Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture
Faultlines in Pakistan's political culture
Pakistan's
political system has never, not even momentarily, seen a smooth evolution.
Pakistan has had ongoing political crises since its inception on
the world map, which was then followed by economic, judicial, and
constitutional problems. The political culture of Pakistan has certain fault
lines that lead to political crises, and unless these fault lines are
acknowledged, discussed, and rectified, the political system cannot be altered.
Major fault lines in Pakistani political culture include the lack of
ideological politics in the country, the lack of internal democracy in the
so-called political parties, the legacy of dynasties, the lack of national
political parties and a divided house, the practice of revenge politics,
polarized politics with populist political leaders and the practice of US vs.
THEM, the blame game with propaganda politics, the civil-military divide, the
strong establishment and weak judiciary, controlled media and an uneducated
society, and an extreme divide among the constitutional stakeholder of the
country with the practice of undue interference in the domain of one another.
With these fault lines in
place, any reform or other adjustment in the system would make little difference
to the country's long-standing political difficulties. There is an urgent need
for thinking and rethinking in order to identify, discuss, and gradually
eradicate each and every fault line in the country.
One of the
fundamental flaws of Pakistan's political culture is the absence of ideological
politics. It is true that Pakistan is an ideological state that gained
independence in the name of Islam, but it is also true that the country's
single ideology died soon after its independence. Following that, the country
was divided into various political parties based on personal interests rather
than doctrine. Personal interests have rapidly surpassed national interests,
and political parties now have solely personal interests, with the notion of national
interest entirely paralyzed. None of Pakistan's political parties have an
intellectual foundation; instead, they are entirely based on personal
preferences. When asked,
"Why did he join a political party?" Most of the time, the
explanation would be that his ancestors were members of that party, therefore
he joined, or the reason would revolve around a political leader's charisma. It
is very hard to discover a political party leader or worker that joins a
political party based on ideology.
Due to a
lack of ideological politics, new political parties emerge on a regular basis,
and political affiliations shift quickly from one party to another. When a
political party lacks an intellectual foundation, its members are linked by a
sand roof, and it is unavoidable that they can be divided and change their
political commitments at any time. If the senior leadership of any political
party is thoroughly examined, it is possible that every core member of a
Pakistani political party has changed his political loyalties at least five or
six times, if not more. Practically, in every major election, Pakistani
political parties have witnessed horse trading, in which its key members switch
affiliations for financial benefit. So why does it happen? The reason is that
there is no ideological base in political parties, and everyone in the party
sees his or her personal interests.
Another flaw
in the country's political culture is the lack of internal democracy in
political parties. The top leadership of a political party never changes. Just
like a monarch, the party has only one leader until his or her death. This
practice is not followed in other great democracies, such as the United States,
which has two political parties. These parties have no permanent head, but
every four years they hold intra-party elections in which all members vote. Similarly,
in China, there is only one political party, but it has no permanent head. It
also conducts elections and chooses its head for the next five years. This
practice of intra-party elections is also followed by many other states in the
world, but unfortunately in Pakistan, it is not. In the case of Pakistan, only
one leader leads the party until his or her death. Consequently, this practice
leads to mistrust between the head of the party and other core members due to
the non-accountability of the head of the party.
The lack of
intraparty elections in political parties leads to another fault line: dynastic
legacy. If one thoroughly studies Pakistan's democracy, he would discover that
the country's democratic institutions are administered by a few monarchs in the
guise of democracy. It indicates that the son or daughter inherits the
leadership of every political party from his or her parents. Such political
cultures, in which some families dominate permanently, inhibit new leadership,
leading to distrust between people and leadership. As a result, the country's
long-standing problems remained unaddressed since every time a solution was
attempted to be sought via the same mentality.
Another
important flaw in Pakistan's political culture is the absence of national
political parties. The country has never had the dominance of a single party
throughout its history. A political party cannot govern just in the center or
in one or two provinces. Nobody has ever ruled the federation or all of the
provinces. Similarly, the country has always had a hung parliament in which a coalition
government prevails. A government, supported by some of the seats of other
interested political parties or independent candidates, can never implement its
policies autonomously, that is why no prime minister has ever completed their
tenure in the history of the country.
The practice
of vengeance politics is one of the worst aspects of Pakistan's political
culture. This practice has been practiced since Pakistan's establishment, and
it has now reached its apex. Every political party attempts to repress its
opponents in the manner of a tyrant. Political parties consider each other as
their deadliest foes, thus they spend the majority of their effort repressing
their opponents. This practice leads to political polarization, with political
parties adopting radical retribution philosophies. As a result, the culture of
"us vs. them" spreads. In the "US vs. Them" culture, one
political party perceives itself as the sole patriotic political party in the
country, while all other parties are traitors. As a result, animosity develops
between people of various political parties, and the whole country becomes
completely divided.
Another
notable fault line in Pakistan's political culture is the civil-military split.
For more than half of its history, the country has been controlled by military
rulers. The establishment was accused and criticized not just for imposing
martial law on the country, but also for interfering in democratic processes
and engaging in political engineering. As a result, distrust between the
civilian and military administrations has generated a climate of perpetual
political crisis in the country. A weak or semi-independent court, on the other
hand, jeopardized people's fundamental rights and constitutional protection. As
a result, the civil-military divide and weak judiciary are two fundamental
fault lines in Pakistan's political culture.
Last but not
least, the absence of separation of powers in constitutional institutions is a
flaw in Pakistan's political culture. Every constitutional institution is
always meddling in the area of another. There is no pragmatic process that
governs the relationships between these components. Common stakeholder groups
in the country, such as lawmakers and parliament, the military, the judiciary,
the media, and the people, are deviating from the constitution. It contributes to
the country's ongoing political dilemma, which has existed since its creation.
In
conclusion, the country
has been experiencing the worst type of political crisis due to several
critical flaws in its political culture. Such fault lines exist in the country
in the form of a lack of ideological politics, a lack of internal democracy in
so-called political parties, the legacy of dynasties, a lack of national
political parties, a divided house, the practice of revenge politics, polarized
politics with populist political leaders and the practice of US vs. THEM, a
blame game with propaganda politics, a civil-military divide, a strong
establishment, and a weak judiciary, controlled media and uneducated society, and an extreme divide
among the constitutional stakeholder of the country with the practice of undue
interference in the domain of one another. Until these fault lines are removed
from the country's political culture, the state cannot come out of its worst
type of political crisis.
Kamran Khan
Advocate
Comments
Post a Comment