Polarized Politics: The Challenge of Democracy in Pakistan: January 2009
Polarized Politics: The Challenge of Democracy in Pakistan: January 2009
Polarized Politics: The Challenge of Democracy in Pakistan: January 2009
net/publication/259838678
CITATIONS READS
2 4,199
1 author:
Nasreen Akhtar
International Islamic University, Islamabad
4 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nasreen Akhtar on 16 February 2020.
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20752885?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paragon House is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Journal on World Peace
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE
CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN
PAKISTAN
Nasreen Akhtar Lecturer of Political Science
International Islamic University
Women Campus. Office No: C-016
Sector H-10, Islamabad
Pakistan
Nasreen Akhtar is a Lecturer of Political Science and International Relations in the Depart
ment of Politics and International Relations, International Islamic University, Islamabad,
Pakistan. She earned an M.A. in Political Science, and an M.Phil, in U.S. history and
international relations.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
the Prophet gives them a far greater sense of togetherness than any other
factor.11 Using this phraseology, or, if you wish, symbolism, the Islamists
stress the role of religion in achieving national unity.
The second and more vital aspect of the Islamist perspective is conception
of an Islamic state. By deconstructing the history of the Pakistan movement,
they claim that the country's independence was won in the name of Islam,
and that the driving force behind the idea of Pakistan was the creation of
an Islamic state.12 This seems to be a total reversal of the position that they
took during the political struggle for Pakistan. The Ulema (Islamic scholars)
from Ahmr, Jumiut-i-Ulema-i-Hind, and even Jumut-i-Islumihzd refused
to support the creation of Pakistan because they believed that a national
ist movement could not be Islamic. Even Jamat-e-Islami (Islamic Party)
opposed the idea of Pakistan. They believed Muslim Ummahi. and did not
trust the leadership of Westernized Muslims like Jinnah.13 The Jamiat-i
Ulema-i-Hind and the famous Deoband Islamic seminary rather associated
themselves with the Indian nationalism.14 The position of Maulana Abul
Ala Maudoodi, the most articulate and celebrated exponent of the Islamic
state, on the creation of Pakistan had the same reservation and was not dif
ferent from the orthodox ulema.is The only difference is that he was equally
opposed to the Indian nationalism.16 But their opposition to Pakistan in no
way could exclude them from participating in the political process, or pre
vent them from migrating to the new country, as many of them did. After
the creation of Pakistan, the Islamists have contended that Pakistan is an
ideological state, meaning that the sole purpose of making Pakistan was to
create conditions for the Islamic values and way of life. Maulana Maudoodi
goes one step further in characterizing any failure to implement Islam in
state affairs as "a form of national apostasy."17 The scholars from various
religious groups had failed to convince the people of East Pakistan, those
who had fought against their own people and army.
A more complex construction is the "ideology of Pakistan" that was
thrown into public debate for the first time in the 1970,18 and got official
support during the dictatorship of Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88). None of its
advocates has yet clearly defined what it exactly means, but by implication
"ideology of Pakistan" refers to two things: Islam is the basis of nationhood
in Pakistan; Islam must be accepted as the supreme guiding principle of the
state.19 Even the most professed secular leaders have frequently brought
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
the "ideology of Pakistan" into political debate, not realizing that it would
strengthen the politics of Islamization. It is partly this ambivalence and
political use of Islam by the secular elites that has allowed the Islamists to
set the agenda of Islamic politics.20 Presently, a few people have hijacked
Islam to pursue and implement it according to their own understanding and
purposes. The Militants in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) do
not understand or support the meaning of "ideology of Pakistan." Their
unconventional interpretation of Sbaria21 has tremendously affected the
security of the state and nation. In my view, nation-building needs con
struction, development, democracy and rule of law. Deconstruction, denial
of development, and lawlessness by the militants in FATA has destabilized
the process of nation-building in the twenty-first century.22
^^ i It is common perception in Pakistan
There is a vast difference that Pakistan was achieved in the name
between claiming a state of Islam Let us examine some of the
for Muslims, which was contradictions of the Islamist position
the case when Pakistan on cation-building. First, it is historically
was founded, and incorrect that ^ demand for Pakistan
,Islamizinq
, . . A A rested on T.
a state. the. ,promise
run of creating an
Islamic state in the vision or the fun
damentalists. There is a vast difference
between claiming a state for Muslims, which was the case when Pakistan
was founded, and Islamizing a state.
It was the consistent failure to reach an acceptable agreement on the
constitutional guarantees to the rights of the Muslims in British India that
strengthened the demand for Pakistan. The Muslims in the United India
were being denied their fundamental rights. A sense of deprivation insti
gated the Muslims to be separated. The objective was to preserve cultural
identity and protect economic and political interests of Muslims by creating
a state in the Muslim majority areas. As mentioned earlier, Islamic symbol
ism was regarded necessary for the political mobilization of the Muslim
masses and it served that purpose very well. Even today in Pakistan, Islam
is being regarded as an effective tool to serve political purposes by both
state and non-state actors.23
Second, the founders of Pakistan, particularly Iqbal and Jinnah, have
been grossly misinterpreted by the Islamists in support of their views on
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
the relation between Islam and the state. None of them was even remotely
associated with the idea of an authoritarian, hegemonic, or a theocratic
state, which the Islamists today pursue with so much dedication. There is no
doubt that, on occasions, Jinnah made brief references to Islam in seeking
support for Pakistan, but dragging him closer to the Islamist position is a
very recent phenomena. An objective reading of history would reveal that
the creator of Pakistan was a constitutional democrat to the core, and a
secular Muslim.24 Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly
of Pakistan, on August 11, 1947 bears testimony to this: "You are free,
you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or
to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to
any religion or caste or creed?that has nothing to do with the business
of the state."25 Unfortunately, Jinnah's real personality and ideological
outlook fell victim to the political exigencies of the authoritarian state and
obscurantist ulema.26
Third, once Pakistan was achieved, Islam alone could not foster soli
darity. Islam emphasizes Shum (consultation) which is the core element
of democracy and without consultancy democracy cannot take root. As
we know, the concept of consultancy was lacking in Pakistan's political
institutions since 1947. As the political environment changed due to the
state elites, the central dynamics of politics and the true spirit also changed,
requiring an authoritarian approach to strengthen the bonds of political
community. The Muslim leaders faced challenges in the newly Muslim
state. The post-separation from the Hindu majority, ethnic groups in East
Pakistan (present Bangladesh) and West Pakistan emerged as a political
force and new polarization along center province lines emerged. The main
issue was rights and a fair share of power in the new state. The separation
of former East Pakistan amply demonstrated the fact that faith (religion)
and political interests are two different matters. This episode must have
put an end to the wishful thinking that the material interests of diverse
regional groups and state elites are insignificant or can be superseded by
the holy politics of Islam.
The empirical fact is that the economic disparity, denial of political
power, injustice and superimposition of new forms of cultural or ideological
identity foment the ethnic nationalism seen in Pakistan. Power politics and
ethnic rivalry have taken root in society. This should have ended reliance
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
on Islam as the sole basis of nation formation. But it cannot be. The reli
gious leaders have continued their rhetoric, paying littie or no attention to
pragmatic issues that might involve the genuine and concrete interests of
the peoples of different regions. Rather, they serve to promote their own
communities instead of the nation or state. In my view, religious leaders
have been promoting the sense of community, not of a larger humanity.
People do not have much trust in religious leaders' ability as political lead
ers, thus for more than sixty years a single religious political party has not
had heavy control in central government. Rather, religious political parties
have had political influence in the parliament as an "alliance."27 Basing
nation-building on religious matters obscures very real issues pertaining
to the distribution of political power and participation in government and
erodes trust and confidence in the politi
cal union.
Basing nation-building
on religious matters A nation, as opposed to a state, is a
obscures very real cultural identity. It is a politically con
scious and mobilized collectivity of people
issues pertaining to the
which possesses, or may aspire to, self
distribution of political
government or independent statehood. A
power and participation
nation is not necessarily the same as the
in government and citizenry of a state, nor is it restricted to
erodes trust and
those who possess a common language,
confidence in the
ancestry, or cultural heritage, although
political union. these components are usually involved. It
is "essentially subjective, a sense of social
belonging and ultimate loyalty.28 This is an era of nation-building. Since the
end of the Cold War many newly independent states have emerged on the
world map and nearly a billion are deprived citizens of old states striving
to become modern nations.29 The challenge of nation-building, operating
in a highly complex nexus of society, economy, and polity, hinges on the
issues of access to and the stakes in structures of power.30
The creation of a nation-state is a historical process that may take a
long time to complete. This is not to suggest that Pakistan or other Third
World countries have to pass through the same sequences of state-making
as the Europeans did, but to highlight the complexity of the issue as well as
the constraints that Pakistan faces. While the internal obstacles to national
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
integration are well-known, one must also consider the geopolitical pres
sures that emanate from the regional and international environments.31
Nation-building is an evolutionary process; it cannot simply be imposed
by external powers or by the ruling elite but depends on the development
of society.
Another dilemma which the Pakistani nation faces after Quaid-e-Azam
is the lack of charismatic and sincere leadership. The central concern of this
paper is to examine why Pakistani regimes have failed to strengthen the
ideology of Pakistan. How have Pakistani multi-ethnic groups responded
to the question of ideology? This paper will explore how ethnic and reli
gious groups have been politicized and promoted by the state and military
elites.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
parliamentary system in Pakistan. Chief among them is military rule and its
so-called "guided democracy." The takeover by the military four times in
Pakistani history, and the determination of leaders to stay in power as long
as possible by manipulating political institutions, has caused an institutional
decay that has included the political parties.55
Military rule could not have been effective nor lasted long had it not
politically co-opted the same elites who held public office in the civilian
governments. This was enabled by the political fragmentation engineered
by the military regime and intelligence agencies under its control. It was
a conscious and well-designed effort of military rulers to divide political
forces by rewarding those who joined their rule and oppressing those who
refused to render the political services they desired.56
^^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^? In Pakistan's political history, the
Although the Pakistani centralization of state power did not take
leaders both military into consideration the ethnic> cultural,
and
, . .civilian
one, theaccepted Kn8uific
state elites md re?ional
regarded reaJjtjf VFromday
the voicing
federalism, they worked c . ,. /c i
. . . - or regional interests (tor provincial auton
against its spirit.
73 . . omy) In fact,their
as anti-state; f _.demands
_ . . A Awere
they turned Pakistan into suppressed through coercion. Although
an authoritarian state. the Pakistani leaders both military and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^mmmm civilian accepted federalism, they worked
against its spirit. In fact, they turned Pakistan into an authoritarian state.
The frequent dissolution of the elected government by the power
ful Governor/President and provincial assemblies and enforcement of
governor's rule has adversely affected the nation-building approach in
Pakistan. Over-centralization and the frequent intervention by the central
government has been the norm. The Pakistan People Party's (PPP) leader
Zulfqar Ali Bhutto was the first elected Prime Minister who removed the
Bluchistan government of National Awami Party (NAP) in February 1973.
The practice of removing unwanted governments continued. Nawaz Sharif,
who formed his government in the Center in 1996, dismissed the Sindh
Assembly in August 1999. This was because the Pakistan Muslim League
(PML) government in Sindh lost its majority in the House after Mohajir
Qomi Movement (MQM) and PML broke up their alliance.
If we look into Pakistan's political history during the transitional
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
put him jail and filed case against Nawaz to disqualify him and, as men
tioned earlier, the Supreme Court's verdict was not acceptable to the Sharif
brothers and their party.
Interestingly, Mr. Nawaz was not disqualified during Musharraf's
regime. It was the PPP-led government that was not comfortable in Pun
jab where PML-N was ruling as the majority party. General Musharraf,
who toppled the Nawaz's government, became the "Chief Executive" in
October 12,1999. He announced his seven point agenda for his govern
ment that centered on economic revival, law and order, good governance,
accountability and the eradication of corruption, with no time frame for
the restoration of democracy.60
General Musharraf As with earlier dismissals of govern
became the "Chief ments in office, the removal of the gov
Executive" in October ernment of Nawaz Sharif and the military
12,1999. He announced takeover were challenged in the Supreme
his seven point agenda Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court
in 2000 declared that General Mushar
for his government that
centered on economic raf's extra-constitutional coup d'etat of
12 October 1999 was validated on the
revival, law and order,
basis of doctrine of State necessity 61 When
good governance, elected officials fail to control the situation
accountability and the politically, the army is justified in taking
eradication of corruption, control to restore order.62
with no time frame The October coup demonstrated
for the restoration of once again that the state elites consider
democracy. the free play of political forces a danger
to national security. It had been their
consistent policy to control the political process, restrict participation and
guide the political process from the top. In their elitist view of politics, the
popular will of the poor and illiterate masses cannot be trusted; the people
are vulnerable to the manipulations of the socially-influential landed aristoc
racy.63 The Army comes forward to protect the solidarity of Pakistan.64
By abrogating or suspending the constitutions, the military acquired
vast powers to remove, and if necessary, eradicate all sources of societal
opposition. Political parties that have been dominated by the landlord class
or single dominant individuals and institutions of the civil society, have
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
its primary functions, i.e. deliver services to society and provide justice.
Military and civilian regimes have been equally unaccountable.77
The judiciary has with rare exceptions been facilitating the military
regime. The acceptance of the doctrine of necessity on critical occasions has
undermined the judiciary from working as the guardian of the constitution
and protector of the sovereignty of the parliament. The judiciary is identi
fied as power broker, a facilitator under the cover of the Law of Necessity.78
Whenever the judiciary refused to obey the ruler, whether civilian or mili
tary, it has been suppressed. Judges have been forced on leave; they were
retired before tenure or detained and dismissed as General Musharraf did
in 2007.79 The deposed Chief Justice (CJP)of Pakistan, Iftkhar Muham
mad, took oath as CJP under Musharraf's Provisional Constitutional Order
(PCO), and legitimized the military coup.
Since Pakistan has been Chief Justice himself fought with the State
supporting the U.S. war for himself and his colleague's reinstate
on against terrorism in ment and has come back to his previous
position on November 2,2007.80 But the
Afghanistan, religious
extremism and terrorism question comes whether he would be able
to work as an independent Chief Justice
both have been posing
under the present government or whether
a grave threat to nation
the judiciary will get its independence and
building process. the people will benefit without discrimi
nation? In the long run, in my view, it
cannot work. The appointment of the judges is a big question mark; they
are appointed by the president under the Constitution of 1973. In the past
both the prime minister and the president have been confronting over the
appointments of judges.81
Since Pakistan has been supporting the U.S. war against terrorism in
Afghanistan, religious extremism and terrorism both have been posing a
grave threat to the nation-building process. Religious extremists have chal
lenged the writ of government and the local Taliban have imposed Sharia82
in some areas of NWFP (North West Frontier Province).83Both provincial
and federal governments have lost their control over the Swat District of
the NWFP.84 The Post-Bugti scenario poses a great threat in Baluchistan.
The current government has not ended the military operation against
Baluch militants. If it is continued and Baluch demands are not met under
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
the constitution of 1973, then civil war may well break out.
The grandson of the late Akbar Bugti, Brahamdagh has founded "Bal
uchistan Republican Army" in 2007. He threatened the present government
of PPP: "if the government would not stop military operation in Baluchistan
it should wait how we repay" he demands "independent Bluchistan."85 As
we know, subversive activities, kidnappings and targeted murders86 have
increased manifold, especially in Baluchistan where a section of Baluch
nationalists have taken up arms. On the other hand, the Taliban are chal
lenging the State's security and have stretched the security apparatus.
The present government of the PPP was not comfortable with the Paki
stan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) government in the largest province
Punjab after the PML-N decision to quite its alliance with PPP.88 Political
rivalry increased between the two major parties (PPP-PML-N) when the
PML-N decided to support lawyers movement and "long march." When
the two parties could not reach a compromise, the Supreme Court's deci
sion to disqualify the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Chief
Minister of Punjab on 25 February 2009 strengthened Nawaz's image
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
CONCLUSION
The consequences of polarized politics in Pakistan are that the nation has
not developed democratically, economically, and politically. State elites, both
civilian and military, have failed to promote a democratic state structure
and political system. The spirit of the Constitution has never been imple
mented. Most of the problems of nation-building arise from idealizing the
nation-state model. What is needed is constitutional politics and power
arrangements in which the state guarantees economic, cultural and political
rights and, in return, a new social contract exercised and constituent groups
accept the institutional and territorial legitimacy of the state.
Democratic norms and values are not a measure of political ideology.
What matters to the political parties and political leaders is "political conve
nience to justify one's misrule or the party boss orders." Currendy, Pakistan
is passing through the gravest period of its history. Religious extremists,
terrorists, nationalists, and ethnic groups are the greatest security threat
to Pakistan. If we look at the current political system, the Army has the
upper hand in political affairs as we saw, for example, during the first two
weeks of March 2009.
Another factor which has promoted undemocratic political culture
and undermined the nation as a "united nation" is that political parties
have been dominated by the landlord class or single dominant individuals.
Institutions of the civil society have proved too weak to offer any resis
tance to unconstitutional rule. Since Pakistan has suffered from political
confrontation among the politicians, those in the opposition have not only
hailed removal of elected governments but have also demanded such an
unconstitutional act on the ground that the government was not functioning
according to the Constitution. There cannot be greater political absurdity
than such demands and celebrations over the downfall of government of
other parties. This also shows absolute political immaturity, lust of power,
selfishness and lack of self-esteem among the political class of Pakistan.
A strong feudal political culture has strengthened a view that democracy
should not be the most preferred way of political and economic develop
ment of Pakistan and that democracy has only legitimized the power of
the most influential classes.
If we look at Pakistan's political structure and history we can see that
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
Notes
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
(currently the government) has signed an agreement with the local Taliban in Sawat
district, where they have established their own courts and have imposed Sharia.
28. Robert J. Jackson and Doreen Jackson. A Comparative Introduction of
Political Science. (New Jersey: Simon & Schuster, 1997), p. 35.
29. Lucian W. Pye. Politics, Personality and Nation Building: Burma's Search
for Security. (U.S.A: MIT, 1962.) p. 3.
30. Urmila Phadnis, Rajat Ganguly. Ethnicity and Nation Building in South
Asia, (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1989), p. 59.
31. Mohammed Ayub, "The Security Problematic of the Third World," World
Politics, Vol. 43 (January 1991), pp.265-266.
32. Altaf Hessian, leader of MQM (Muthida Qomi Movement) visited India
in November 2004, where his anti-Pakistan statement increased resentment in
civil society. See details in Dawn and Daily Times, 8-10 November 2009.
33. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the great educationist was convinced that Muslims
and Hindus could not live together.
34. Rasul Bakhsh Rais, Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State
in Afghanistan, (USA: Lexington Books, 2008).
35. See detail in Khalid Hassan, Rearview Mirror, (Islamabad: Alhamr,
2002).
36. "Akbar Bugti killed in an Army operation," Daily Times, 27 August
2006.
37. In the Swat deal of March 16, 2009, the government accepted the Tali
ban's demands to exercise Sharia. Under this deal the judges were barred from
the courts. Seven Qazi (religious scholars) were appointed to Swat High Court.
See detail in "NWFP gov't asks Swat judges not to attend courts over Security
Concerns," Daily Times, The News, March 19, 2009.
38. This post-9/11 incident makes religion a source of conflict between and
within the states. This incident adversely affected Pakistan because religious forces
have united against the state. Suicide bombers are being used as a weapon which
has killed civilians, security personnel, and political personalities, including the
former prime minister Benazir Bhutto (27 December 2007) and foreigners.
39. On November 26, 2008, terrorists attacked Mumbai. India accused
Pakistani-banned religious groups, e.g. Laskar-e-Taiba which is a Kashmir based
organization, banned by Mushrraf regime after 9/11.
40. Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad, Speechesand Writings of Mr. Jinnah,Vo\. 1 (Lahore:
Sh. Mohammad Ashraf & Sons, 1960) p. 160.
41. K.K. Aziz, A History of the Idea of Pakistan (Lahore: Vanguard, 1987), 4
volumes.
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
42. Stanley Yfolpzvt, Jinnah of Pakistan (New York: Oxford University Press,
1984).
43. The long March, March 2009 (Lawyers movement) supported by the
political parties, and civil society against the government succeeded after lawyers,
and common people were scared. Some lawyers were burned alive in Karachi
during Mushrraf era in 2007, some of them were targeted by suicide bombers.
Most importantly, judges were put under house arrest when they refused to obey
MushrraPs order in November 2007. See details in Daily Times, May 13, 2007.
44. Nasreen Akhtar, "Ethnic Politics and Political Process in Pakistan" paper
was presented in the conference on 15-16 October, Organized by Malaya Uni
versity, Kula Lumpur, Malaysia.
45. Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan in the Twentieth Century: A Political History,
Karachi Oxford University Press,1997.
46. Tariq Ali, Pakistan: Military Rule on People's Power, (New York: William
Morrow, 1970).
47. Nasreen Akhtar, "Ethnicity and Political Process in Pakistan," op. cit.
48. Khalid bin Sayeed, The Political System of Pakistan (Pakistan: by arrange
ments with Houghton Mifflin 1966), p.62
49. Rasul Bakhsh Rais.Professor of Political Science at LUMS, (personal
interview), December 28, 2008.
50. Rasul Bakhsh Rais. "A Dysfunctional State." Daily Times, 18 November
2008.
51. Author's interview with Islamabad-based (Ret) Col. (who requested
anonymity), on 11 February 2009.
52. Nasreen Akhtar. "Pakistan's Undemocratic Political Culture" http://arts.
monash.edu.au/mai/asaa/proceedings.php. Accessed on 28 December 2008.
53. General Zia amended the constitution 1973 and inserted 58-2 (b).The
president shall dissolve the National Assembly if a situation has arisen in which
the Government of the Federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary, see,
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, (Islamabad: Ministry of Law,
Justice and Human Rights, 2004), p. 32.
54. Nasreen Akhtar, "Pakistan's Undemocratic Political Culture," op. cit.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. Nawaz Sharif challenged the Presidential Order in the Supreme Court.
Presidential Order was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the
Nawaz Sharif government was restored. Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Nawaz Sharif
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
could not work together. The then-Chief of the Army Staff, General Abdul Hamid
Kakar forced them to resign. See text in Dawn, May 26,1993.
58. Limited war was fought between India-Pakistan. Both Prime Minister and
Chief of the Army Staff blamed each other.
59. Dawn, October 13,1999.
60. Mushrraf was forced to resign on August 18, 2008.
61. Shuja Nawaz, Crossed Swords: Pakistan its Army, and the Wars Within
(Karachi: Oxford University Press 2008), p. xxxi.
62. "Army asked to be ready if security worsens," Daily Times, March 15,
2009. In early 1977, the same proposal was given by Prime Minister Zulfqar Ali
Bhutto's aide to ask the then-Chief of the Army Staff, General Zia-ul-Haq to control
the situation and he would leave his office until the situation was controlled but
General Zia rejected that proposal. See detail in Kahlid Hassan, Rearview Mirror,
(Islamabad: Alhamr, 2002).
63. Rasul Bakhsh Rais. op. cit.
64. Mushrraf's interview with the Indian press on March 9,2009. He legiti
mized the Army's intervention in politics.
65. Ibid.
66. Akbar Bugti was killed in a military operation on August 26, 2006.
67. Tahir Amin, Ethno-Nationalist Movements of Pakistan: Domestic and
International Factors, Institute of Policy Studies, (Islamabad: 1988). p. 77.
68. Hamza AM, "Authoritarianism and Legitimating of State Power in Paki
stan? in Subtrata Mitra (ed), The Post-Colonial State in South Asia, (London:
1990).
69. Tahir Amin, op. cit.
70. Rasul Bakhsh Rais, "Politics of Ethnicity and Democratic Process in Paki
stan" Ethno-Nationalism and the Emerging World Disorder, Gurnam Singh, ed.,
(New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers, 2002).
71. Author's interview with Islamabad-based retired bureaucrat (who
requested anonymity).
72. Tariq Rehman, Language and Politics in Pakistan, (Krachi: Oxford Uni
versity Press, 1996.
73. Rasul Bakhsh Rais, Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity, and State
in Afghanistan, op. cit.
74. Craig Baxter, Yogendra Malik, Charles Kennedy, & Robert Oberst. Gov
ernments and Politics in South Asia. (Colorado: West view Press, 1998.) pp 8-9.
75. Rasul Bakhsh Rais, talk in seminar on "Dialogue on Provincial Autonomy,"
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POLARIZED POLITICS: THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN
ineligible. These days, the removal of the 17th amendment has become PML-N's
agenda.
93. See detail in Dawn, The News, October 6, 2007. Under this Ordinance,
all corruption cases against Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari (
President of Pakistan) were given amnesty.
94. Text of Charter of Democracy, see in Dawn May 16, 2006.
95. "Zardari signs summary to lift Governor's rule,^ The News, March 30,
2009, Daily Times, March 29, 2009
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.182 on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:41:16 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms