Since Pakistan’s history has witnessed repetitive authoritative interventions, the parliament systems have mostly been short-lived, they have for the most part been silent and have always been a puppet to the military’s power. Over the entirety of Pakistan’s existence, the military has ruled over the people more than civil government has had a chance to.
Pakistan has had a history of about 67 years since its independence and for more than 32 years, the military has had power and control. The fact that Pakistan’s democratic government has not been allowed to develop to its full potential because of constant military intervention, the legislature is still in its developmental phases to finding an institutional identity. The political system in Pakistan will remain in this worsened condition so long as the military still has indirect power. But one thing to note is that, it is a first that the 2013 elections and their aftermath marked the first-ever transition from one elected government to another. This is a step towards fully restoring parliamentary sovereignty and stabilizing a volatile polity.
2 comments:
Adding to your argument, i would like to state that for the political condition to improve in Pakistan, the civilian govts will have to start improving their performance as well, the mere stepping back of the military from political affairs cannot be the sole factor for improvement in the political system.
Lets not forget that the military coups often had popular support in the past, even today the military remains more popular than the civilian govt. Civilian govts need to start delivering on their promises, only then will we achieve the complete restoration of parliamentary sovereignty.
Furthermore, the population segment that chooses to participate in the process of political development is critically important, as is the background through which they make their way into the corridors of power. One feature of the PTI Tsunami that is unprecedented in Pakistan is the inclusion of the 'common man' not just in movement support but also in movement participation. Many candidates who contested the 2013 elections on the party's ticket were young and educated middle class individuals who live the lives the common man lives and holds opinions that the common man holds. For the first time, we had invested individuals that were truly from within us. Additionally, the party's leadership and its structure is unique in the sense that it is the first mainstream major political force that has risen from non-establishment backgrounds and is widely recognized as a people's movement. Perhaps this is also a step in the positive direction. To have in our assemblies such people who represent the nation's population can greatly strengthen the role and influence of civilian leadership (the legislature and the executive) in comparison to the military's political wing.
Post a Comment