opposition parties, many of them composed of dynastic leadership and families with old money, are corrupt , and their attempt to oust Khan can be seen as a move to evade further scrutiny, Mir said.

Still, that anti-corruption effort brought the government bureaucracy to a halt. And it’s part of Khan’s broader strongman-style approach to governing that has been ineffective .

Since his start in politics, Khan has depended on the courts. Yasser Kureshi, a researcher in constitutional law at the University of Oxford, says Khan has built his political standing on backing the judiciary. “Imran Khan’s political platform has been built around an anti-corruption populism, where he charges the political class for being corrupt, and in the last 15 years the supreme court has been on a spree of jurisprudence targeting the political corruption of Pakistan’s traditional parties,” he explains. “Khan has been the biggest supporter of this jurisprudence as it has validated and legitimized his politics.”

Now, the court appears to have turned against him at a time when the military has also lost faith in Khan. “With Imran Khan, I think that the problem for him is that right now, he has no institutional solutions that he can really turn to,” says Kureshi.

Khan’s relationship with the US has also cooled

Pakistan is a nuclear-armed country with a population of 220 million; it has built the sixth-largest military in the world, and has clout as a leader in the Islamic world. A longtime participant in the US war on terrorism, Pakistan has also been a conflicted partner, criticized for at times abetting the Taliban .

Khan was elected in 2018, and Mir says that, two years in, the military’s relationship to him began to cool. Khan feuded with the army chief over foreign policy issues, and the military saw Khan’s poor governance as a liability. Last year, Khan’s delays in signing off on a new intelligence chief prompted speculation of more divides between the two.

President Joe Biden did not phone Khan in his initial days in office, though he did call the leader of India , Pakistan’s chief rival. “The Biden administration’s cold shoulder to Imran Khan rubbed him the wrong way,” said Afzal. “Pakistan has just fallen off a little bit of the radar in terms of high-level engagement.”

Khan’s public messaging as a strongman has partially been responsible for agitating the relationship with the US — and by extension, his relationship with the Pakistani military, which wants to be closer to the US.

Most recently, that chill was expressed by Khan’s decision to stay neutral in Russia’s war on Ukraine; Khan visited Moscow just in advance of Russia’s invasion.

And, now, he’s turned to accusations of conspiracy: that the opposition’s stand against him is manufactured by the US. The origins of Khan’s incendiary claims appear to be a diplomatic cable that Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington sent home last month after a meeting with senior State Department official Donald Lu. Whatever criticisms Lu may have conveyed about Pakistan’s foreign policy, Khan’s interpretation of the memo has clearly been blown out of proportion. “When it comes to those allegations, there is no truth to them,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said last week.

It’s an open question whether his argument will resonate among a Pakistani populace who is suspicious of the United States. One group it’s likely not resonating with: Pakistan’s powerful military.

Khan is “critical of the United States to a point that makes the military uncomfortable,” said Shamila Chaudhary, an expert at the New America think tank. “The way he’s talking about the United States is preventing the US relationship with Pakistan from being repaired, and it needs to be repaired.”

Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s focus in Asia has been on great-power competition with China and two national security crises (the Afghanistan withdrawal and Russia’s Ukraine invasion). The sloppy withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan furthered the disconnect between Washington and Islamabad, according to Chaudhary, and further upset Pakistan’s government.

Robin Raphel, a former ambassador who served as a senior South Asia official in the State Department from 1993 to 1997, described Biden’s outlook to Pakistan as a “non-approach approach.”

“I’m a diplomat, and, I believe you get more with honey than vinegar,” she said. “It would have been more than worth it for the president to take five minutes to call Imran Khan.”

The US did send its top State Department official for human rights, Uzra Zeya, to the Organization of Islamic Countries summit in Pakistan last month. Zeya also met with the country’s foreign minister and senior officials, as the two countries celebrated the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

But there hasn’t been more than that in terms of a positive message for the US-Pakistan relationship in light of the recent political and constitutional crises in the country. Price’s recent comments on the situation were brief: “We support Pakistan’s constitutional process and the rule of law.”

What happens next

Once the Parliament completes its no-confidence vote, which may happen as soon as today, it will dissolve the government. The country’s electoral commission will then oversee a caretaker government that will likely be headed by the leader of the opposition, Shehbaz Sharif . (Sharif is the brother of Nawaz Sharif , a former prime minister himself, who is currently living in exile in the UK as he faces accusations of corruption.) And, in that forthcoming vote, Khan will most probably lose .

But even the specifics of those elections are contentious. Khan had asked the electoral commission to set a date within the next 90 days; opposition politicians told NPR that reforms are needed before the next vote, otherwise they say the military will “rig” the next elections.

Long-term, things are even less clear. Among civil society leaders in Pakistan, there is agreement that the supreme court’s ruling is good for constitutionalism. But it may also be a vehicle for further expansion of the judiciary’s ability to intervene in politics.

Kureshi, an expert on the courts of Pakistan and how they have increasingly become the arbiter of politics in the country, says the bigger takeaways won’t be fully understood until the court releases the full text of its ruling in the next month or so. That detailed order may set other legal precedents and even cast the opposition in a bad light.

After the immediate euphoria of keeping Khan’s audacious unconstitutional maneuver in check, that judgment may say a lot about how the court sees itself, especially its supervisory role over the parliament and prime minister.

“The elected institutions are deeply constrained by the tutelage of overly empowered unelected institutions, whether it is the military, historically, or the judiciary more recently,” said Kureshi. “Judgments like this give them an opportunity to further affirm and expand that role.”

• World Politics

Most Popular

• What the polls show about Harris’s chances against Trump
• The state of the 2024 race, explained in 7 charts
• America isn’t ready for another war — because it doesn’t have the troops
• Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword
• Two astronauts are stranded in space. This one is jealous.

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Explainers

The raids come amid escalating violence in the Palestinian territory.

The privately funded venture will test out new aerospace technology.

The singer’s new album, Short n’ Sweet, is full of the sexy clown wordplay she’s known for.

Canadian railways locked out union workers Thursday after months of contract disputes.

The weirdest 2024 candidate endorsed Trump.

Pumpkin spice is America’s most hatable seasonal flavor. But Starbucks is leaning in even more heavily this year.

Pakistan: A Land of Dented Democracy and Increasing Polarization

NESA Center Alumni Publication Maida Farid (Consultant and an Independent Researcher) 22 June 2023

Pluralism is a key feature of democracy, that is often accompanied by tolerance. These ideas are intertwined, as a pluralistic society acknowledges and respects the diverse opinions, beliefs, and interests of its people. However, when pluralism lacks tolerance and regard for the rights of other groups, it can lead to political polarization.  Political polarization occurs when there is a deep divide between different ideological or political groups, and there is little to no room for negotiation or finding common ground within the political system. In such a scenario, the lack of tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints can hinder the functioning of democracy. Polarized politics can be understood as a growing divide between people with different political views, leading to an environment of mistrust and animosity. It often involves zero-sum disagreements on various policies and rules within the political system. This phenomenon is not limited to any one country but is a global trend. Even the world’s oldest democracies, such as the United States, have faced challenges posed by polarized politics. Pakistan, with its turbulent history of civil-military relations, military interventions, ineffective civilian governments, and linguistic and ethnonational divides, is no exception to polarized politics and the challenges facing democracy. The socio-political fabric of Pakistan is greatly polarized on all levels, from the political elite to the masses, with a noticeable lack of consensus on fundamental democratic norms.

In Pakistan’s context, political polarization can be better understood as a top-down phenomenon rather than a bottom-up one. Throughout the country’s history, political elites have shaped narratives and influenced public sentiments. Thus, political polarization among the masses depends on what occurs in the corridors of power which penetrates the social fabric and polarizes the masses.

The struggle for power between state elites (such as the establishment and judiciary) and political parties can be seen as the primary level of political polarization in Pakistan. Due to this polarization and a lack of consensus, Pakistan has experienced prolonged influence of state institutions in political affairs, including direct military interventions, and judicial activism. The seventy-five years of Pakistan’s history have witnessed limited periods of political harmony and convergence between state institutions and political parties. Pakistan’s journey towards its first constitution took nine years due to a lack of agreement on the basic mode of governance between state institutions.  The parliament, which is meant to represent the people, has often succumbed to external pressures. Parties in power tend to avoid crossing a certain point to maintain their position and not antagonize the institutions. Moreover, the long history of martial law has further divided political parties into pro-establishment and anti-establishment factions.

Pakistan’s political system was established on democratic principles, but it is questionable if the country has experienced true democracy. Instead, Pakistan has had various forms of democracy. Mohammed Wasim in his book Political Conflict in Pakistan refers to democracy in Pakistan as “Establishmentarian Democracy.” He describes different variants of democracy briefly mentioned below:

• Direct Military Rule: Pakistan’s political landscape has seen various forms of governance throughout its history. Direct military rule was imposed on the country for a total of 17 years, with General Ayub Khan leading from 1958 to 1962, General Yahya Khan from 1969 to 1971, General Zia-ul-Haq from 1977 to 1985, and General Pervez Musharraf from 1999 to 2002.
• Military-bureaucratic oligarchy: During the early years of Pakistan’s independence, a bureaucratic polity with an elected government existed for 11 years, from 1947 to 1958. However, this period was characterized by a military-bureaucratic oligarchy, where power was concentrated within the military and bureaucracy.
• Military government under a civilian president: Another form of governance witnessed in Pakistan was military government under a civilian president, following the King’s party model. This lasted for 16 years, with General Ayub Khan serving as the president from 1962 to 1969, General Zia-ul-Haq from 1985 to 1988, and General Pervez Musharraf from 2002 to 2008.
• Elected governments under civilian presidents: where the rule of the Trica model was followed, involving the establishment, judiciary, and parliament. This lasted for 11 years, with Benazir Bhutto serving as the president from 1988 – 1990, Nawaz Sharif from 1990 to 1993, Benazir Bhutto again from 1993 to 1996, followed by a caretaker government in 1996-1997, and Nawaz Sharif again from 1997 to 1999.
• Elected governments that constantly faced military tensions: For a period of 10 years, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) held power from 2008 to 2013, followed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) from 2013 to 2018.
• Two years of an elected government and the establishment seemingly on the same page: This occurred from 2018 to 2021, during the tenure of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. However, this short-lived marriage of convenience had a bitter ending.

Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, and chairman of PTI was removed from office through a vote of no confidence in the national assembly. Initially, he alleged it was a U.S. conspiracy aimed at removing him from power. However, a few months later, he shifted the blame to the Pakistan army and effectively gathered a substantial political following that openly expresses its disapproval of the military. What sets Mr. Khan apart from other political leaders is his embrace of populist politics. The populist tendencies of Khan’s leadership have never been more evident before than now. From circumnavigating the constitutional processes, questioning, and targeting constitutional structures, and creating binaries among the masses as outsiders and insiders, Imran Khan seems to have checked all the boxes of a populist leader. Moreover, the tone and the political discourse that Khan has introduced in Pakistani politics are unprecedented.

The current political crisis in Pakistan is being referred to as extraordinary and unprecedented by some, while many political experts and journalists believe it is a recurring loop or vicious cycle that repeats itself every few years. What sets the current crisis apart from past events is the unprecedented level of openness to the public and the public outrage against the military institutions. In a recent event on 9 May 2023, Imran Khan was arrested by Islamabad high court under some corruption charges. The arrest of Khan led to significant outrage and anger among supporters of the PTI. The situation took a chaotic turn when attacks were carried out on the Army General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi, and the Corps Commander House, also known as Jinnah House, in Lahore. These events not only caused havoc for those involved in the attacks but also for the PTI’s political leadership. Many PTI leaders were arrested, imprisoned, released on bail, and re-arrested, and many have quit not only their political party but politics altogether.

Those responsible for the attacks on the GHQ and Corps Commander House are being tried in military courts rather than civil courts. Furthermore, thousands of PTI supporters have been arrested in less than a week. While these actions are condemnable, it is crucial to question where the problem lies. Looking back at recent history, when the PTI itself was in power, a long list of false cases was made against their opposition. Many people were falsely imprisoned, accused, and persecuted. At that time, when it suited the PTI’s interests, they did not take any measures to stop or at least condemn the mistreatment of their political rivals. On the contrary, they not only endorsed it but also threatened severe consequences for their political opposition if they did not comply. It now appears that the actions they took against their political rivals are returning to haunt them, albeit with greater speed and severity. And now the current government is doing the same.

The Pakistan army, previously an obscure force operating from behind the scenes, has thrust itself into the public eye, shedding its taboo status and becoming a subject of open discussion. The former Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa, on the verge of retirement, boldly accepted complete accountability for the chaotic state of politics. He reassured the public that the army would prioritize its core responsibilities and refrain from any political involvement. This declaration initially brought a sense of renewed hope, akin to a breath of fresh air. However, the relief was short-lived.

Immersed in a pool of problems and formidable challenges, it seems difficult to pinpoint a direct and singular solution for Pakistan. The challenges faced are multifaceted and demand an intricate solution. While many solutions have been proposed by the experts over the years, there appears to be an absolute lack of political will to address these issues. The underlying reason for this indifferent attitude is that personal and short-term goals consistently take precedence over national and long-term goals.

Nevertheless, to bring democracy into practice and reinstate the sanctity of institutional boundaries, Pakistan needs to take certain measures. First and foremost, Pakistan army would have to take a clear and strong stance by distancing itself from politics, maintaining neutrality, and avoiding involvement in political processes.  Such a step can be a significant turning point in Pakistan’s democratic journey.

Similarly, the judiciary in Pakistan should not confine itself to juristocracy and hyperactive judicial activism, which can encroach upon political sovereignty. Instead, it should operate within a balanced framework that respects the separation of powers. Legislative assemblies should introduce reforms aimed at strengthening democracy and minimizing external influences in political processes.

Political parties have a vital role to play in upholding democracy. They should strive to build political consensus on shared norms and a code of conduct. Key aspects such as free and fair elections, civil liberties, free media, equality, and peaceful transfer of government must be areas of convergence among political parties. It is crucial that all political parties accept the democratic practices and results thereof. Populist rhetoric should be avoided to gain public support, as it can undermine democratic processes.

Therefore, it is imperative that all the stakeholders identify and acknowledge the magnitude of the issues and display a collective resolve to address these issues effectively.

The views presented in this article are those of the speaker or author and do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or its components.

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia
• Environment
• Asia Defense
• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints
• Pacific Money
• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View
• Photo Essays
• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

Pakistan’s Precarious Crossroads: Elections and Beyond

Recent features.

The Solomon Islands-China Relationship: 5 Years On

Finding Home in Bishkek: Kyrgyzstan’s South Asian Expats

Kashmir at the Boiling Point as Elections Loom

Kim Jong Un Abandoned Unification. What Do North Koreans Think?

The Domestic Politics Behind Inter-Korean Relations

Amin Saikal on the United States’ Many Mistakes in Afghanistan

Why the Nuclear Revolution Matters in an Era of Emerging Great Power Competition

Sri Lanka’s Central Asia Gambit

The Curious Vatican-Asian Alliance

Donald Trump’s China Rhetoric Has Changed. The Epoch Times’ Support For Him Has Not.

Imran Khan’s Biggest Trial

Seoul Is Importing Domestic Workers From the Philippines

The pulse  |  politics  |  south asia.

The upcoming elections in Pakistan are much more than a routine political event. They are a decisive moment for the nation’s future.

In the complex tapestry of Pakistan’s political landscape, the country stands at a critical juncture with the approach of the general elections, scheduled for February 8 . This period is not just a test of the democratic process but also a reflection of the complex interplay of power, influence, and aspirations that characterize Pakistani politics.

At the heart of this political saga is the pervasive influence of the establishment, often a euphemism for the military’s role in politics, which has historically orchestrated the ebb and flow of political fortunes. The pre-election environment is rife with maneuvers reminiscent of a chess game, where politicians are pressured to switch allegiances, underscoring the adage, “There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests.” This phenomenon is not new in Pakistan’s political history but has been particularly pronounced in recent times, catching even seasoned political analysts off guard.

In this context, the Pakistan Senate’s repeated resolutions to delay the elections , citing security concerns, are seen by many as another move in the high-stakes game. This strategy, while ensuring control, also casts a shadow over the democratic process. Akin to the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” actions taken ostensibly for the public good mask underlying power plays.

The situation is further complicated by the legal and political trials of key political figures. Imran Khan, the charismatic leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), who once basked in the establishment’s favor, now finds himself in the eye of the storm, facing imprisonment and disqualification from contesting the elections. This dramatic turn of events is a stark contrast to his rise to power in 2018, a time when his main rival, Nawaz Sharif, was embroiled in legal troubles. Today, the roles are reversed, with Sharif cleared of charges and poised to re-enter the political arena.

This reversal of fortunes is emblematic of the fluidity and unpredictability of Pakistani politics, where today’s king can be tomorrow’s pawn. The aggressive stance against Khan and his party marks a departure from the past and indicates a near-total dismantling of the PTI’s political structure, a scenario that was unthinkable a few years ago.

As the elections draw near, the political landscape is overshadowed by a fierce competition for power, often at the expense of addressing the country’s critical issues like governance, economic stability, and security. Political parties, caught in the whirlwind of survival and dominance, seem to have relegated the discussion of substantial policy matters to the background. This shift in focus not only diverts attention from vital policy discussions but also threatens to dilute the democratic value of the elections. The resulting vacuum in meaningful political discourse is like navigating a ship without a compass, where direction and purpose are lost amid turbulent political waters.

The pre-election scenario, marked by substantial political maneuvering, casts a long shadow over the prospects of a free and fair general election. The delay of the election, initially set to occur by November under the terms of the constitution, and the postponement of provincial assembly elections further exacerbate these concerns. These assemblies, operating under caretaker governments, reflect a broader trend of political uncertainty and manipulation.

In this charged atmosphere, the electorate is left pondering the future of democracy in Pakistan. The political landscape, which should ideally be a platform for robust debate and policy formulation, has been reduced to a battleground of power politics. This situation poses a significant challenge to the democratic process, raising questions about the authenticity and legitimacy of the electoral outcome.

Notwithstanding the pre-electoral crisis crescendo, when the new government in Pakistan takes the helm, it will face an array of formidable challenges, not only within its borders but also on the international stage. The domestic front is marred by escalating security concerns , primarily the surge in terrorism in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This uptick in violence, attributed to groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), and various Baloch separatist groups, poses a significant threat to the nation’s stability. The government’s ability to formulate and implement effective counterterrorism strategies will be crucial in ensuring national security, particularly in the critical post-election period.

Simultaneously, the economic challenges are daunting. Pakistan grapples with severe currency devaluation, dwindling foreign reserves, and the heavy burden of repaying substantial debts to international bodies and countries like the International Monetary Fund, China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Rising inflation and the crippling energy crisis further exacerbate the situation, demanding immediate and effective economic policy interventions. Balancing fiscal measures, social welfare, and the need to tackle rampant corruption and unemployment will test the government’s economic acumen.

On the foreign policy front, Pakistan navigates a complex geopolitical landscape. Its relations with immediate neighbors, Afghanistan and India, are fraught with tension, necessitating a nuanced diplomatic approach. An unexpected escalation along the border with Iran has exacerbated Pakistan’s security situation. Pakistan’s ties with the United States, amid the global backdrop of heightened rivalry between the U.S. and China, add to the diplomatic challenges. Managing this balance, while also engaging with the intricate politics of the Middle East, particularly in the context of the Palestinian crisis, requires adept foreign policy maneuvers. The government’s success in harmonizing these diverse international relations, safeguarding national interests, and maintaining stability, will significantly impact Pakistan’s global standing and internal prosperity. 

To conclude, upcoming elections in Pakistan are much more than a routine political event; they are a decisive moment for the nation’s future. The electorate’s choice and the direction the new government takes will be crucial in tackling the country’s internal challenges and navigating complex international relations. This election is a significant test of Pakistan’s ability to balance domestic stability and economic recovery with astute diplomatic engagement. The outcomes at the polls will have lasting implications, determining Pakistan’s path toward growth, stability, and a strengthened position in the global community. As Pakistan stands at this precarious crossroads, the hope is that the election will mark the beginning of a new chapter of effective governance and prosperity.

The Delimitation of Pakistan’s Democracy

By kunwar khuldune shahid.

Imran Khan’s Party Dissolves Assembly in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

By riaz khan.

Uzair Baloch, the Pakistan People’s Party, and the 18th Constitutional Amendment

By umair jamal.

How Effective Is Pakistan’s Newly Established National Commission for Minorities?

Why Mongolia Won’t Arrest Vladimir Putin

By telmen altanshagai.

Omar Abdullah on Kashmir’s Upcoming Election

By anando bhakto.

Pope Francis Returns to Asia-Pacific Frontlines

By michel chambon.

Indian-Built Russian Su-30 Fighter Could Soon Be a Game Changer on Export Markets

By a.b. abrams.

By Jessica Sims and Haley Zehrung

By Kwangbaek Lee and Rose Adams

By Alex Alfirraz Scheers

By Uditha Devapriya

Premium Content

• Republic Policy

Constitutional Law

Criminal Law

International Law

Civil Service Law

Recruitment

Appointment

Civil Services Reforms

Legislature

Fundamental Rights

Civil & Political Rights

Economic, Social & Cultural Rights

Focused Rights

Political Philosophy

Political Economy

International Relations

National Politics

• Organization

Zafar Ahmed Gondal

Free and fair elections are not mere formalities; they are the lifeblood of any vibrant democracy. In Pakistan, where the quest for a stable and prosperous nation continues, ensuring free and fair elections is not just an aspiration, but an urgent necessity. Let’s delve deeper into why these elections are crucial for democracy, rule of law, functional governance, and ultimately, economic stability.

Democracy’s Bedrock:

At the heart of any democracy lies the principle of popular sovereignty, where the people hold the ultimate power to choose their representatives. Free and fair elections, devoid of manipulation or coercion, are the mechanisms through which this power is exercised. They ensure that the government reflects the will of the people, fostering legitimacy and public trust. Without them, democracy becomes a hollow shell, vulnerable to manipulation and instability.

Rule of Law’s Foundation:

Free and fair elections uphold the rule of law by ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. This includes the right to vote, stand for office, and campaign freely. It also entails the impartial application of electoral laws and regulations, safeguarding against discrimination and ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally. When these principles are compromised, the rule of law crumbles, paving the way for corruption and injustice.

Functional Governance’s Engine:

Through free and fair elections, citizens elect representatives who are accountable to them. This accountability motivates elected officials to formulate policies and make decisions that serve the best interests of the people, not their own personal agendas. It fosters transparency and responsiveness, leading to more effective and efficient governance. Conversely, elections marred by fraud or manipulation produce a government that lacks legitimacy and public trust, hindering its ability to address critical issues and hindering progress.

Political Stability’s Catalyst:

Free and fair elections act as a safety valve for political tensions, allowing for peaceful transitions of power and settling political disputes through the ballot box. They provide a platform for diverse voices to be heard and represented, fostering inclusivity and reducing the risk of political extremism. Conversely, elections tainted by rigging or manipulation fuel frustration and discontent, leading to political instability, social unrest, and even violence. This instability deters investment, hinders economic growth, and ultimately harms the well-being of all citizens.

Economic Stability’s Precondition:

Free and fair elections are vital for economic stability by creating an environment conducive to investment and growth. A government elected through a credible process is more likely to be seen as trustworthy and capable of managing the economy effectively. This attracts foreign investment, encourages domestic entrepreneurship, and fosters a climate of predictability and stability that is essential for long-term economic prosperity. Conversely, a government tainted by electoral fraud or manipulation discourages investment, fuels corruption, and hinders economic development, ultimately harming the very people it is supposed to serve.

Recommendations for Ensuring Free and Fair Elections:

To ensure free and fair elections in Pakistan, a multi-pronged approach is crucial:

• Strengthening the Election Commission:  The ECP must be truly independent and impartial, with adequate resources and safeguards against political interference.
• Transparent and Inclusive Process:  Electoral laws and procedures should be clear, transparent, and accessible to all citizens. Voter education campaigns should be conducted to ensure informed participation.
• Robust Security Measures:  Strong security measures are needed to prevent violence, intimidation, and manipulation on election day.
• Independent Media and Civil Society:  A vibrant and independent media, along with an active civil society, can play a crucial role in monitoring elections, exposing irregularities, and holding authorities accountable.
• Active Citizen Participation:  Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring free and fair elections lies with the people of Pakistan. Increased voter turnout, critical engagement with political discourse, and a willingness to hold elected officials accountable are essential for building a strong and thriving democracy.

The judiciary in Pakistan plays a crucial role in ensuring the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) conducts free and fair elections. This role can be broadly categorized into three key areas:

1. Pre-election Oversight:

• Constitutionality of Electoral Laws:  The judiciary can act as a safeguard against potentially flawed electoral laws passed by the legislature. Through judicial review, the Supreme Court can strike down or amend laws deemed unconstitutional, ensuring a level playing field and adherence to established democratic principles.
• Dispute Resolution in Candidate Nominations:  Candidates who are unfairly disqualified or denied nomination can seek redress through the courts. The judiciary can review ECP decisions and adjudicate disputes, ensuring no arbitrary exclusions and upholding the right to contest elections.
• Election Campaign Monitoring:  Courts can play a role in monitoring campaign financing and ensuring compliance with electoral regulations. This can include investigating allegations of bribery, voter intimidation, and misuse of state resources.

2. Election Day Supervision:

• Grievance Redressal:  Individuals and parties can approach courts if they encounter irregularities or violations during the voting process. The courts can issue orders to address these issues and ensure polling stations operate fairly and transparently.
• Monitoring Complaints and Challenges:  The judiciary can oversee the ECP’s handling of complaints filed against election officials or misconduct during voting. This ensures timely and impartial investigation of such matters.
• Adjudicating Post-Poll Disputes:  After the election results are announced, losing candidates can challenge them in court if they suspect fraud or irregularities. The courts can examine evidence, order recounts, or even nullify results and call for re-elections in extreme cases.

3. Post-election Scrutiny:

• Reviewing and Upholding Electoral Code of Conduct:  The judiciary can act as a guardian of the electoral code of conduct, holding politicians and parties accountable for violations committed during campaigns. This can include imposing sanctions and disqualifications for non-compliance.
• Deciding Election Petitions:  Petitions challenging the election results of specific candidates or parties are heard by the courts. Through meticulous examination of evidence and adherence to due process, the courts ensure the right result is ultimately declared.
• Setting Precedents and Guiding Future Elections:  By adjudicating election-related cases, the judiciary sets legal precedents and interprets electoral laws. These precedents guide future elections and contribute to evolving best practices for conducting free and fair polls.

Challenges and Concerns:

Despite its crucial role, the judiciary’s involvement in elections also faces challenges:

• Potential for Judicial Overreach:  Overreliance on the judiciary to resolve electoral disputes can undermine the ECP’s independence and authority. Balancing judicial oversight with ECP autonomy is crucial.
• Politicization and Bias:  Concerns about potential political bias within the judiciary can erode public trust in its decisions. Maintaining judicial independence and upholding the highest standards of impartiality are essential.
• Lengthy Litigation Processes:  The lengthy nature of court proceedings can delay finalization of election results, creating uncertainty and potentially hampering governance. Streamlining judicial procedures for election-related cases is crucial.

The judiciary in Pakistan plays a vital role in ensuring the ECP conducts free and fair elections. By providing pre-election oversight, election day supervision, and post-election scrutiny, the judiciary upholds the integrity of the electoral process and safeguards the democratic rights of Pakistani citizens. However, navigating the challenges of potential overreach, bias, and lengthy litigation is crucial for the judiciary to maintain its vital role as a guardian of free and fair elections in Pakistan.

Free and fair elections are not a luxury; they are the bedrock of a just, prosperous, and stable Pakistan. By prioritizing electoral integrity, Pakistan can unlock its full potential and build a future where every citizen has a voice, a chance to participate, and a stake in the nation’s success. The journey towards this ideal will require sustained commitment, collective action, and a unwavering belief in the power of the people to shape their own destiny.

Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Search the Blog

An Overview of the History of Pakistan Pre & Post Independence

The Potential of Youth & International Youth Day

The Life and Politics of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: The Founder of Pakistan Peoples Party PPP

Political Turmoil in Bangladesh: A Disgraceful Exit of Hasina Wajid

The Stories of So-called Revolutions: A Critical Analysis

What is Federalism? Why is it Important for Pakistanis to Know it?

Rise and Fall of Hasina Wajid

A Critical Analysis on the Ousters of Haseena Wajid: What Next for Bangladesh?

Understanding the Limitations of Democracy: A Critical Examination

Good Governance in a Federal Form of Governance

Support our Cause

"Republic Policy Think Tank, a team of dedicated volunteers, is working tirelessly to make Pakistan a thriving republic. We champion reforms, advocate for good governance, and fight for human rights, the rule of law, and a strong federal system. Your contribution, big or small, fuels our fight. Donate today and help us build a brighter future for all."

Qiuck Links

• Op Ed columns

Contact Details

• Editor: +923006650789
• Lahore Office: +923014243788
• E-mail: [email protected]
• Lahore Office # 307, Eden Hights opposite Rafi Group Jail Road
• Islamabad Office: Zafar qamar and Co. Office No. 7, 1st Floor, Qasim Arcade, Street 124, G-13/4 Mini Market, Adjacent to Masjid Ali Murtaza, Islamabad
• Submission Guidelines
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy & Policy

Copyright © 2024 Republic Policy

| Developed and managed by Abdcorp.co

Unsupported Browser Detected. It seems the web browser you're using doesn't support some of the features of this site. For the best experience, we recommend using a modern browser that supports the features of this website. We recommend Google Chrome , Mozilla Firefox , or Microsoft Edge

• National Chinese Language Conference
• Teaching Resources Hub
• Language Learning Supporters
• Asia 21 Next Generation Fellows
• Asian Women Empowered
• Emerging Female Trade Leaders
• About Global Competence
• Global Competency Resources
• Teaching for Global Understanding
• Thought Leadership
• Global Learning Updates
• Results and Opportunities
• News and Events
• Our Locations

Pakistan: A Political History

Tomb of Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Hassan Anwer/Unsplash)

Pakistan 's short history as a country has been very turbulent. Fighting among the provinces--as well as a deep-rooted conflict that led to a nuclear stand-off with India—prevented Pakistan from gaining real stability in the last five decades. It oscillates between military rule and democratically elected governments, between secular policies and financial backing as a "frontline" state during the Cold War and the war against terrorism. Recent declared states of emergency and the political assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto indicate a continuing trend of economic and political instability.

When Pakistan became a country on August 14th, 1947, to form the largest Muslim state in the world at that time. The creation of Pakistan was catalyst to the largest demographic movement in recorded history. Nearly seventeen million people-Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs-are reported to have moved in both directions between India and the two wings of Pakistan (the eastern wing is now Bangladesh ). Sixty million of the ninety-five million Muslims on the Indian subcontinent became citizens of Pakistan at the time of its creation. Subsequently, thirty-five million Muslims remained inside India making it the largest Muslim minority in a non-Muslim state.

Scarred from birth, Pakistan's quest for survival has been as compelling as it has been uncertain. Despite the shared religion of its overwhelmingly Muslim population, Pakistan has been engaged in a precarious struggle to define a national identity and evolve a political system for its linguistically diverse population. Pakistan is known to have over twenty languages and over 300 distinct dialects, Urdu and English are the official languages but Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtu, Baluchi and Seraiki are considered main languages. This diversity has caused chronic regional tensions and successive failures in forming a constitution. Pakistan has also been burdened by full-scale wars with India, a strategically exposed northwestern frontier, and series of economic crises. It has difficulty allocating its scarce economic and natural resources in an equitable manner.

All of Pakistan's struggles underpin the dilemma they face in reconciling the goal of national integration with the imperatives of national security.

Following a military defeat at the hands of India the breakaway of its eastern territory, which India divides it from, caused the establishment of Bangladesh in 1971. This situation epitomizes the most dramatic manifestation of Pakistan's dilemma as a decentralized nation. Political developments in Pakistan continue to be marred by provincial jealousies and, in particular, by the deep resentments in the smaller provinces of Sind, Baluchistan, and the North-West Frontier Province against what is seen to be a monopoly by the Punjabi majority of the benefits of power, profit, and patronage. Pakistan's political instability over time has been matched by a fierce ideological debate about the form of government it should adopt, Islamic or secular. In the absence of any nationally based political party, Pakistan has long had to rely on the civil service and the army to maintain the continuities of government.

The Emergence of Pakistan

The roots of Pakistan's multifaceted problems can be traced to March 1940 when the All-India Muslim League formally orchestrated the demand for a Pakistan consisting of Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest and northeast of India. By asserting that the Indian Muslims were a nation, not a minority, the Muslim League and its leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, had hoped to negotiate a constitutional arrangement that provided an equitable share of power between Hindus and Muslims once the British relinquished control of India. The demand for a "Pakistan" was Jinnah's and the League's bid to register their claim to be the spokesmen of all Indian Muslims, both in provinces were they were in a majority as well as in provinces where they were a minority. Jinnah and the League's main bases of support, however, were in the Muslim-minority provinces. In the 1937 general elections, the league had met a serious rejection from the Muslim voters in the majority provinces.

There was an obvious contradiction in a demand for a separate Muslim state and the claim to be speaking for all Indian Muslims. During the remaining years of the British Raj in India neither Jinnah nor the Muslim League explained how Muslims in the minority provinces could benefit from a Pakistan based on an undivided Punjab, Sind, North-West Frontier Province, and Baluchistan in the northwest, and an undivided Bengal and Assam in the northeast. Jinnah did at least had tried to get around the inconsistencies by arguing that since there were two nations in India-Hindu and Muslim-any transfer of power from British to Indian hands would necessarily entail disbanding of the unitary center created by the imperial rulers. Reconstitution of the Indian union would have to be based on either confederal or treaty arrangements between Pakistan (representing the Muslim-majority provinces) and Hindustan (representing the Hindu-majority provinces). Jinnah also maintained that Pakistan would have to include an undivided Punjab and Bengal. The substantial non-Muslim minorities in both these provinces were the best guarantee that the Indian National Congress would see sense in negotiating reciprocal arrangements with the Muslim League to safeguard the interests of Muslim minorities in Hindustan.

Despite Jinnah's large claims, the Muslim League failed to build up effective party machinery in the Muslim-majority provinces. Consequently the league had no real control over either the politicians or the populace at the base that was mobilized in the name of Islam. During the final negotiations, Jinnah's options were limited by uncertain commitment of the Muslim-majority province politicians to the league's goals in the demand for Pakistan. The outbreak of communal troubles constrained Jinnah further still. In the end he had little choice but to settle for a Pakistan stripped of the non-Muslim majority districts of the Punjab and Bengal and to abandon his hopes of a settlement that might have secured the interests of all Muslims. But the worst cut of all was Congress's refusal to interpret partition as a division of India between Pakistan and Hindustan . According to the Congress, partition simply meant that certain areas with Muslim majorities were 'splitting off' from the "Indian union." The implication was that if Pakistan failed to survive, the Muslim areas would have to return to the Indian union; there would be no assistance to recreate it on the basis of two sovereign states.

With this agreement nothing stood in the way of the reincorporation of the Muslim areas into the Indian union except the notion of a central authority, which had yet to be firmly established. To establish a central authority proved to be difficult, especially since the provinces had been governed from New Delhi for so long and the separation of Pakistan's eastern and western wings by one thousand miles of Indian territory. Even if Islamic sentiments were the best hope of keeping the Pakistani provinces unified, their pluralistic traditions and linguistic affiliations were formidable stumbling blocks. Islam had certainly been a useful rallying cry, but it had not been effectively translated into the solid support that Jinnah and the League needed from the Muslim provinces in order to negotiate an arrangement on behalf of all Indian Muslims.

The diversity of Pakistan's provinces, therefore, was a potential threat to central authority. While the provincial arenas continued to be the main centers of political activity, those who set about creating the centralized government in Karachi were either politicians with no real support or civil servants trained in the old traditions of British Indian administration. The inherent weaknesses of the Muslim League's structure, together with the absence of a central administrative apparatus that could coordinate the affairs of the state, proved to be a crippling disadvantage for Pakistan overall. The presence of millions of refugees called for urgent remedial action by a central government that, beyond not being established, had neither adequate resources nor capacities. The commercial groups had yet to invest in some desperately needed industrial units. And the need to extract revenues from the agrarian sector called for state interventions, which caused a schism between the administrative apparatus of the Muslim League and the landed elite who dominated the Muslim League.

Power and Governance

Both the military and the civil bureaucracy were affected by the disruptions wrought by partition. Pakistan cycled through a number of politicians through their beginning political and economic crises. The politicians were corrupt, interested in maintaining their political power and securing the interests of the elite, so to have them as the representative authority did not provide much hope of a democratic state that provided socio-economic justice and fair administration to all Pakistani citizens. Ranging controversies over the issue of the national language, the role of Islam, provincial representation, and the distribution of power between the center and the provinces delayed constitution making and postponed general elections. In October 1956 a consensus was cobbled together and Pakistan's first constitution declared. The experiment in democratic government was short but not sweet. Ministries were made and broken in quick succession and in October 1958, with national elections scheduled for the following year, General Mohammad Ayub Khan carried out a military coup with confounding ease.

Between 1958 and 1971 President Ayub Khan, through autocratic rule was able to centralize the government without the inconvenience of unstable ministerial coalitions that had characterized its first decade after independence. Khan brought together an alliance of a predominantly Punjabi army and civil bureaucracy with the small but influential industrial class as well as segments of the landed elite, to replace the parliamentary government by a system of Basic Democracies. Basic Democracies code was founded on the premise of Khan's diagnosis that the politicians and their "free-for-all" type of fighting had had ill effect on the country. He therefore disqualified all old politicians under the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order, 1959 (EBDO). The Basic Democracies institution was then enforced justifying "that it was democracy that suited the genius of the people." A small number of basic democrats (initially eighty thousand divided equally between the two wings and later increased by another forty thousand) elected the members of both the provincial and national assemblies. Consequently the Basic Democracies system did not empower the individual citizens to participate in the democratic process, but opened up the opportunity to bribe and buy votes from the limited voters who were privileged enough to vote.

By giving the civil bureaucracy (the chosen few) a part in electoral politics, Khan had hoped to bolster central authority, and largely American-directed, programs for Pakistan's economic development. But his policies exacerbated existing disparities between the provinces as well as within them. Which gave the grievances of the eastern wing a potency that threatened the very centralized control Khan was trying to establish. In West Pakistan, notable successes in increasing productivity were more than offset by growing inequalities in the agrarian sector and their lack of representation, an agonizing process of urbanization, and the concentration of wealth in a few industrial houses. In the aftermath of the 1965 war with India, mounting regional discontent in East Pakistan and urban unrest in West Pakistan helped undermine Ayub Khan's authority, forcing him to relinquish power in March 1969.

Bangladesh Secedes

After Ayub Khan, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan headed the second military regime from 1969-1971. By that time the country had been under military rule for thirteen of its twenty-five years of existence. This second military regime emphasized the extent to which the process of centralization under bureaucratic and military tutelage had fragmented Pakistani society and politics. The general elections of 1970 on the basis of adult franchise revealed for the first time ever in Pakistan's history how regionalism and social conflict had come to dominate politics despite the efforts at controlled development. The Awami League, led by Mujibur Rahman, campaigned on a six-point program of provincial autonomy, capturing all but one seat in East Pakistan and securing an absolute majority in the national assembly. In West Pakistan the Pakistan People's Party, led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, had a populist platform that stole the thunder from the Islamic parties (the Muslim League, the oldest political party captured no more than a few seats) and emerged as the largest single bloc. The prospect of an Awami Leagues government was a threat to politicians in West Pakistan who in conspiracy with the military leadership prevented Mujibur from taking the reins of power. This was the final straw for the east wing who was already fed up with the their under-representation in all sectors of the government, economic deprivation and then the suppression of the democratic process. An armed rebellion in East Pakistan engendered all of these frustrations, which caused Indian military intervention to crush it. Pakistan was now involved in its third war with India, thus clearing the way for the establishment of Bangladesh in 1971.

A Democratic Government

The dismemberment of Pakistan discredited both the civil bureaucracy and the army, General Yahya Khan was left no choice but to hand all power over to the Pakistan's People's Party (PPP) who saw the formation of a representative led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto's electoral strength, however, was confined to the Punjab and Sind, and even there it had not been based on solid political party organization. This, together with the PPP's lack of following in the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan, meant that Bhutto could not work the central apparatus without at least the implicit support of the civil bureaucracy and the military high command. The 1973 constitution made large concessions to the non-Punjabi provinces and provided the blueprint for a political system based on the semblance of a national consensus. But Bhutto failed to implement the federal provisions of the constitution. He relied on the coercive arm of the state to snuff out political opposition and by neglecting to build the PPP as a truly popular national party. The gap between his popular rhetoric and the marginal successes of his somewhat haphazard economic reforms prevented Bhutto form consolidating a social base of support. Thus, despite a temporary loss of face in 1971 the civil bureaucracy and the army remained the most important pillars of the state structure, instead of the citizens of Pakistan who were still struggling to be recognized in the democratic process. Although Bhutto's PPP won the 1977 elections, the Pakistan National Alliance-a nine-party coalition-charged him with rigging the vote. Violent urban unrest gave the army under General Zia-ul Haq the pretext to make a powerful comeback to the political arena, and on July 5, 1977 Pakistan was placed under military rule yet again and the 1973 Constitution was suspended.

Upon assuming power General Zia banned all political parties and expressed his determination to recast the Pakistani state and society into an Islamic mold. In April 1979 Bhutto was executed on murder charges and the PPP's remaining leadership was jailed or exiled. By holding nonparty elections and initiating a series of Islamization policies, Zia sought to create a popular base of support in the hope of legitimizing the role of the military in Pakistani politics. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 caused Zia's regime to receive international support as a stable government bordering Soviet territory. Although Pakistan had now formally disentangled its self from both SEATO and CENTO and joined the nonaligned movement, was regarded by the West as an important front-line state and is a major recipient of American military and financial aid. Despite a string of statistics advertising the health of the economy, murmurs of discontent, though muffled, continued to be heard. On December 30, 1985, after confirming his own position in a controversial "Islamic" referendum, completing a fresh round of nonparty elections of the provincial and national assemblies, and introducing a series of amendments to the 1973 constitution, Zia finally lifted martial law and announced the dawn of a new democratic era in Pakistan.

This new democratic era was just as turbulent as Pakistan's previous political history. Major political parties called for a boycott the 1985 election due to the non-party bias platform. In absence of political parties the candidates focused on local issues that superseded the majority of the candidates affiliations to particular parties. The Pakistani people were obviously interested in participating in the democratic process and disregarded the urge to boycott, 52.9% cast ballots for the National Assembly and 56.9% cast ballots for the provincial elections.

President Zia first initiative was to introduce amendments to the 1973 constitution that would secure his power over the parliamentary system. The eighth amendment turned out to be the most detrimental to the people's faith in the democratic system. Now the president could possess complete control and power to take any step, which he felt was necessary to secure national integrity. For the next twelve years the presidents used this amendment to expel a number of prime ministers from their post, mainly due to either personal struggles or insecurity over shift in power.

Following the 1988 election, Muhammad Khan Junejo was nominated as the prime minister, who had a unanimous vote of confidence by the National Assembly. Junejo seemed to be a promising component to the Pakistani government; he fostered a smooth transition from the army to civil authority, which generated optimism about the democratic process of Pakistan. For the first of his years in office, Junejo was able to strike a balance between establishing the parliamentary credentials as a democratic body and maintaining President Zia's blessing. He developed the five-point program that aimed at improving development, literacy rate, eliminating corruption and improvement of the common man's lot. He was as well improving foreign policy abroad and was grappling a major budgetary deficit from the heavy expenditure of the martial law regimes. But on May 29th 1988 President Zia dissolved the National Assembly and removed the prime minister under the article 58-2-b of the Constitution. He claimed that Jenejo was conspiring against him in order to undermine his position; he blamed the National Assembly of corruption and failure to enforce Islamic way of life.

The opposition parties were in support of Zia's decision because it worked in their benefit, providing an early election. They demanded elections to be schedule in ninety days in accordance with the constitution. President Zia interpreted this article of the constitution differently. He felt he was required to announce the election schedule in ninety days while the elections could be held later. Simultaneously he wanted to hold the elections on a non-party basis as he had in 1985, but the Supreme Court upheld that this went against the spirit of the constitution. Political confusion ensued as a result of Zia's proposal to postpone the elections to re-structure the political system in the name of Islam. There was fear that Zia may impose martial law and the Muslim League became split between supporters of Zia and Junejo. All of this was stalled when Zia died in a plane crash on august 17th.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan was sworn in as president being the chairman of the Senate and elections were initiated. Which surprised to outside observers who feared that the military could easily take over power. The November elections of 1988 were based on political party platforms for the first time in fifteen years. None of the parties won the majority of the National Assembly but the Pakistan People's Party emerged as the single largest holder of seats. Benazir Bhutto, the PPP's chairperson, was named prime minister after the PPP formed a coalition of smaller parties to form a working majority. At first people were hopeful that Bhutto would work together with the opposition party's leader Nawaz Sharif of the IJI party, who headed the Punjabi party, the majority province. But soon they escalated bitterness to new heights and drained the economy with bribes to other politicians to sway affiliations. These accounts plus no improvement on the economic front scarred the central government's image. In 1990 the President dismissed Bhutto under the eighth amendment of the constitution, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. So once again elections were held a short two years later.

The Pakistani people were losing faith in the democratic system. They felt it was corrupt, haphazard and based on the squabbles of the military and bureaucratic elite. This attitude was reinforced by the fact that Nawaz Sharif was assigned prime minister in 1990, and dismissed in 1993 even though he had liberalized investment, restored confidence of domestic and international investors, so that investment increased by 17.6%. And as a result the GDP had a growth rate of 6.9% while the inflation stayed under 10%. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan was accused of conspiring with Benazir Bhutto in the dismissal of Sharif. For the first time in Pakistan's history the Supreme Court declared that the dismissal of the National Assembly and Sharif unconstitutional, reinstating Sharif and the National Assembly. This act showed that the president was not the overriding power but the events that followed proved how unstable the government was. Through bribes and palace intrigues Ghulam was able to influence a rebellion in Punjab in 1993, which represented Sharif and his party as incompetent. This situation caused an upheaval in the system that resulted in intervention of the chief of Army Staff General, Abdul Waheed Kaker. It was agreed that both the president and prime minister would resign and new elections would be arranged.

An even lower turn out affected the legitimacy of the all too frequent electoral process. In this election the mandate was divided by the same players, the PPP with Bhutto and the Muslim League with Sharif. Sharif had lost the popular support in Punjab, which caused the PPP to claim the majority of the seats. So once again the PPP claimed the majority of the seats and Bhutto was placed as prime minister. She was able to get Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari elected as president, which secured her government against the eighth amendment. Regardless Bhutto was unable to run a just government; she fell back into corruption, misuses of state resources, which was detrimental to the Pakistani people. Both the Chief Justice and President wanted to maintain the autonomy of their position in the government, while Bhutto was attempting to override the political system. President Leghari soon dismissed her with the support of the Supreme Court. The public hailed this decision and in February 1997 prepared for new elections, the fifth in twelve years. The voter support for the elections waned proportionately throughout these twelve years.

It was obvious that the two leading parties were alternating public support when Sharif and the Muslim League were reinstated as the Prime Minister and majority party respectively. The Muslim League used its parliamentary majority to enact a fundamental change in the political system with the introduction of amendments thirteen in the constitution. The thirteenth amendment limited the power of the president to that of a nominal head of state, while restoring the parliament as the central governmental power. This amendment basically created a check and balance procedure to article eight, in an attempt to maintain political stability. By 1999 the eighth amendment was stripped of the constraints that empowered the president to dissolve the National Assembly or dismiss the prime minister. These legislative feats were impressive, but overall the Muslim League's performance was mixed. They inherited a lot of obstacles, an economy that was on the verge of collapse and a political culture of corruption. The May 1998 decision to conduct nuclear tests in response to India's nuclear tests resulted in the imposition of sanctions that stifled the economy even more so. Bhutto's corrupt usage of foreign funds and the freezing of foreign investments further complicated investment relations.

Prime Minister Sharif was gaining disapproval on many fronts, for he was perceived to be power hungry and possibly corrupt. He had forced out the chief justice of the supreme court and the army chief soon after the eighth amendment was revised, he was cracking down on the press that did not support him and his family's firm, Ittefaq Industries, was doing abnormally well in times of economic slowdown, which led to suspicions of corruption. The army chief, Jehangir Karamat was among the many who were worried about Sharif's mounting power, he demanded that the army be included in the country's decision-making process in attempt to balance the civil government. Two days later he resigned putting General Pervez Musharraf in his position. Musharraf had been one of the principal strategists in the Kashmiri crisis with India. He soon suspected that he did not have the political backing of the civil government in his aggressive quest in Kashmir. The combination of Shariff's reluctance in the Kashmiri opposition, mounting factional disputes, terrorism all provided Musharraf with the justification to lead a coup to overthrow the civil government. On October 12th, 1999 he successfully ousted Sharif and the Muslim League on the grounds that he was maintaining law and order while strengthening the institution of governance.

The Pakistani people thought that this may be on a temporary basis and once things had stabilized, Musharraf would call for new elections of the National Assembly. But Musharraf has refused to reinstate the National Assembly via elections until October 2002, a deadline set by the Supreme Court. In July of 2001 Musharraf declared himself president before meeting with the Indian prime minister to legitimize his authority within the Pakistani government. He has since recalled all regional militant Islamic factions through out Pakistan and encouraged them to return their weapons to the central government. He has been unwavering on Pakistan's position on Kashmir, which resulted in shortening talks with India. He is now cooperating with the American government and western world in the coalition against terrorism, which puts him in an awkward position with his Afghanistan neighbors and the fractious groups within Pakistan who sympathize with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden on an ethnic, ideological and political level.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah had always envisioned a democratic Pakistan and many of his successors have struggle towards this goal, but not more than maintaining their own platforms of power. It is ironic that such political instability plagues a country whose number one objective of its leaders is to secure their own power. Maybe it is time for a new equation. The actions of both civil and military leaders have exhaustively tried the Pakistani people and their struggle as a nation. Pakistan faces the unenviable task of setting government priorities in accordance with the needs of its diverse and unevenly developed constituent units. Regardless of the form of government--civilian or military, Islamic or secular--solutions of the problem of mass illiteracy and economic inequities on the one hand, and the imperatives of national integration and national security will also determine the degree of political stability, or instability, that Pakistan faces in the decades ahead. But the people and the nation persevere offering the world great cultural, religious, and intellectual traditions

Based on Ayesha Jalal for for the Encyclopedia of Asian History , adapted by Amanda Snellinger. © Asia Society. From The Encyclopedia of Asian History . Asia Society and Charles Scribner's Sons.

Discover More About Pakistan

Pakistan 2020: A Vision for Building a Better Future

Podcast: Another Pakistan

Connect with us, looking for more.

India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

State of Climate Change: Pakistan's Sherry Rehman

Discover asia.

Discover dynamic educational content for youth and families focused on Asian cultures and global learning.

Thank You for Reading!

If you’d like to support creating more resources like this please consider donating or becoming a member .

Learn more about Asia Society Education .

Home / Essay Samples / World / Pakistan / The Political System of Pakistan

The Political System of Pakistan

• Category: Government , World
• Topic: Pakistan

Pages: 1 (429 words)

• Downloads: -->

Introduction

Democratic framework, challenges and complexities, democratic progress and reform.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Ruby Bridges Essays

Transportation Essays

Democracy Essays

Army Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->