Governmental Inabilities of Pakistan - Research Paper Example

Pakistan. Pakistan is an Islamic republic located in south Asia with an estimated population of about 178 million people and whose national language is Urdu and English. Before Pakistan became a republic, it used to be under the British colonial rule as a protectorate. In more recent times, Pakistan has become a hot bed of Islamic extremism that advocates for Jihad or Holy war against the enemies of Allah. This has seen the proliferation of outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. The objective of this essay is to try and identify the primary cause of Pakistan’s inability to unite and govern its citizens within the rule of law and good governance. Historically, Pakistan came under the rule of different rulers like the Mauryan Empire, which ruled for two hundred years before Christ (B.C). After this, Pakistan was conquered by the Kushan Empire. The area that is now Pakistan and India was always merged into one polity under all this different rulers who saw it as the best way to govern the Indian subcontinent (Kaplan 2). The area was characterized by two rivers; the Ganges River and the Indus River and their tributaries. The Indus River and its tributaries fall on the Pakistan side and the Indus with its tributaries fall on the Indian side, with the watershed running almost perfectly matching the border demarcation that separates the two countries. Earlier rulers, like the Kushans, never tried to demarcate the region into two separate entities unlike the British, Mughals and the Mauryans, who saw the need to group them under such entities (Kaplan 3). The source of Pakistan’s troubles could be attributed to the Muslim experience that Pakistan got under different Islamic warriors. Every successive conquest saw the area named as Pakistan today; being at the center of these conquered territories (Kaplan 1). One of the major capitals of the Mauryan Empire was Peshawar, which is a major city in today’s Pakistan. This further indicates that this region and Pakistan, as a whole, have had a long running history with Muslim influence (Kaplan 2). This does not imply that religion is the problem, in Pakistan, but an avenue used, by wrong elements, to act as a vessel for their objectives. Hurdles facing Pakistan can be linked to its history of being a frontier territory because it acted as a transition point for many cultures, religions and governments even in the medieval ages. There was the influence of religion and cultural diversity, from the Arab world and central Asia, on one side, and change of governments from the eastern frontier. It was made up of different socio-cultural elements, and with the dawn of the 20Th century, Pakistan did not inherit any form stable institutions that citizens believed in as was the case with neighboring India after Colonial rule (Kaplan 2). When Pakistan came into being, the majority of the country’s wealth existed in the Indus valley, which encompasses the Punjab state. It has the best irrigation fields and the river basin provided numerous resources business opportunities. The area was also on the trade routes used to trade with other neighboring regions like Afghanistan, China and Russia (New York Times 34). It has the best schools and the majority of females are educated unlike other parts of Pakistan like the Sindhi, Baluchistan and Pashtun states. This caused discontent to develop between the privileged state of Punjab and the rest of the country (Kaplan 3). This led to the development of strong ethnic authorities at the expense of government institutions that were lacking or were inefficient. Their different linguistic varieties strengthened the animosity between different warring factions. This has left the country with Islamic idealism as the only attempt at unification which has fuelled Islamic extremism (Kaplan 4). The inhabitants of the Indus River valley complain that they are discriminated against as the only working portion of the population (Kaplan 4). Failed or failing state institutions are the principle problems facing Pakistan because successive governments have failed to institute a centralized government authority. This has been partly due to its engagement in conflicts with India over the Border region of Kashmir and Afghanistan. When a government engages in sporadic warfare, it weakens its central power a situation that Pakistan has existed in for decades. When a government faces a unidirectional enemy, it can respond by focusing a concentrated military affront which is reassuring to its citizens and cements the government’s institutional authority (Kaplan 4). Lack of these institutions and the emergence of ethnic based authorities are the leading causes of a dysfunctional Pakistani state. They undermine efforts the government institutions make to establish a centralized authority since they have the majority support from civilians (New York Times 34). The government has to depend on such institutions to enact its policies. Ethnic based state authorities, in turn, implement these policies but do not maintain the national outlook initially intended by the formulators, they only execute what is in their favor. This leads to the existence of fragmented states within a state making them vulnerable to manipulation by external forces. Their tied relations, with the Muslim world, make this country susceptible to Muslim extremists’ ideology, and with a weakened central government, which operates at the mercy of the ethnic authorities (New York Times 37). It becomes difficult to propagate any form of national security as exemplified by the presence of a majority of Punjabis in the country’s intelligence service; this means that they can jeopardize national security as long as it serves their state’s interests (Kaplan 4). When Gen. Pervez Musharraf took power, in a coup, he promised to fight corruption, improve Pakistan’s financial status by giving the central bank a free reign, and taxing the wealthy elite (The New York Times 2). He faced the same problems, as his predecessors, without knowing it since nepotism and ethnicity are so entrenched, in this nation, which it exists subconsciously without people’s consents. His allies in executing the coup might have been most likely from his ethnic group, and once they had power, they could not allow him to mitigate the authority wielded by their states (New York Times 41). Weeding out corruption and preventing capital flight was also impeded by same elements of nepotism and ethnicity. Setting up of an independent judicial service was hindered by the same factors. President Musharraf promised the country democracy, but it only resulted in flawed elections marred with allegations of rigging, voter bribery and intimidation. His continued reign as a democratically elected president only saw the country plunging deeper into the depths of ethnicity, nepotism and the increased influence of Islamic extremist factions like Al Qaeda. Gen. Pervez Musharraf extended stay on the presidency led the country to a similar path it had trodden under the dictatorship of Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, whose extended stay on the presidency left the country in a far much worse situation than he had found it (The New York Times 30). After a while, his government was unable to give the government real central authority because of the influence of the strong divided local authorities, which did not fully appreciate his role or purpose. His promise of democracy only saw his rise to a military dictatorship (The New York Times 1999). In 1970, the Bengal cyclone caused the death of 500,000 people and the destruction of property worth billions. The way the government handled the recovery process was flawed, and there was a public outcry locally and brought about international condemnation (The New York Times 30). The bitterness from people worst hit by the cyclone in the region of Bengal, which is now Bangladesh, saw to the uprising of an armed conflict fighting for the separation of Bangladesh (The New York Times 2). The government was not in a position to suppress the uprising as its armies were spread all over the place warding off external confrontations, in the Kashmir boarder region and the Afghan frontier, in the mountains. With the segmented nature of the country, there could have been no way of actualizing a concerted response against such an uprising because of the divisions in the country that transcended even the army (New York Times 30). In conclusion, Pakistan, as a country, needs to reconsider its options regarding governance. The introduction of a true democracy is the only way the people of Pakistan can appreciate the governance role of state institutions. Democracy helps legitimize and authenticate proposed government institutions; through this, civilians are granted the opportunity to elect office holders whom they believe can work towards realizing their goals and visions. Democracy helps in uniting people because when they participate in an election, it gives them a sense of identity with the leader that they elect. It makes citizens of any country know that the leader in power is there because of their will and not an imposition by some other force. Relying on religion as a unifying factor is a good option but it is bound to fail where there are wide and glaring social and cultural inadequacies. Harmonization of the ethnic groups and centralization of institutional authority in Pakistan can only be done through true democracy that is free of partisan interests. Works Cited. Kaplan R. D. "What's Wrong with Pakistan?" Failed States (2012): 1. Print. New York Times. "Pakistan's Choices, America's Interests." General Interest Periodicals-- United States (1990): A34. Print Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.kbcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/docview/108469697?accountid=38336 New York Times. "Pakistan's Military Temptation." ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2009) (1999): 2. Print Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.kbcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/hnpnewyorktimes/docview/110012809/13AF5DADA027D4171AF/1?accountid=38336 New York Times. "Pakistan's Problem And Ours." ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2009) (1970): 30. Print Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.kbcc.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/docview/119063869?accountid=38336 Read More