It is ironic how the fundamental ideology of Pakistan was
based on democracy; a country, which has had four military coups within the
sixty-seven years of its existence. The
entirety of its foundation was to provide ethnic minorities equal rights
keeping aside all religious affiliations. However, since the first military
regime that dominated the political system of Pakistan, separating Islam from
the polity was unpreventable.
This in turn, brings me to consider the political regime the
Pakistani State governs under. Is it an Islamic regime that is dominated by the
Sharia Law or is it the military regime that has repeatedly overpowered the democracy
that Pakistan claims itself to be.
The numerous bodies that “democratically” formed the
legislative have failed to understand the cultural and religious diversity
encapsulated within the state of Pakistan. This multiplicity of religion,
especially for a state that is rather sensitive to religious discrimination
must be catered to in a way that no ethnicity feels dominated by the other.
This means that the legislative (which in itself has not
been able to reach common ground) needs to present a non-Islamic and
non-military regime, which allows the growth and success of all ethnicities.
This, however, is only achievable if a polyarchic regime is
established. If the state of Pakistan
can formulate a regime even close to such a political system, it may find the lost
identity it has ever-reckoned.
3 comments:
I think we do have constitution that up to certain degree provide the basic civil liberties that are cherished by democratic states.In certain cases yeah we have failed to equip the minorities with their fundamental freedom.But then the initial government claim after singling out one of the minorities was that this group was working against the state mandate that was to protect the religion of the state.So it is debatable whether the group really was involved or not? But overall the state do have failed to protect the very rights of not only minorities but majorities as well.
Your point is quite valid because Pakistan is nowhere near the status of a polyarchic regime. As Dahl has describes the two features of a polyarchic regime; competitive party system in which high tolerance of opposition is required. And the election system, which demands equal participation of politics. As we can see, Pakistan as a state completely lacks these two features which are the cornerstones in the establishment of a true and effective Polyarchic system. One of the reason we lack such a system is that it is considered equivalent to liberal democracies or is related to European system which is highly opposed by traditional and religious groups.
I think we do have constitution that up to certain degree provide the basic civil liberties that are cherished by democratic states.In certain cases yeah we have failed to equip the minorities with their fundamental freedom.But then the initial government claim after singling out one of the minorities was that this group was working against the state mandate that was to protect the religion of the state.So it is debatable whether the group really was involved or not? But overall the state do have failed to protect the very rights of not only minorities but majorities as well.
Post a Comment