“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”- Thomas Jefferson
As I endeavour to delve into the many problems that Pakistan is politically plagued by or attempt to suggest what I ultimately think ought to be done, I owe the reader a disclaimer. That, in no way or at any point, do I want to state that I am sure that I know the answers to our problems or that my arguments are the only right ones, nor that my recommendations are final in their conclusions, or are the best proposals as opposed to any others. Thus, more than anything else, I would want this document to become the basis to further discussion, argument and debate – not to talk at each other but to talk to one another – adding opinions, modifying those that are given and even throwing out some so as to improve the quality and value of this analysis and these recommendations. I would rather that my writing leads to conversations of excellence than arguments defending fixed and rigid positions. What we are about to get into will focus a lot on the politics of the country in the way of governance – past, present and the future. Readers may want to turn away from these writings only because, I being a retired military officer have chosen to discuss politics. This is generally felt to be the exclusive domain of politicians only. Having served in the Army for almost 40 years, we were groomed to avoid discussing women, politics and religion in any social gathering, but the fact still remains, that every man standing amongst the rank and file was entitled to vote for better or for worse. Now after retirement, I find myself transformed from being an officer in the military service to an active citizen of the country. While serving in the Army one was entitled to air his opinion when and where he felt he should, yet, the nature and character of the institution was such, that it expected that one would obey what one was instructed to do regardless of one’s opinion. Though anyone could be critical of an order given, yet, having voiced one’s opinion, one either held his peace and followed orders or then rendered his resignation if he found his values were in conflict with the task required of him. Such a restriction is not usually imposed on a retired officer, for two reasons mainly – first, he is not expected to be at the execution end of any task and his rhetoric is usually in the domain of advice, suggestions or recommendations for those who may be executing the task. Secondly, a retired person has lived a life, been there – done that; and may have sufficient useful experience with which he may contribute positively. In my own defence, I was of an impressionable age, where I was sufficiently aware of what happened around me during General Ayub’s time and General Yahya’s disgrace. I lived through the ignominy of East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh in 1971. I witnessed the deceit in Bhutto’s moment, followed by the hypocrisy of General Zia’s decade. I saw how the decade of darkness passed us by as Benazir and Nawaz Sharif played musical chairs with the destiny of this nation from 1988 to 1999. I lived the concept of enlightened moderation during General Pervaiz Musharraf’s time as we murdered one another on the streets of the country. I was in uniform when the Soviets came knocking on our door and later I was also part of the War against Terror, in more ways than one. Whereas, though I witnessed history even as it was unfolding, I saw my own role in it clearly – insignificant and irrelevant. The misery that my country was being subjected to was not just because of bad leadership but the exploitation of systems that the leadership had learnt to circumvent and play. Yet, over these years, I also reaped the rewards of rich experiences passed down to me by strong leaders, impressive people – good people, who had a lot to teach and from whom I learnt so much; through those times we had towering personalities too. Yet, unfortunately, more often than the good people I was so blessed to come across, I also suffered the consequences, like many others, of poor leadership and for much longer periods of time. Misdirected guidance and broken promises by a leadership at almost every tier, people who one held in contempt and had a very low opinion of with even lower expectations – fools who governed our country and institutions. I now look back and see that when compelled to live with such incompetence, low character and questionable morality, one was subjected to an education of another kind. Lessons that proved to be a meaningful and as perceptive as life could impart. I realise that by now it may appear that I may be distancing myself from such leadership and trying to present myself as a better person than those that surround me. That I consider myself of a different creed, superior amongst my colleagues and better than my contemporaries; but that is not true. In my own reckoning, I place myself on any scale as an average person but then I was never in a position to alter the destiny of the country or contribute towards its betterment, so cannot lay claim to any form of fame. Many of my own friends, classmates, course mates and affiliates, better than me, could have contributed and made Pakistan a better place but this did not happen. The cycle of hierarchy demanded that a particular type and form of person only could rise and deliver the devastating blows this country was destined to suffer. We, most of us, were not amongst them – thus the earlier reference to ‘irrelevance and insignificance’ – a universal tragedy. Unfortunately, this country, then, though blessed with so much, remained hostage to the conspiracies of underserving, power-hungry, unscrupulous, compromised and corrupt leadership, oscillating within a never-ending cycle of deceit and deception.
Rendering wisdom in hindsight is always a matter of ‘stating the obvious’ which lead to arguments boiling down to “He could have/ should have/would have done, this, that or the other”.
So I shall not linger on what was done in the past, as much as deduce some leading conclusions from the relevant past, to allow a meaningful discussion about the future. Whereas the military carries the burden of responsibility for most of what has emerged as State policy, governance and decisions related to the economy and defence, yet officers who once served in the Armed Forces, cannot by a blanket generalisation, be found guilty only by association. Never being allowed to discuss political reality as it is, since they were part of the system that affected it. Retired officers are citizens just as anyone else – pay taxes, are subjected to laws, obey state authority and are affected by public decisions just as anyone else is. Thus the underlying principle is that ‘those who are governed have the right to speak about how they are governed’. In this vein, politics is not an exclusive domain of some only, making it an elitist club but is the turf upon which all citizens can tread equally. This includes journalists, teachers, religious leaders, politicians, senior bureaucrats, retired military officers and influencers with large platforms. Their contributions shape public opinions and institutions, so they are held to higher standards of truthfulness, restraint and accountability. They obviously, do not have exclusive rights – but carry heavier obligations. I find myself amongst these contributors.
Philosophically, Aristotle said the politics is the activity of citizens. Rousseau believed that sovereignty lay in the will of the people. Mill had written that free discussion is necessary for truth to emerge, while Habermas had stated that legitimacy arises from public reasoning and not authority. However, the military being a hierarchical coercive institution stands in stark contradiction to politics which is more in the domain of the plural, civilian and a competitive arena – lines gets blurred between the two. A retired officer does not enter the field of political discussion and debate with the authority of the military system and as such is as much a citizen as anyone else. Taking a cue from this premise and having satisfied myself that I qualify in contributing towards a political discussion for the betterment of this hapless nation, with all necessary propriety as a retired military officer, I now move on to the substance of this treatise.
History:
Amongst many other faults, one of the most glaring ones in Pakistan is our ability to distort history to suit our arguments. We simply cannot tolerate a truth that is in direct conflict with the ideas that we are trying to shape opinions with. We have never retold the story of our founder and as to how he perished in an ambulance that ran out of fuel and lay indisposed in the suffocating September heat somewhere along Drigh Road, Karachi, till he finally succumbed to the woeful neglect and disloyalty shown to him.
He was accompanied only by his distraught sister, while an ungrateful people indifferent to his plight chose to look elsewhere. We do not discuss the unfair treatment meted out to the sister of the Father of this Nation as she was ostracized by the very people her brother liberated from the discrimination of a Hindu yolk. We quietly adjusted his “Unity, Faith and Discipline” concept to “Faith, Unity and Discipline” – when he meant, being one nation, following the rule of law and belief in ourselves as a sovereign nation – we twisted the meaning to a more divine understanding. Not only did we change the order and the meaning but we chose to live along those lines of deceit and hypocrisy that these words now represent. We choose to blame Yahya Khan for the East Pakistan debacle in our politicised version of selectivity where we deliberately forget about the language riots of 1949 forcing Bengalis to speak Urdu, or Bhutto’s thrasonic brag of ‘Udhar tum or idhar hum’ – (You are there and we are here). We never question why the Hamood ur Rehman report was never published though its terms of reference were laid down by Bhutto who wanted the Army only to be scrutinised, leaving out other factors even more damning. We gleefully embraced the Objectives Resolution in utter contradiction to what the Quaid had stated very categorically, that we would not be a State governed by a theocracy. His first speech to the Constitutional Assembly was “You are free, go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place 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”. We were all simply citizens with equal rights and no one was to be seen to be born of a lesser God. Yet now a divine is empowered to rule over our private lives, relationships, dress and conduct. We declared our only Nobel Prize winner a non-Muslim while in the same breath make righteous claims to Mirzai-dominated Gurdaspur District as a Muslim majority area. A territory we never tire of berating was wrongfully given to India by the Radcliff Award, but where Ahmadis now abide in peace and harmony as opposed to those in Pakistan. We went on and introduced Urdu as a national language, that no one owns, putting our education system into a confusing spin where it fits into no existing international standard. So many contradictions and so many controversies, as each political entity tries to reinvent their purpose and claim to fame while they reconstruct history to situate their own fake narratives; so much so that an average citizen has lost identity or any sense of nationhood or direction. ANP, the erstwhile NAP, avoids discussion about their red-shirt rebellion and Pushtoonistan Movement. Their leader, popularly labelled as the Frontier Gandhi by his followers, preferred being buried in Afghanistan. It is forgotten how the Frontier Province held a referendum, where the Khan Brothers ordered a boycott, seeing the writing on the wall and where the people of the Frontier, now the KP, voted overwhelmingly for Pakistan. Our new generations are not taught how GB liberated itself or how Lashkers liberated Azad Kashmir and we march on in total bliss, immersed in our ignorance and indifference of the past. Since most of our history is documented, for better or for worse, but with very little to crow about, we shall leave the past behind, secure in the understanding that the reader is generally aware of all that occurred and all that did not – how we as a people, did our damnedest to dismantle this country. If one were to draw any conclusion from this short summary of Pakistan’s history, it would be the conspicuous absence of real or true democracy in the affairs of Pakistan at any given time. In this land of the pure, people have never mattered and their opinion even less so. In no process at any time have the people ever participated in the makings of a nation. They have instead, been herded silently, this way or that, anyway the rulers want. Exploited, abused and brow beaten into submission and compliance by a system, often confused between a corrupted democracy and military authority, both disguised as saviours of the nation and protectors of the territorial and the ideological borders of a disoriented and bewildered nation.
The Current Environment
So we are where we are, people oblivious to our own current precarious situation, barely afloat on borrowed time. Our Constitution remains a document that is violated at will while each of us never fail to swear to the almighty to be its most ardent protectors. I have always wondered what do these stalwarts actually believe in, that they can even befool the lord, our Almighty, or do they think that there is no God at all? Our ideology lies wallowing at the feet of hypocrisy as we desecrate its every value. No qualms are suffered by the high and the mighty or the lowest of the low, as everyone is a willing aider and abettor, standing as a false witness under oath. All this, as our country lies prostrate – disowned, discarded and ignored – disabused of any notion of being a land for any nation, let alone the Muslims of this region. This sorry state of affairs is basically the product of a never ending cyclic animosity enshrined in civil-military inter-action and relationship. In Pakistan’s 78 years of history, this conflict has plagued governance to its core – influencing, coercing and shaping it into an unrecognisable confusion of what passes for administrative authority.
The Quaid as early as in June 14, 1948, stated at Command and Staff College Quetta, “Do not forget that the armed forces are the servants of the people. You do not make national policy, it is we, the civilians, who decide these issues, and it is your duty to carry out the tasks with which you are entrusted”. Yet the military has governed Pakistan directly or indirectly for nearly half its existence in contradiction to this.
When one looks for an explanation and enquires from the military, it appears that they were always forced into reluctantly undertaking coups against their better judgement. Their argument to justify each round of military rule has been that civilian incompetence, mismanagement and corruption forced them to take over in the national interest as the national security was being threatened. Civilians, when confronted, will always blame their poor governance and bad performance to military interference and of not being allowed a free hand to do the things that were needed to be done. Whereas both sides may have a plausible argument, the effect of this turf-war has directly impacted upon the people. The people of the country become irrelevant and anonymous. Thus there is wide public disowning of events taking place and with it a distancing from everything or anything that is related to the State by the people. The people take on the character of a herd of cattle, trudging along any route they are forced to take – they no longer care, they no longer count themselves to be part of the solution. Our understanding of democracy as it should be, has now totally collapsed.
In Pakistan, democracy now stands for a system caught in the labyrinth of confusion, contradictions and massive inconsistencies. It lacks any credibility, reliability or people’s representation by even the lowest standards. Our understanding of democracy has now been shaped over the years by the deceit and deception, that the people have become accustomed to, and it has now taken on the look of a government by the elite, of the elite, for the elite. The missing component is the people themselves who are not considered worthy of any sort of consultation, consideration or participation in the political process. The worst part of it all is that the people have been so sensitised to the situation that they have resigned themselves to suffer it indefinitely – defeated, overwhelmed and vanquished – waiting to die, hoping fatalism will find them a better place sometime in the future.
Democracy
is probably the best form of governance when it is administered correctly. However, democracy comes in many colour, shades, and hews. One kind or type of democracy practiced in one country may not suit another and simply aping the west is not necessarily the best route to take. In fact, some even reject democracy outright as a form of government or administration because of the inconsistencies it has often demonstrated.
Socrates compares democracy to a ship where everyone insists on steering, despite lacking expertise – a metaphor criticising rule by unqualified opinion than skill. He quoted then, “Democracy…. Is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.” Socrates, contrary to common belief, was not against democracy, he only criticised its weaknesses, especially when voters were uninformed and rhetoric outweighed reason. So what is democracy, with which we are so obsessed, and are convinced that it is the only process and method through which we will discover a real solution to the ever growing problems of Pakistan?
Democracy is an evolved phenomenon that began as a consultative or participatory process that began in 3000 BCE. It evolved into true democracy in Athens in 508 BCE and later into a republic system under the Romans till 27 BCE. Thereon, a decline was experienced where a feudal mind-set took over and political legitimacy became hereditary or divine however, medieval constraints on power were introduced which were not necessarily democratic but were crucial steps in acquiring democratic practices later. These were the Magna Carta (1215), establishing of Parliaments in Europe and the Italian City States (Venice and Florence etc.) – power was being institutionally limited/rationalised – a precondition for any true democracy to take root. The foundations of modern democracy were later constructed on critical ideological philosophies (1600- 1750) – John Locke, Consent of the Governed, Montesquieu, Separation of Power, Rousseau, Popular Sovereignty. Yet the modern representative democracy was shaped, first, in the American civil war (1776) – Sovereignty of the People and Constitutional Rule.
And then later in the French Revolution (1789) – Universal Rights and Popular Sovereignty. Two additional steps were taken to expand upon the idea of democracy, i.e. expansion of the franchise (1800-1950) that allowed working class men to vote, later women were added and finally the minorities etc. The other step came post-colonial where it spread globally and reached out to many other countries across the globe. After the Soviet collapse, the world only knows democracy as the legitimate form of governance with a few exceptions and it has expanded to popular will everywhere. However, it has begun to face challenges and these are in the form of populism, disinformation, elite capture and declining trust – thus modern democracy has finally evolved into an increasingly procedural system rather than a participatory one – Pakistan’s greatest woes!!!!!
This then has remained the general curse of democracies, almost all over the world – a system that is susceptible to being highjacked by any powerful group and a means to benefit themselves only. Groups that usurp the whole governance system with intent to acquire even more material and political benefits – all through procedural manipulations. Democracy is a very powerful tool and if not understood or managed correctly always leads to a distorted form of government that is very difficult to overthrow because its common method to this travesty is to corrupt state organs into mutual beneficiaries within institutions and stakeholders – each living of the other and protecting one another’s vested interests.
One of its greatest distortions is that it always claims to function in the name of the people, yet, is rarely ever for the people and in fact, more often than not, remains a challenge to its own people by disenfranchising them, denying them their due rights or access to any credible justice system.
Such examples exist all over the world but there is no better example than that of Nazi Germany and Hitler as he overpowered a nation forcing them to follow his bidding.
Modern examples are: Venezuela (1999) leading to a de-facto dictatorship, Turkey (2000s) that has become an electoral authoritarianism, Sri Lanka (late 2000s) was an oligarchy; these are only some examples from amongst many others in these modern times that stand testimony to the democracies that have failed their people. In a chronological study of Pakistan’s political history – democracy has never been truly implemented as a system.
It has served only as a label to hide behind for the rulers of the time – civil or military – a platform to manufacture narratives, shape opinions and present justifications. This method to madness is explained to be always in the interest of the nation, but is always, instead, only to empower oneself so as to remain in perpetual control. The never ending cycle of argument that we the people are subjected to is that it is ‘because of successive incompetent civilian governments or that it is because of frequently but regularly an illegitimate military one – the pot calling the kettle black – one blaming the other in a continuous barrage of accusations while the people get nothing and suffer the consequences of what we can all see as a turf war. We will refrain at this time from trying to ascertain who is at fault or to appropriate blame, it being sufficient that both are culpable. Yet both are from amongst us the people of this hapless nation and are as Pakistani as anyone else and it is we the people who have allowed this, tolerated it and are now resigned to it. So in my own reckoning, it is all of us, collectively as a nation, communities and a people, who stand guilty for what we have done to our country – thus as was said by Shakespeare in his play, Julius Caesar,
“It is not our stars but within us”
Current Situation
To understand where we are today, going over the recent events in a brief summary is sufficient to explain the situation that we are in. A popular government is overthrown in a regime change operation inspired by an outside power in April 2022. Politicians eagerly aligned themselves with the military to oust an elected government – their brother politicians. The out-going government of the time, had in fact, lost popularity and had the opposition waited for some time, may have even legitimately won in the coming elections – they did not wait. The ousted government, now seen as a victim, became hugely popular but were subjected to visibly unfair means in the run up to and during the 8th Feb 2024 elections – the justice system and the judiciary woefully failed to uphold the law or implement even an iota of fairness. Despite the totally compromised ECP, the ousted party won with an overwhelming majority but seats were distributed through manipulation to the losing parties. Thus with only 17 legitimate seats the PML(N) formed government in an unholy coalition with the PPP that had even lost most seats in its own province. The government willingly complied with whatever they were asked to in an unprecedented demonstration of servility and sycophancy. It led to the complete dismantling of the remaining rump judicial system and thus justice was now effectively a government prerogative, elevating the government to be a judge, juror and executioner. To ensure that protests were smothered, the opposition now was jailed on politically motivated fake charges, the police were encouraged to do their worst and all regulators and auditors such as FIA, NAB and FBR were told to distort facts, figures and findings; brutality in the streets exhibited a wanton display of misuse of State Power. The whole process became one of coercing, intimidating and blackmailing the people. Censorship was reintroduced and the media was effectively muzzled as narratives were invented about good governance, economic progress and state security. The government developed the art of deceiving the nation and was never shy of putting up their deceit for full display within the country, as well as abroad. Every criminal manner and illegal method was employed to empower a political party making them an artificial government for the very people who had unanimously and visibly rejected them. This represents democracy in the Land of the Pure, the holy lands of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan – neither a Republic nor an Islamic State by any measure. Whereas one could list a complete volume on the travesties that we the people have had to endure during these last few years, but this is enough to debunk any childish notion of democracy thriving in Pakistan. Democracy does not exist here and the country is captured by undeserving, unqualified, incompetent and corrupt people hoping to implement what they think is good governance but is in fact destroying the country by the day. Intentions may well be very good but the outcomes are now coming to an imminent disaster leading to a collapse in every field of Statecraft, governance and administration.
The desire of any majority sentiment is considered immaterial and just an existential nuisance that can be set aside by those ‘who know best’ and make decisions on their own, oblivious of any public popular positions, desires or thoughts. Our foreign policy is now a hush-hush affair, shrouded in secrecy and conspiracies and that align with the ruling elites’ interests more than any national interest. In the process, the economy is running on borrowed funds and loans have multiplied with a yawning gap in balance of payments. The economy is shifted into the hands of the IMF who now dictates the next budget and defines the parameters of all economic activity – sovereignty is now confused with survival. Businesses have closed down and multinationals have left the country. Imports have grown and exports reduced.
People are migrating in droves, unemployment is increasing and poverty is spiking. Every initiative taken by the government is either a lie or an exaggerated stunt that soon turns into a disappointing story of wishful narratives. We have been reduced to slogans without substance – assertions and proclamations with little to show for except false promises, illusions and failures. We as a country cannot go on like this and if nothing changes the uncertainty, insecurity and lack of any cohesion, it may lead to a very disastrous conclusion for the people of this sad and sorry State.
What can we do to fix this and how can we get out of this situation? A perfectly well established country has been brought to ruin due to the shenanigans of a few misguided people who have delusions of their own capability. Whereas we have huge potential in terms of minerals, global relevance by way of geography and an untapped resource in human resource to develop agriculture, industry and a corporate outlook, yet we wallow in poverty and deprivation. Our potential game-changers, mentioned above, lie unrealised and begging to be recognised as they remain in waiting for a formal government and a credible administration.
Reforms
In an excited spurt of enthusiasm to fix things, to where they should be, from where they are now, people invariably talk of reforms. Their focus is on all institutions but they usually end up paying more attention to military reforms in general and Army reforms in particular – their argument is that diluting the power of the Army and putting them back into the barracks will empower civilian rule and allow a free hand to an autonomous political government. I fail to see, which civil government, so far has ever stood out and which inspires confidence and propriety; a government that can deliver, govern, impart justice equally and administer the people impartially without force, fraud or favour? Whereas the PTI today may appear to be the best bet, as opposed to PML(N) and the PPP, but matters have now fallen so far South that they are beyond any political party’s capacity to address and it would require a far more aggressive approach. Secondly, it is rather simplistic to suggest that a resolution can be found through mere reforms and we can thus right the wrong through them. Reforms are only as good as the intentions of those implementing them and if such good intentions
actually ever existed, we would not be looking for reforms in the first place. All reforms can easily be circumvented by vested interests when it suits those introducing the reforms and the frequent self-serving amendments to our Constitution stand testimony to this. The 1972 Constitution was a feeble attempt at providing a document to the people that was supposed to guarantee their rights, protection of life, limb and property but instead has been weaponised to beat one’s opponents into submission. It has failed to even safeguard its own form or function. The whole political system has been broken and the only way to set it back up and running is to address our issues with governance and the leadership. The former to establish a protocol of true responsibility and credible accountability, while the latter, to institute a convention of moral propriety. All other institutions and departments would then implement whatever lay within the limits of their jurisdiction under a structured overwatch, responsible supervision and due process. Thus the only method to fix the problems we are having is to reform the basic governance/political structure.
The political structure with the given players or available leadership cannot deliver, on account of two basic factors. The first is that western style democracy does not conform to society in Pakistan as it does in the west and so democracy in this form has failed the country. Second, the leadership that has been thrown up by such a democratic process is artificial and does not/cannot represent the people of this country. We have thus reduced democracy to a process that begins with and ends at the ballot box but does not include the essential component of a democratic process, i.e. the participatory process by the people. The people are kept at a distance while legislation is done by people who are mostly clueless as to what they are signing. Parliamentarians comprise feudal landed gentry, business magnates, property tycoons and hereditary political leadership who make it to the parliament through influence, coercion, bribery, intimidation, fraud, and false promises but never because of any genuine public popularity. The political process is heavily prejudiced by gender-bias, parochialism, nepotism and sectarianism, polarising the country, subordinating the national outlook to a disunited population loyal to their respective traditions/beliefs and customs than to the country itself. Thus true representation of the people and their own values etc. is very difficult to recognise. The current political leadership is open to sell their conscience and their soul only to remain in power. Such leaders in parliament remain absurdly compliant and predictably obedient to their well-wishers, in signing off on any piece of legislation that they are directed to approve. No prime-minister can rely upon such flexible, unreliable and untrustworthy people to implement anything he may have planned and by people who trump every attempt at legislation through horse trading and floor crossing. Every national decision is high-jacked by vested interests and scuttled before it is even tabled. Some glaring examples are implementing laws for pasteurised milk or one that govern axle loads on the highways. Complete institutions are made dysfunctional because of the system such as NACTA or NAP, both sacrificed at the altar of political convenience. Smuggling cannot be contained and the narco-business cannot be halted because of these anomalies. The whole country is held hostage to a system that is totally corrupt, obliged or compromised. How can this country ever run effectively and efficiently unless the system itself is discarded and replaced? No reforms can stand the test of time or be robust enough to sustain any improvements in any system or institution with this kind of leadership now at the helm of affairs. A leadership ready to circumvent any institutional regulations, laws or rules established by any amount of reforms?
Homegrown Democracy
So if it is democracy that we the people wish to embrace here in Pakistan, then we first we need to redefine democracy in our own terms and structure a system that is more appropriate for our own kind and type of people. We can no longer ape a system that is alien to our nature and character. A system that leaves open-ended loopholes for an unscrupulous leadership to exploit the country and the public only for their own benefit and always at the cost of the people. It does not mean redrawing the principles of a social contract and providing a totally new concept – Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ has not failed in Pakistan but has never been understood or even implemented. The contract evolves around the issue of ‘political obligation’ – to find a form of association that will defend and protect a person with the united force of society but will allow each person the greatest possible measure of individual freedom. First and foremost, a premise to any recommendations is needed, in where certain labels/titles and words must be clearly stipulated and understood. To begin with, ‘people’ come before anything – even the country. It is the people that make a country and not a country that makes the people. Thus, as in this case, it was the people who desired a separate country that they called Pakistan and as such this must be duly recorded. The people are always the most sovereign within a republic – it’s not the Parliament or the Senate etc. – just the people. After the people, comes the ‘country’ that they had decided to construct by a majority and popular vote, assertion or movement and which has a defined geographical identity. Next comes the ‘Constitution’ – which when constructed genuinely, of the people, by the people, for the people, is the basis upon which the people agree to establish an attorney/advocate – legislators, through an approved political system that represents them and protects their rights – a collectively approved manual to run their country. The Constitution stipulates, in detail and at length, relevant human rights, community rights and collective rights of the people which are then enshrined into the purpose and objective of that country – the wellbeing of the people. It is the Constitution then that defines organisations for the necessary regulators, executives, judiciary and security apparatus etc. that make up institutions – their organisations, jurisdictions and purpose. These institutions are designed to and empowered to implement all that the Constitution promises to ensure and fulfil in meeting the demands and the needs of the people. The institutions collectively then make up the ‘State’ and its machinery. Of these institutions some are constitutional i.e. the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislators while the rest are government departments. The difference between the two lies in that, the former cannot be modified or changed without a Constitutional amendment while the latter can be expanded, modified, corrected, changed or even dismantled through a defined given process or system.
Thus in summary, the order of merit and protocol within a political system must be the people, the country, the Constitution and the State in this order.
The take-away from this summary is that the people are the sovereign in such a setup, the country is a geographical entity that identifies with the people who live in it, the Constitution is a document that protects the people and the State implements the laws and regulations defined in the Constitution – the ultimate rule of thumb for national decision making is always – the wellbeing of the people. There is no other consideration other than the wellbeing of the people when making policy, whether it is the security, the domestic, the economic or foreign policy.
People’s Participation
Pakistan is considered today to have a population of 250 million of which 61% of the population is rural, according to the 2024 consensus and so with accepting a little change today, this will remain our working figure. The general voter turnout is never more than 50% with the last elections recording 150 million voters. Local Bodies elections have been reluctantly held but in a very distorted manner where votes do not matter as much as who one is associated with. The administrative groups emerging (nazims) are not empowered nor funded to do any work and instead become government sponsored touts, strongmen and the local badmash (official thugs). The average citizen has limited access to the executive element of administration, i.e. District Commissioner (DC), his office or his staff and thus with a dysfunctional Local Bodies system and no access to the DC’s office, the average citizen has no political voice/influence and his opinion does not carry. The best that he can do is sell his vote, oblige his benefactor or just ignore the balloting process.
Pakistan has a total of 172 administrative districts that fluctuate with minor changes and may, at any given time, increase or decrease. The break down is Sindh 30 districts, Punjab 41 districts, KP 40 districts, Balochistan 37 districts, Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) has 14 districts and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has 10 districts which makes a total of 172 Districts. These then are put into clusters of one, two or three into divisions.
There are no laid down criteria for establishing a district or a division and thus this is where the first political intervention takes place depending upon the influence of the local political leadership – they interfere, influence and commandeer districts/divisions. This leads to the politics of ‘owning’ and then ‘situating’ through improper postings and promotions of people of choice i.e. police officers, judges, civil administration officials. The local politician takes on the role of the local don and influences the political process anyway he wants – systemic political corruption begins from here-on upwards. For people to participate in a more meaningful manner in the management of their own lives, a parallel system is needed without disrupting the existing system in any huge way. To this end I propose the ‘Townhall’ concept. Communities of any specified numbers but for illustration, my model evolves around every 10,000 people to be aligned to a Townhall that meets every month or as per a universally nation-wide decided schedule. This would make about 25,000 Townhalls nationwide as per today’s population. Every citizen would be a member of some Townhall relevant to his own place of residence. The Townhall elects its own committee directly by the citizens including a chairman, a treasurer and a secretary along with at least six other members to define a minimal forum. The forum must include reserved seats for women, minorities and professionals. It would have a legal authority over local development plans, monitoring the district administration, approval of district budget allocations and public questioning of officials – addressing citizen complaints, etc. They also overwatch the executive functioning of the local bodies and ensure that due process is followed, as well as oversee, progress of all developmental works. The local bodies, adequately funded, provide the executive element, the bureaucracy but the necessary merger between the people and the government is through the Townhalls. This empowers the people and shifts responsibly for their own administrative needs to themselves. The Townhalls would function as local parliaments, oversight committees and be the civic forum. They would be deliberative and participatory, not just electoral. The Local Bodies will not have the freedom to allocate, decide and distribute civic/administrative projects which have not been approved by the Townhall Committee. To align the Local Bodies with the Townhalls, the same 10,000 people would be administered by the Local Bodies making it compatible and parallel to the Townhall. Each tehsil should be organised to coordinate 100 Local Bodies/ Townhalls and every district to administer about 7 Tehsils (700 Townhalls). Three to four delegates from each Townhall, with appropriate gender and minority representation reserved, would then be elected as members of divisional Townhalls and each division would thus have a Townhall as well. (Pakistan has currently 41 divisions and as such keeping it roughly at this number, it implies that each division would administer 3 districts) and one divisional Townhall. These divisional Townhalls, in total of 41 or equivalent to the number of divisions, would be tasked to coordinate inter-district coordination. Their focus would be on planning, harmonization and dispute resolution. They would become a federation of districts not another elite layer. Thus the hierarchy in the flow of authority would be citizens-district Townhall-division, Townhall-province-federation and not what is currently followed, i.e. Province-division-district-citizens; the method being proposed is a bottoms up approach. The districts and divisions should be constructed on a population base and not a geographical basis. As such funding at the lowest tier would be fixed in accordance to the basic units of 10.000 population per Townhall. However an additional weightage would be given for geographical difficulties such as size, difficult terrain such as mountains or riverine areas, and other limitations. This weightage would be derived by a fixed criterion and not open to politicisation or manipulation. The size of a division/district etc would also be a consideration for structural organisation, design and size such as staffing and equipping the DCs and Commissioners offices according to the ground situation and degree of difficulty. The implication of such measures aligns incentives, resource and governance. It also ensures that districts with more people due to more tehsils, etc. get proportionally more resources avoiding extreme disparities as they do now.
However, the central orientation of the proposal lies in the weightage leading to funding which makes the system propoor and development oriented rather than just population driven. Including historical deprivations would be a smart thing to do, since development does not start at a level playing field.
Such considerations must be carefully measured to include education, health, road connectivity indices, that would constitute a universal criterion, to avoid politicisation and misuse.
The Constitution
The Constitution is the basic document that directs, guides and establishes parameters in every step and stage of governance and needs special attention and focus. The current 1973 Constitution has lost its original character and has been distorted beyond recognition; probably has outlived its utility.
It is time to restructure a new Constitution recommended to be a ‘People’s Constitution’. It is recommended that a group of renowned constitutional experts including judges and lawyers of universally acknowledged and recognised reputation and expertise be assembled to undertake the task of writing a new constitution/s.
The constitution must formalise and legislate the matters of the Townhall, its mandate, structure and working as suggested above or as would be in any other improved and final version. The first priority would be to introduce the Presidential System as opposed to Parliamentary System as an alternative system, the matter to be examined, debated and discussed on national TV and radio so as to educate the people. In the second step essential ingredients of the constitution that make it a people friendly constitution must be discussed in the public domain – print and electronic media to explain the Townhall concept. Furthermore, the meaning of a secular system and state religion be clarified and that being secular does not mean being agnostic or an atheist but that it implies the freedom to believe in whatever one may choose. That after reasonable time has lapsed, say one or two years and enough people appear to have been sufficiently educated about the choices they have, related to selecting the constitution, the draft or drafts to be put up for a general referendum, to select the best draft – either as a whole document or in a summary of its parts, to be voted upon and approved in its different portions. The draft selected by the people be finished in its final form and to once again be approved through a general referendum. The document so secured would now be the sovereign voice of the people, for all times, the people’s constitution, and would not be open to amendment or suspension by any authority. In the event it needs to be amended, each amendment would need to be approved by another people’s general referendum.
The possibility of putting it into practice before the final referendum as a pilot test case over a 6 months’ period may be considered so that people can become familiar with it.
The affair should not be hurried since this constitution is expected to stand the test of time and remain a permanent piece of legislation. There still may be some allowances for minor adjustments that may not constitute amendments but more like executive adjustments to suit a change in the environment. The expected changes in environment that may need to be catered for such as population, climate, economic developments, to be properly stipulated.
Presidential Form
Whereas I am aware that the constitution would need to define which system has to be followed, i.e. presidential or parliamentarian, but I am assuming that with proper discussions, debates and arguments, this may well be an informed consensus decision arrived at – the presidential system. Thus, though this appears a little premature, yet, even as early as this stage, I recommend a presidential system since it is obvious that the parliamentary systems have neither worked so far, nor have shown any potential to work in the future. The main reason to arrive at such a conclusion are the existing totally skewed concept of politics: corrupted by bribery, illegal gratification, coercion and intimidation that parliamentarians are subjected to and either succumb to or participate in these, themselves, making the political process untenable. Thus hardly any political decision is born of political needs and necessity or in the interest of the people but is more a product of a compromised decision made to protect self and vested interests for those within the power corridors.
To avoid such a system, it is important to introduce a presidential system where one man elected along with a vice president, nominates a cabinet of technocrats. The nominations for the cabinet must be based on a defined criterion that ratify each nominee’s qualifications, reputation and experience. The cabinets must not be beyond a restricted number – a suggested number is about 16 people at the federal level. The provinces to have an elected governor and a deputy governor on the same principle as the federal method to appoint a president and vice president. The governors too may nominate a technocrat cabinet at the provincial level but ones that meets a defined criterion as in the federal system. The elections of the president and governors would take place every 4/5 years, whatever is stipulated by the constitution. Interested candidates would be registered with the Townhall Committees along with their proposed manifestos. The candidates must be grouped in pairs as a presidential and vice-presidential candidate or a governor and deputy governor candidate; no single names can be registered. Each pair of names must submit a manifesto which would define what steps and measures the candidates can project towards fulfilling the objectives specified in the constitution.
The focus would be on providing an essential list of yearly KPIs towards this end, to be evaluated periodically by an oversight committee, when and if one were appointed as the president and vice president or as governor and deputy governor. The Townhalls would filter the names of these candidates in pairs, against a defined criterion and send them to next tier after approval, i.e. the divisional Townhalls for further scrutiny. Thus, the highest office in the country would be dependent on the lowest level of governance, i.e. district Townhalls empowering the people and making them true participants and relevant to the affairs of the country. It would bring the complete spectrum of national politics, from the lowest to the highest, into one crucible leading to a homogenous national unity.
The Way Forward
Having discussed as much, these ideas suggested would remain ideas only unless they find a practical manifestation through some plan/ method or process. Given that the situation at present appears to be in a stalemate situation because of an unpopular government which is artificially entrenched and a people totally disillusioned that stand in opposition to one another, making the situation fluid and uncertain. Events can move in any direction, volume and tempo frustrating attempts at controlling it. This could lead to unintended consequences such as anarchy, revolution and bloodshed. It is therefore suggested, that regardless of what the government thinks, what may be right or wrong, it must consider the public perception, as is being demonstrated, on a daily basis, and allow for change through a controlled and regulated mechanism.
The mechanism that is being recommended can be any other/better form and that is not important in order to generate a discussion, here is one that is being suggested: The powers-that-be, to begin proceedings by facilitating the removal of the existing the government, secure their persons and confine them to some central place for their security and necessary administration. A caretaker government comprising suitable but apolitical individuals selected from the judiciary, retired civil administration and business/corporate organisations to establish a ruling clique at the federal as well as the provincial levels.
The criterion to select such individuals to be made public and should focus on education, experience and reputation. The panel for such a selection to comprise equal representation from all provinces including Kashmir and GB, selected through committees made up of recognised individuals of the province nominated by the respective governors or equivalent. The nominations should be based on reputation, social standing and recognition, established neutrality and a history of financial propriety. Sometime must be allowed for any public complaints about any nominee before the lists are finalised. The lists to invite/draw public comments through the press and media for about two to three days before finalisation.
The Care Taker Governments to be mandated to only run routine day-to-day functioning through the existing bureaucracy. They should not be allowed to fiddle with the constitution as it exists, budget, funds, financial systems, projects, policies, government recruitment, employment, extensions, retirements etc. Their tenure to be determined but because their main task would be to restructure the complete political spectrum, I would expect such a Care Taker to be in office for not less than a year. The tasks suggested for the Care Taker Government besides routine administration would be:
1. To commission a Truth Commission to study, analyse, and compile why and what went wrong with the Country related to its Governance. It must include statements voluntarily given by those responsible for the omission and commissions this Country has suffered and those who suffered the consequences. The findings must conclude the effects in terms of human tragedy and national loss because of the anomalies discovered. The commission to be autonomous and independent. The compiled works to be published as a book covering the period from 1947 and even before, if relevant, up to the current times. The Book to be part of the syllabus taught as the history of Pakistan to future generations without room for amendments or insertions. Any corrections, if needed, to be incorporated through a committee comprising recognised jurists from all provinces.
2. To establish a judicial inquiry into the blatant wrong doings that the country has suffered and to fix terms of reference for the inquiry. The inquiry, when finished, to be made public and published for general distribution to all book stores/ shops and libraries. Plea bargains would only allow for lesser sentencing and not as an alternative.
3. Authorise a team of renowned judges and lawyers to begin drafting a new constitution on the lines already recommended.
4. Authorise a team of experts to start a study on how to improve Pakistan’s economy, reduce debt and structure a sustainable model for economic development to include the following for analysis:
(a) Paperless economy by introducing digital economy to curb corruption and deny space for an informal economy. Taking a step by step, graduated approach to build capacity, capability awareness by phasing the system.
(b) To study making the country tax free as far as possible at product level, manufacturing, production, energy, exports and imports, thus ensuring lowering of all prices. Revenue to be collected through taxing all banking transactions on an annual basis, on a sliding scale with taxes progressing with higher expenses.
This would ensure that CPEC gets a fillip and industry would grow with the ease of doing business and higher profit margins and
(c) Institutionalise remittances by replacing unskilled labour through exporting skilled, trained labour. Such an initiative to be certified by international guilds through an internationally recognised qualifying testing system.
Commercial sections of all relevant embassies to have their performance measured by assessing real output in arranging employment in their respective areas. Polytechnic institutions planned should be established in far flung areas on a priority to facilitate alleviation of poverty.
5. To immediately establish Townhalls for every 10,000 people as recommended at the earliest at the District and the Divisional lev- el. Set up training centres for training in how to implement the concept.
6. Devise a system for the presidential and governor elections as proposed and train the Election Commission to understand its efficacy at all tiers and
7. Give a date for presidential elections and to hand over the government to the new- ly elected president and governors, giving them sufficient time, i.e. a month is suggested, to select their respective cabinets.
Note
Constructing a constitution, establishing Townhalls and arranging for elections of the president are the only three sacrosanct tasks of the Care Takers.
Whereas all other tasks stipulated to be started as soon as possible and in good faith but may be considered as work in progress till they are finished.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s repeated cycles of reform have failed not because of a lack of intelligence, intent, or technical knowledge, but because reform has consistently been approached as a matter of some administrative strategy, rather than, rationalising political and institutional power. Successive governments have attempted to adjust procedures, redraw jurisdictions, or introduce new mechanisms of accountability without confronting the deeper structural realities that determine how authority is exercised, resisted, and appropriated in practice. In this sense, reform has too often been cosmetic rather than transformative.
The central argument of this paper has been that meaningful change cannot occur without addressing three interlinked failures: the absence of genuine local accountability, the concentration of authority in insulated elite structures, and the unresolved imbalance between civilian political institutions and the military establishment. Each of these failures reinforces the others. Weak local governance prevents the emergence of responsible political leadership; elite capture of institutions blocks upward mobility and innovation; and civil–military disequilibrium distorts both political incentives and policy priorities. Reform initiatives that ignore this interdependence are therefore structurally incapable of success.
This paper has proposed that any viable reform strategy must begin not with technocratic adjustments but with institutional realignment. The creation of genuinely empowered and accountable local governance mechanisms is not merely an administrative improvement but a political necessity: it is the only way to reconnect authority with responsibility and to allow political legitimacy to be constructed from the bottom-up rather than imposed from top down. Similarly, recalibrating civil–military relations is not a question of personalities or events, but of redefining institutional boundaries in a way that restores civilian primacy without destabilising the state. The implications of this analysis are deliberately sobering.
There is no rapid, painless path to reform. Institutional change is inherently conflictual because it alters the distribution of power, resources, and status. Resistance is therefore not an anomaly but a predictable outcome. Recognising this does not make reform easier, but it does make it more honest. It shifts the discussion from “what should be done” in an abstract sense to “what can realistically be achieved” within existing political constraints, and how those constraints themselves might be gradually altered. Ultimately, Pakistan’s governance crisis is not a failure of ideas but a failure of institutions. Until reform efforts are anchored in an explicit understanding of power, incentives, and accountability, they will continue to produce movement without progress. The challenge, therefore, is not to design better policies alone, but to create the political and institutional conditions under which good policy can finally matter.
“Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains”- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
