Failure of Democracy in Pakistan

Now that the representatives of the public have been elected, and the assemblies are in place, with the elected members waiting anxiously for the first session to be called, it may be time to look at the current form of government.

History has shown us experimenting with various different forms of government, with none of them being successful. The primary cause of failure of democracy in Pakistan is that democratically elected governments have not been allowed to function and to serve out their tenures, which in turn leads to a lack of strong democratic institutions. Another cause may be low literacy rates amongst the masses. However, given that the situation will not change dramatically in the near future, we should also analyze another important factor that contributes to the failure of democracy, that being the parliamentary form of government.

Under a parliamentary form of government, the masses vote for their representatives, who are then elected to the various provincial and the national assemblies. The parliamentarians from the majority party then nominate an individual, usually the party leader, as the leader of the house in the assembly. The nomination of these individuals is then ratified by a simple majority vote in the assembly and then they are elected Prime Minister and Chief Ministers. The respective chief ministers and the Prime Minister have the authority to appoint ministers to their respective cabinets from within the elected members of the different houses. A non-elected member may also be appointed a minister or even a Chief or Prime Minister, but he/she will have to get elected to the assembly within a specified period of time in order to maintain his/her position. The Prime Minister essentially appoints the President.

The major issue with the parliamentary form of government is that even though the Prime Minister is the Chief Executive of the country, a President who is appointed by the Prime Minister is the official Head of State. The same holds true of the provincial governors. Hence we see that even though the President and the Governors are heads of the country and the provinces, they are appointed and not elected. At the same time the people do not directly elect the Prime Minister who is the Chief Executive, either. A fallacy here is that a President who is appointed by the Prime Minister or a Governor who is appointed by a Chief Minister can throw them out of office and can unilaterally dissolve the elected assemblies. Another problem that comes up is the power sharing between the troika of the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief of Army Staff, thereby lending credence to the maxim "Too many cooks spoil the broth".

Once the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister are appointed the power play comes into place in the assemblies for the appointment of ministers. Since the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers are not elected directly by the public, but by the members of the assemblies, in order to keep their positions; they have to keep the elected members happy. One result of this is the burgeoning of ministries leading to subsequent confusion and cost. The main motive of each elected member is to become a minister in order to wield power, which leads to subsequent corruption. Even if the Prime and the Chief Ministers are honest and sincere, in order to keep their jobs; they have to pay heed to the members of the assemblies. Thus we see that the elected representatives of the people end up detracting from their primary job of legislation and concentrate on filling their own coffers.

Under the Presidential form of government the President is elected through direct adult franchise or as in the case of the USA through the Electoral College, which in turn depends upon the population of each state. The President is not only the Chief Executive, but is also the Head of State. State governors are also elected directly by the public. Similarly, the members of the Congress and the Senate are also elected directly by the public. The president then appoints his cabinet members, who are not part of the elected representatives. The members of the Congress and Senate perform their primary function of legislation and act as watchdogs on the President and the Cabinet. The cabinet members are usually technocrats who are experts in their respective fields.

In the case of Pakistan we see that most political parties have no manifestos and in many cases the elected representatives routinely switch political parties, depending on which side their bread is buttered. At the same time the public votes for Bhutto’s party or Nawaz Sharif’s party and in the absence of a clear manifesto, the success or failure of a party depends upon the charisma of its leader or the individual influence of the candidates.

Looking at the above analysis, why should we not revisit the issue of the form of government for Pakistan? In my opinion, the presidential form of government is a truer form of democracy and is more suited to the Pakistan environment rather than the parliamentary form, which is not only cumbersome but also very expensive.