Massimo Taparelli, Marquess of Azeglio, was a Piedmontese-Italian statesman, novelist, and painter. When a unified Italy was born in 1861 out of a union of principalities and statelets, he famously wrote in his memoirs: "L'Italia è fatta. Restano da fare gli italiani," translated colloquially as "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians.”
It took a long time for Italy to emerge as a nation, distinct from Venetians, Sicilians, Piedmontese, and others. The nation-state is a recent innovation in the context of history, and no textbook offers a guide to nation-building.
Acemoglu and Robinson, in their book Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, accept that “for those who expect democracy to transform society in the same way as British democracy did in the first half of the twentieth century, it may be a disappointing form of democracy.” Their book attempts to “develop a theory to understand the potential links between economic prosperity and democracy.” However, they acknowledge that “many scholars today believe democracy is only possible in sufficiently educated and rich societies.”
Their reasoning is reinforced by the fact that less than 8% of the world’s population lives in a full democracy, while almost 40% live under authoritarian rule—a share that has been increasing in recent years, according to the Economist.
It cannot be denied that the country’s civilian leaders have also collectively failed to deliver even a modicum of decent governance, particularly in the last couple of decades.
South Korea succeeded economically by adopting an authoritarian path for a few decades after World War II, while South Africa has emerged as a failed state, despite following a liberal democratic model after defeating apartheid in the early 1990s.
Let us accept that most of Pakistan’s problems have their roots in the lack of democracy since its inception as an independent state, setting aside pre-1947 history momentarily. The ruling elites, including the establishment, are responsible for the country’s multiple intertwined crises, and the periodic and ad-hoc nature of military interventions has exacerbated these crises.
However, it cannot be denied that the country’s civilian leaders have also collectively failed to deliver even a modicum of decent governance, particularly in the last couple of decades. PML-N did great damage to the economy by following an economic development model of building debt-financed infrastructure, and ignoring education and other structural economic reforms. The PTI destroyed whatever was left of democratic culture and traditions.
Watching the quality of political debates on television illustrates the gravity of the political vacuum. It is unrealistic to expect that this class of political leaders, mostly manufactured or nurtured by the establishment, can steer Pakistan out of the present quagmire.
But the country must be governed. It needs a long, surgical operation to repair the damage done to its institutions over decades. The economy must be saved to help the millions who cannot wait for a stable political order to emerge because they have waited for over 76 years and received neither political freedom nor economic development.
I am not suggesting a one-man dictatorship. I believe that at this point in history, it would be wise to accept that we do not have a functional democracy and that the establishment is the only force that has the de facto power to prevent Pakistan’s inexorable drift into chaos.
It is a cliché to say "let the people decide," but both leading parties—PTI and PML-N—have failed miserably to provide a vision needed to meet the extraordinary challenges. It is not enough to say fair elections will lead to political stability, which in turn will prepare the ground for economic development. This line of reasoning is naïve and ignores our failures, as well as those across the developing world, of both democracies and authoritarian regimes.
Pakistan’s military establishment has predominantly ruled through hybrid arrangements since 1988, frequently by co-opting or grooming handpicked politicians. Three decades were squandered as past establishments deemed it expedient to work with mediocre, incompetent, and corrupt politicians.
Some point to the successes of democracy in neighboring India. There is little to compare Indian democracy with Pakistan’s situation. The democratic culture in India has much deeper roots, and its institutions are much more competent and do not face the problem of stunted growth as Pakistan’s institutions do. Modi, despite his fascist and authoritarian tendencies, is a grassroots politician who has won national elections for a record third time. Before ascending to national office, he governed a province as an elected chief minister. He can be criticized for many things, but his democratic mandate cannot be questioned.
We cannot say the same about Pakistan’s populist Imran Khan. He was not only a product of political engineering, but also actively conspired with secret agencies to subvert the democratic process. Khan insists he wants to talk only to the forces he alleges perpetrated electoral fraud, to the exclusion of seeking to build a broader political consensus to follow the Constitution. His idea of democracy focuses on himself, and his cult followers are incapable of understanding that democracy is about tolerance, working with other political forces, and respecting their rights—not using fascist methods to eliminate them, as he tried to do with the help of General Bajwa while he was prime minister.
Unless our political parties can work out a modus vivendi and agree to operate within the constitutional framework, the country cannot move forward toward democratic governance. Democracy is not just about winning elections. Unfortunately, the PTI has not shown the level of maturity needed to advance Pakistan’s fragile democracy.
Democracy is not a crusade between good and evil, where evil must be eliminated. Until Pakistan’s politics reaches that level of maturity, the country will remain a dysfunctional semi-authoritarian state. It is laughable to propose that some populist judges, who go with popular sentiment and can be easily intimidated by trolling on social media, can help steer us toward a democratic path. They merely represent a section within the civilian elite fighting for power, while both factions seek help from elements within a divided establishment. If the conflict between the establishment and a section of the judiciary continues, it could lead to more chaos and ultimately to increased repression and authoritarianism.
Pakistan’s military establishment has predominantly ruled through hybrid arrangements since 1988, frequently by co-opting or grooming handpicked politicians. Three decades were squandered as past establishments deemed it expedient to work with mediocre, incompetent, and corrupt politicians. In the process, the country’s governance structure has hollowed out, exacerbated by a continuous decline in the quality of education and widespread moral decadence.
Course correction or chaos
The establishment must now rectify its course and address the damage, as no other entity can realistically do so. Some may call it a paradox, but the other option is chaos. This corrective action must be undertaken with the understanding that effective solutions require political and economic measures, with the use of state coercion as a last, rather than first, resort in issue resolution. Above all, any effort to provide stable and effective governance will fail without addressing the grave and debilitating crisis of competence across all branches of government at all levels.
The current clash between the PTI and the establishment suggests that the war of attrition will continue for some months, and eventually, one side will blink. No matter the outcome, Pakistan needs visionary leadership to face the existential threats.
The course correction must start with the recognition by the establishment that it made bad policy choices that have done more harm than good. It will have to take a 180-degree turn on a number of matters, or the international reaction to a military takeover will be more than adverse. First on the list is the establishment’s support and appeasement of religious extremists and organizations such as the defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba, Tehreek Labaik Pakistan, and others. The establishment must pivot towards an unequivocal condemnation of what the Taliban stands for and a policy of zero tolerance towards their activists and militants.
The use of force and extra-legal measures to deal with dissidents in Balochistan must be stopped. There is no alternative to a political solution, which must be negotiated with the help of genuine political leaders. Pakistan cannot afford to have a permanent state of insurgency in its largest province by area.
The establishment must realize that it cannot have so many open fronts if it wants to deal with the single most important threat to Pakistan’s political stability—the neo-fascist force led by Imran Khan—that has worked to destabilize Pakistan since he was voted out of parliament through a no-confidence move in April 2022.
On the economic front, political stability and deradicalization are essential to creating a conducive economic environment. Both the PTI and the religious extremists must be dealt with firmly because it is impossible to deal with aspiring neo-fascists and militants using normal political methods.
The current clash between the PTI and the establishment suggests that the war of attrition will continue for some months, and eventually, one side will blink. No matter the outcome, Pakistan needs visionary leadership to face the multiple existential threats facing the nation. Whether democracy or nondemocracy, the country’s prospects will remain bleak until a major course correction occurs on the political, economic, and cultural fronts. It is foolish to believe that merely respecting the so-called “mandate” will solve all the problems.
Past military establishments created Altaf Hussain. General (retired) Aslam Baig admitted this on TV. Altaf was once the King of Karachi. The MQM (A) under him won elections by huge margins. That still did not change the fact that he was a racketeering criminal strongman. His henchmen tried to silence anyone in the media who tried to write or speak against him. In the process, Karachi, once known as a city of lights, culture, enlightenment, and industry, suffered tremendously, and its citizens and the country paid a huge price. We must learn from history and avoid making binary arguments that are out of context with the unusual conditions of a nation facing existential challenges and struggling to find a way forward.