WE frequently quote the sayings of the great Quaid-i-Azam. We make speeches in front of his portraits, listen to accounts of his life and repeat passages from his historic first address to the Constituent Assembly. Seminars, television programmes and newspaper columns regularly remind us of his vision. Yet we have failed to practise the values he represented. We discuss what kind of leader he was and what kind of governance he aspired to establish, but we have struggled to translate those principles into national conduct and public policy.
Our inability to govern with national spirit and patriotism has left Pakistan behind many regional countries. We may face external challenges, but one of our greatest problems has been our own failure to maintain discipline, work hard, build consensus and put national interests above personal and political considerations.
When I speak of the incompetence and misgovernance of political leadership, I refer not merely to individual governments but to a broader culture of extravagance, weak administration, poor management of bureaucracy and failure to perform the role of genuine representatives of the people. Civilian governments have made controversial and, at times, undemocratic constitutional changes. They have also frequently taken unpopular decisions without adequately addressing the needs of the provinces or creating harmony and unity among people from different regions.
The separation of East Pakistan remains our greatest national tragedy. Political alienation, mistrust and grievances in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should have taught us that national unity cannot be imposed; it must be built through justice, representation, dialogue and economic opportunity. Unfortunately, religious extremism was also allowed to grow by providing political space to extremist elements. Was it not the responsibility of political leadership to isolate such forces rather than allow them to consolidate their influence?
The Afghan war, the policies of the Zia era and the proliferation of militant networks contributed significantly to the growth of religious extremism in Pakistan. Yet after Zia-ul-Haq’s departure, our political leadership in the 1990s failed to develop a collective and sustainable strategy to address the problem. Sectarianism subsequently weakened social cohesion and damaged Pakistan’s image as a tolerant Islamic state.
Political leadership has too often failed to place national priorities above personal interests. Had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto accepted Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s electoral mandate after the 1970 election, Pakistan’s history might have been very different. At the same time, history must acknowledge Bhutto’s significant contribution in giving Pakistan its first unanimously approved Constitution in 1973.
The Ayub era deserves recognition for economic planning, industrial development, infrastructure and the construction of major dams, which contributed to agricultural and economic growth. Several Five-Year Plans were introduced, and Pakistan experienced significant industrial expansion. Yet Ayub Khan’s style of governance also had serious shortcomings. The imprisonment of political leaders and intellectuals, restrictions on political activity and, most importantly, his decision to contest the presidential election against Fatima Jinnah, the sister of the Quaid-i-Azam, remain controversial chapters in our political history. Several democratic forces, including Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, supported Fatima Jinnah.
Our political leadership has generally concentrated on short-term policies and projects rather than developing innovative, out-of-the-box national strategies. Political wisdom, sagacity and nationalism have too often been overwhelmed by personal vendettas, political animosities and partisan interests.
The most serious weakness has been the absence of a national agenda and policy continuity. Every incoming government has tended to abandon or weaken the policies of its predecessor, even when those policies were useful for the country. Political parties have often treated national policies as the property of the previous government rather than as national assets.
The example of public-private partnerships and the local government system introduced during General Musharraf’s era illustrates this problem. Instead of evaluating such initiatives objectively and retaining what worked, successive governments often discontinued or altered them simply because they were associated with their predecessors.
The same problem has affected population planning, religious extremism, privatisation, foreign investment, infrastructure development and other areas requiring long-term commitment. Pakistan does not merely suffer from a shortage of policies; it suffers from a shortage of continuity.
Political alliances are readily formed for elections, but agreement on long-term national interests remains elusive. Parliamentarians have at times been bought and sold through horse-trading, loyalties have changed and governments have been destabilised. Yet the country’s fundamental problems have remained unresolved.
From this perspective, we may have won many elections, but we have often failed to win the hearts and confidence of our people. Consequently, Pakistan has repeatedly slipped into political instability, uncertainty, division and chaos. Democracy has been interrupted, weakened or manipulated rather than allowed to mature through constitutional continuity.
Instead of dialogue, diplomacy and discourse, we have frequently promoted jingoism in our relations with India. This has provided neither a lasting solution nor relief to the people of the region; rather, it has intensified rivalry, hostility and war-mongering. At the same time, Pakistan faces serious challenges on its western frontier from militancy, including the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. Our political leadership must therefore recognise that security challenges require a comprehensive strategy rather than reliance on rhetoric alone.
The credibility of elections has also suffered from allegations of rigging and manipulation. Such allegations undermine the sanctity of the vote, weaken public confidence and ultimately discredit political institutions. Similarly, corruption scandals have become almost routine. Changes to accountability laws have sometimes generated the perception that powerful and affluent groups can protect themselves from meaningful scrutiny. Such perceptions are deeply damaging to public trust in democratic governance. Pakistan’s political leadership must also confront the population crisis, which has been treated as if it were a secondary issue. Overpopulation is a cross-cutting challenge affecting education, health, employment, housing, water, food security and governance itself. Millions of children remain out of school, most of them from disadvantaged families, while Pakistan continues to face a low human-development position. Who is responsible for addressing this long-term crisis if not the political leadership that has governed the country for decades?—Continued
—The writer is Senior Retd bureaucrat, based in Lahore.
