Leadership Crisis in Pakistan - Coursework Example

LEADERSHIP CRISIS IN PAKISTAN by of the of the Overview Right after the eveof 67th Independence Day on 14th August 2014, Pakistan’s decades-long fight for establishing a reliable democratic system has faced a new challenge in the form of massive anti-government uprising in Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan. Mob led by the opposition leaders have aggressively demanded democratically elected present Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to step down from his position.1 However, the Pakistani Prime Minister regarded such demands as absurd and contrary to the Pakistani Constitution. The majority of groups in Islamabad are willing new round of parliamentary elections. The rigid and vociferous nature of the protests and unwillingness of protestors to disperse from key government building areas have caused a deadlock. After 2 weeks, the dominating Pakistani Army declared that it would act as “coordinator” in pursuit of resolution. It has led many political experts to anticipate a new term of military governing in the country. As the democratic government under Nawaz Sharif’s leadership is further weakening in the country that has suffered 3 military coups in its 67 years of history, it has triggered a further setback to democratization in the country.2 Consequently, Pakistan is shifting gradually towards massive instability and turmoil. Over the years, Pakistan has faced a strong absence of leadership and concrete structure of political system. The leadership crisis in Pakistan has significantly affected the democratization process in the country. Massive dithering in the political leadership has weakened the confidence of Pakistani people in the ideology of democracy. Lack of domestic and global vision, absence of effective constitution, presence of political dynasty, high rate of corruption, excessive domination of Islamic radicalism and military in the country’s political system are some of the major causes of constant political unrest and leadership crisis in the country.3 The purpose of this critical analysis is to evaluate the political history of Pakistan and highlight the leadership crisis in its governing system. Pakistani Politics: A Historical Background Pakistan is a neighbouring country of 3 largest countries in Asia i.e., India, China, and Russia. Constituting ethic groups from southern Asia, Central Asia, and eastern Asia, Pakistan can be considered as a melting pot of global fault lines. Looking back in the political history of Pakistan, a fascinating story of decades-long struggle of a Muslim country to find its existence unfolds. British Rule and the Creation of Pakistan Indian subcontinent was the British colony for almost 200 years from 1757 to 1947. The success of British Empire in the Indian subcontinent was based on the military power and the effective policy of “divide and rule”. During the political reforms in the late 19th century, the Indian National Congress Party, which represented the majority of Hindus, was formed in 1885, while Muslim League, which was protecting the interests of Muslim minority, was established later in 1906.4 In the early 1940s, the Muslim League leader, Sir Muhammad Ali Jinnah raised the demand for separate state for Muslim minority. He demanded that the north-western provinces of British India and the state of Jammu-Kashmir should be included in the new state. With the growing tensions between the Muslim League and the Congress Party, the deadlock over the future of Independent India further intensified. As partition became inevitable, British government approved the demand of Jinnah and on 14 August 1947, Pakistan was declared as an independent state.5 The name of Pakistan was originated from the abbreviation of its provinces, i.e., Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Indus-Sindh, and Baluchistan. Initially, Pakistan was divided into two parts: West Pakistan, which stands today’s Pakistan, and East Pakistan, presently known as Bangladesh.6 Almost 1700 km of Indian territory separated both the parts of Pakistan. The partition of India-Pakistan caused enormous dislocation of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus between both the countries. The demographic transfer was accompanied with the massive inter-ethnic riots which triggered bitterness between India and Pakistan. After the partition, Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir decided to merge his state in India even though over 80% of its population was Muslim. Pakistan challenged the decision and first Indo-Pak war broke out in 1947. Both the countries have fought 4 massive wars over the disputed territory of Kashmir and deadlock still exists over the Kashmir issue.7 Pre-Republican Period West Pakistan and East Pakistan were divided by not only territory but also by ethic and language differences. Jinnah was a democratic leader who was determined to form Pakistan as a democratic state for Muslim minorities. However, Muslim league was more eager to establish Pakistan as an Islamic state. Liaquat Ali Khan was the 1st Prime Minister of independent Pakistan while Muhammad Ali Jinnah remained Governor-General of Pakistan until his death in 1948.8 After partition, Pakistan was suffering from economic crisis, affecting its civil and military bureaucracy. Unlike Indian leaders, Pakistani politicians were more concerned with political power and their economic interests rather than forming effective democratic constitution. Constant controversies over the issue of the role of Islam, the national language, assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, provincial representation, distribution of power between the center and the provinces, delayed constitution forming and general elections shattered the faith of common public over the formation of democratic state that would provide fair administration and socio-economic justice to all citizens.9 Ayub Era In the late 1956, Pakistan’s firs constitution was declared. However, general election under the new constitution was never held due to disputes over the distribution of electoral districts. In East and West Pakistan, government lost its confidence votes in the assembly and “President Rule” was declared by the President Iskander Mirza. As civil war broke in the country, Mirza imposed martial law in 1958 and appointed General Ayub Khan as a Prime Minister and the Chief Martial Law Administrator. However, after just 3 weeks of in-charge in position, Ayub Khan forced the President Mirza out of presidential power and declared himself the president of Pakistan.10 The rising politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose family dominated the political system in Pakistan for next several years, joined the government as Commerce Minister. According to the political experts, it was the worst example set by the political leaders of that time which triggered the military culture in Pakistani political system for many years.11 Ayub Khan established the military dictatorship in the country which was completely opposite of the Jinnah’s democratic ideologies. In 1965, as India lost the war with China, Ayub Khan saw it as a golden opportunity to attack India and claim the disputed territory of Kashmir. However, ill-planned and unorganized attack under the leadership of Ayub Khan led to sever defeat of Pakistan in the war. The US, which was ally of Pakistan during the Cold War, denied military and economic aid to Pakistan during the war, raising the feeling of betrayal and anger among Pakistani citizens. In following year, Ayub Khan and Indian Prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri signed a Tashkent Agreement. According to it, both the countries withdrew their forces and agreed the 1949’s UN approved Kashmir border. The Tashkent Agreement and humiliation of defeat in the Kashmir war highlighted the major flaws of the Ayub administration, raising massive turmoil and protests against his government.12 Foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto saw an opportunity and resigned his position. He used Kashmir war as a weapon against Ayub’s dictatorship and intensified anger against the government. Ayub Khan resigned in March 1969 and handed over presidency to the Army chief, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan instead of giving power to the speaker of the National Assemble as stated in the constitution.13 1971 War and the Rise of Bangladesh After gaining the presidency, Yahya Khan fired about 300 senior civil officers and controlled 30 families, which were influencing around half of Pakistan’s net product, in order to make his ruling stronger and acceptable. In the election of late 1970, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, a leader from East Pakistan, gained clear majority in the National Assembly, while Zulfikar Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party rose as the largest party in West Pakistan. Yahya Khan was against the power shift in East Pakistan. Therefore, in order to keep the ruling power in West Pakistan, Yahya Khan accused Sheikh Rehman for radical politics and postponed the government forming. After it, Mujib’s faith in united Pakistan lost and began the movement in East Pakistan for the independent state.14 During the civil war, Pakistani army started massive attacks against the poorly armed Bengali population. As the barbaric violence against mass Eastern Pakistani population rose to peak, India intervened on December 1971 and defeated Yahya Khan’s army.15 With the rise of Bangladesh, political power is again shifted from Yahya Khan to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.16 Bhutto Government In 1973, the National Assemble adopted its 5th constitution in merely 25 years of Pakistan’s existence. According to new constitution, Zulfikar Bhutto became Prime Minister of Pakistan. Bhutto emphasized on Islamic socialism and nationalized banks, important industries, companies, colleges, and schools which significantly slowed down the economic growth of the country. Pakistan had no political infrastructure to implement successful socialism; instead it had bureaucratic socialism in which government servants managed the industries. In other words, Pakistan at that time neither had discipline for capitalism nor motivation for socialism.17 During the period, military was weakened due to the defeat in 1971 war and hence, remained calm in political scenarios. However, Bhutto’s socialist policies earned him the enmity of the capitalist class and Islamic leaders who were considering socialism as an enemy of Islam. During the elections of 1977, 9 opposition parties were united in the form of Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) against Bhutto’s PPP. PNA suffered loss in 3 out of 4 provinces. Even in regions where Bhutto’s candidate couldn’t even hold meeting due to opposition’s strong domination PPP won by massive 90-95% of majority votes. It leads to suspicion over the legitimacy of elections. Bhutto’s idiotic move of manipulating the votes caused massive protests against Bhutto.18 When situation worsened, it gave military to revive its power. The army chief, General Muhammad Zia Ul-Haq executed a coup in July 1977, and declared another military governing. Bhutto was convicted for political murder and found guilty. Bhutto was hanged on 4 April 1979. Behind the execution of Bhutto, Zia was considered as a major player.19 Zia’s Dictatorial Era Zia Ul-Haq made dramatic changes in a political structure of the country by implementing Shariah (Islamic law) as the fundamental law in the country. Zia dropped the constitution of 1973 in 1979 and implemented constitutional reforming that was highly based on radical Islamic laws. Zia injected Islam in the administration and military of Pakistan, which encouraged hypocrisy in the political system of the country. Zia was the first Pakistani leader who exploited the religion for political reasons.20 The way he introduced most of the radical Islamic rules and laws in the country opened up the way for religious leaders who wanted their dogmatic, very radical, short-sighted, and riotous visions in legal framework for Pakistan.21 The implementation of extreme Shariah laws caused tremendous exploitation of women and religious minorities in the country. In 1983, Zia faced 1st anti-government and pro-democratic movement in the country, leading to referendum and martial law in the state. The result of referendum about the continuation of Islamic-law policies came in favour of Zia as opposition was highly oppressed. A country, which was expected to form on a democratic ideology, was ruled by radical Islamic military dictator, pushing it further in a dark future and instability. The result of biased and unfair referendum allowed Zia to continue his dictatorial presidency until 1990. However, in 1988, Zia was killed in an airplane accident, leading to the end of another military regime in the country.22 Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif Regime In late 1980s, with the fall of dictatorship, stage was dramatically set for democracy to come back. Military was well aware of the fact that if it had protect the international aid on which Pakistan was heavily relied upon, it had to consider at least to show democracy in the country. After the elections in 1988, Benazir Bhutto, PPP leader, became 1st female Prime Minister of the country.23 However, soon Islamist in the military started to agitate over female leadership in an Islamic state and that undermined the democratic process even before it started. From outer view, it seemed as military was inactive from political system, but in actual, it was active in the background of political structure to bring down the democracy. A secret alliance between the Pakistani military and Islamic extremists weakened Pakistani society from becoming more liberal and undermined Pakistan’s democratic aspiration. Soon after taking the charge of government, Bhutto faced ethnic riots in the country and again, military got a power to dissolve the government. Under the pressure of military and Islamic groups, President Ishaq Khan dismissed Bhutto’s government and charged her for abuse of power and corruption.24 The new Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Islamic Democratic Alliance, vowed to bring back Islamic law in the country and to lessen the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The Kashmiri jihad caught the attention of the US and Pakistan was pressurized to take strong actions against it. So, the scapegoat was made and Sharif was dismissed from his position in order to gain the trust of the US administration and restore the relation with the US.25 In 1993, the charges against Bhutto were removed and Bhutto again came into the power by winning the election of 1993.26 During the 2nd term of power, Bhutto learned from the earlier mistakes and avoided conflict with army and security services. Bhutto openly supported the Islamic jihadists in Kashmir and Afghani Taliban. However, Bhutto was again dismissed by the President when her husband was arrested under the charges of corruption. In an inevitable game of musical chairs, Sharif became a prime minister of Pakistan for the 2nd time. 27 Musharraf Era Pakistan never had continuity in its politics and Pakistani military was a massive propaganda machine which regularly emphasized on an incapability of civil government to carry the country. But, the truth is, they never got a chance to move to the next level of experience and knowledge and Benazir Bhutto is a classic example of it. By October 1999, military was again in a power through a bloodless coup when Sharif tried to dismiss military General Parvez Musharraf and was found guilty by the court for conspiring against Musharraf. General Musharraf held a referendum in 2002 and gained the Presidency of Pakistan for next 5 years. After 9/11, Musharraf got a golden opportunity to improve the relations with the US by supporting its war against terrorism. Musharraf’s Anti-Taliban campaign was a tactical decision to divert the attention of the world towards the war against Al-Qaeda and allow him to open a front for military insurgents in Kashmir.28 In 2007, Musharraf issued a controversial law that would protect the officials with the history of corruption charges. The law paved the way for previously exiled leaders, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, to return home and participate in elections. In the elections of 2007, Musharraf won the presidential seat but was challenged by Supreme Court. In response, Musharraf declared the state of emergency and sacked the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, triggering a widespread movement against his power.29 Latest political Unrest On 27 December 2007, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during the campaign for 2008 election.30 Musharraf was mainly accused to hide the information of possible attack from the security groups for Bhutto. In 2008, Yousuf Gilani was elected as a prime minister after the PPP’s win in the election on the sympathy votes over Benazir Bhutto’s death. Following the election, Musharraf resigned from presidency due to growing pressure from all political and social levels. Asif Ali Zardari, husband of Benazir Bhutto, became president of Pakistan on 6 September 2008. In 2012, Supreme Court disqualified Prime Minister Gilani for denying to reopen past corruption cases against the former president Asif Ali Zardari.31 After winning the election of 2013, Nawaz Sharif was appointed as a prime minister of Pakistan, while Mamnoon Hussain was elected as a president by the national parliament. However, soon in August 2014, another massive political unrest broke out when opposition party leader Imran Khan and anti-government preacher Tahirul Qadri accused fraud during the election of 2013 and demanded resignation of Nawaz Sharif from his position. Massive violent anti-government protests were quickly escalated in majority of regions in Pakistan.32 In September 2014, government and opposition party held talks but failed to resolve the deadlock, triggering further instability in the county. 33 Where It Went Wrong? It is obvious that Pakistan has failed to produce good leadership and one can’t deny the fact that the root of all present political crisis lies in the political history of Pakistan. The lack of vision, discipline, and ineffective policies damaged the early process of development. For instance, in 1947, India and Pakistan were almost at the same level in terms of political, social, and economic aspect. After independence, India focused on the development of constitution and required infrastructure. The Indian leaders had set goals and objectives, and the process of economic and social developments were already begun by the end of 1950s. In contrary, Pakistani leaders had no set objectives about the economic and political developments of the country.34 The disputes over power distribution, national language, and the role of Islam delayed the formation of constitution and effective legal system. The absence of effective political infrastructure from the very beginning allowed the political leaders to abuse the power and alter the laws according to their convenience.35 The political chaos reflected on the stability in society and the country was highly prone to any kind of provocation as it was just emerging from the enormous bloodshed and violent riots during the partition. Since the beginning, the leadership in Pakistan failed to provide much-needed peace and stability to the country. The political leaders were busy in the game of political power and economic status, ignoring the fundamental needs of democratization. Also, Over the years, political power is only concentrated in the Punjab province and other provinces are purposely kept away from being coming into the power. Uneven distribution of power led to the emergence of Bangladesh and constant domestic battles in Baluchistan for its separation from Pakistan.36 Constant violence and civil wars in the country have rose significant instability on a political, economical, and social level in the country.37 The constant instability in the political leadership of Pakistan allowed the military, which was the only disciplined unit during the time, to enter into the governing body and control the administration of the country. Military’s intervention in politics and its disengagement from politics shattered the democratization process in the country and can be considered as a major setback in achieving political stability and consistency in leadership. As claimed by various political theorists, like David Pian-Berlin, almost every military intervention is followed by a military withdrawal. Militaries have capability to interfere in politics and seize the power. However, the purpose of such intervention is usually based on the vow of maintaining the law and order and protecting the society from falling for any type of violence and turmoil until new government is formed.38 In healthy democratic structure, Marshal Law is implemented solely for such purposes. However, Pakistani military Generals abused their power to gain political control and establish own dictatorship. The military personnel could enjoy leadership in Pakistan mainly due to weak political parties and oppressed civilian rights to elect their leader through fair democratic method.39 With multi-political party culture, Pakistani political parties are highly reliant on particular individuals who carry the identity of the party. Domination of dynasticism in political system of Pakistan allows only particular dominated faces to rule the country, discouraging healthy democratic competition and opportunity to new, eligible candidates to lead the nation. Dynasty in political culture of Pakistan encourages high corruption and fraud practices in the whole political system. Over the years, financial aid and loans received by Pakistani government for the purpose socio-economic development are misappropriated by the corrupt leaders for their personal luxury. Misuse of the $7.5 billion aid package from the US under the 2009 Kerry-Lugar legislation for the development of non-military sectors and massive Rs 720 billion of foreign debt in 2012, which were hardly used for interests of Pakistani population, have raised the serious questions over transparency in the function of Pakistani government.40 41 Evaluation Democracy isn’t about merely holding elections. It consists of various steps of forming government that is elected by common people to protect the interests of common citizens. Also, leadership is a practice of creating social influence that motivates and increases the efforts of others to achieve set goals or objectives. In case of Pakistan, neither democracy nor leadership is followed in accordance to its basic principles. Each leader imposed their own ideology, sometimes in the form of dictatorship, sometimes in the form of socialism, and sometimes in the form of radical Islamism. Also, none of them actually cared about the development of country, but own political and economical interests. Constant wars, domestic conflicts, domination of Islamic militants and religious leaders, bureaucracy of military, and massive corruption have significantly damaged the socio-economic system of Pakistan, triggering high rate of poverty, illegal drug and arm trades, and violent crimes in the society. Poverty, crimes, and instability are all interconnected factors and Pakistan has deeply stuck in this never-ending cycle. With the current political unrest, Pakistan is facing another episode of political uprising. All political groups including, opposition parties, military, Islamic groups, and radical militants are trying to exploit the system and secure own interests by overthrowing the current government.42 Recent terrorist attacks in Peshawar school, intensified conflict between central government and Baloch political leaders, and growing protests against current government indicate another political power shifts, highlighting the leadership and political crisis in the country.43 44 Conclusion Pakistan is suffering from political instability since its independence in 1947. The various research and reports have regularly highlighted the major flaws in its political system, particularly in the leadership. Lack of effective constitution and democratic system in addition to the absence of disciplined and dedicated leadership that would genuinely work for the progress of country caused tremendous impact on the development of peaceful and progressive society in Pakistan. High prevalence of corruption, uneven distribution of power, and Islamic radicalism have led to constant political instability in the country. Due to the immense leadership crisis, Pakistan is on the verge of becoming failed state in the world. It is necessary for the current government and other political organizations to work collectively to reform the political structure and adopt effective policies to develop stable and peaceful society. Bibliography Ali, Y, Pakistans leadership crisis. Exploring the causes, OpEdNews (OEN), 2014, retrieved 2 January 2015, < http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pakistan-s-leadership-cris-by-Yasmeen-Ali-Democracy_LEADER_Leadership-PACs-140129-883.html>. Associated Press, Pakistan profile, BBC, 19 December 2014, News Asia, retrieved 2 January 2015, < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12966786>. Baxter, C, Weiss, AM, Rogers, JD, Becker, ML, & TP Thornton, A country study: Pakistan, Library of Congress, 2011, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Bell, A, Military disengagement from politics: the case of Pakistan’s revolving barracks door, Georgetown Security Studies Review, 2014, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Bokhari, F, Leadership crisis in Pakistan, gulfnews.com, 2012, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Dolek, C, Pakistan in crisis: state failure or unequal power constructs?, The Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2013, retrieved 2 January 2015, < http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/270/pakistan-in-crisis-state-failure-or-unequal-power-constructs.html>. Hashim, A, Pakistans unending battle over Balochistan, Al Jazeera, 16 April 2013, In Depth, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Hussain, M, & A Hussain, Pakistan: problems of governance, akmalhussain.net, 1993, pp. 1-24, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Kronstadt, KA, & S Kumar, Pakistan political unrest: in brief, Congressional Research Service (CRS), 2014, pp. 1-11, retrieved 2 January 2015, < http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43717.pdf>. Kugelman, M, 4 reasons to worry about Pakistan’s latest political crisis, The Wall Street Journal, 2014, retrieved 2 January 2015, < http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/15/4-reasons-to-worry-about-pakistans-latest-political-crisis/>. Kukreja, V, Contemporary Pakistan: political processes, conflicts and crises, Sage Publications, London, 2003. Memon, AP, Memon, KS, Shaikh, S, & F Memon, ‘Political instability: a case study of Pakistan’, Journal of Political Studies, vol. 18, no.1, 2008, pp. 31-43. ‘Political history of Pakistan’, elections.com.pk, 2012, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Sajjad, MW, External factors of instability in Pakistan – troubled alliances in war, academia.edu, 2010, pp. 1-28, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Snellinger, A, Pakistan: a political history, Asia Society, 2014, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Strahorn, EA, A fresh start for Pakistan?, osu.edu, 2014, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Zafar, SM, Leadership crisis and its impacts in Pakistan, The Pakistani Spectator, 12 February 2012, retrieved 2 January 2015, . Read More