Pakistani History

Q. Tahir Kamran has suggested that by the end of the 20th century, Pakistanis had become
immune to the distinction between democracy and dictatorship. Discuss this statement
using at least 2 distinct periods. You may agree, disagree, or choose to remain neutral in
stance.
I disagree with the statement that by the end of the 20th century, Pakistanis had become
immune to the distinction between democracy and dictatorship. I will prove my argument by
comparing the 1988 1999 eras of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif with the 1999 2008 era of
Pervaiz Musharraf. I will base my argument around socio-economic, political and the power of
military in Pakistan.
Starting with the socio-economic factors; if we compare both the eras, we find that Pakistan has
always prospered when a military dictator is at the helm of the state; be it Ayub Khan, Zia ul
Haq or Pervaiz Musharraf. The GDP growth rate during Pervaiz Musharrafs time was more than
6%, whereas, during the 1988 1999 era the GDP growth rate averaged around a mere 3%. This
shows that a military dictators rule has always been seen as good time for economic prosperity
and industrialization. Coming towards the matter of corruption in the economy, it is widely noted
that corruption during the 1988-1999 years was very high, Tahir Kamran, explicitly mentions
Asif Zardari, the Husband of Benazir Bhutto, who had come to be known as Mr. ten percent.
(kamran, T. (2008). Democracy and governance in pakistan, pg.145-146).
Furthermore, tackling the issue of civil riots and general unrest, tahir Kamran notes that the
democratic governments had become very unpopular in Sindh and Karachi, where various
operations were carried out by the army to cleanse the region from dacoits, however, this
operation resulted in one of the greatest episodes of ethnic violence as the army was not well
trained to conduct an operation inside a city; it is said that operation clean up was on borderline
ethnic cleansing. (kamran, T. (2008). Democracy and governance in pakistan, pg.151).
On the other, hand it is argued that during the era of Pervaiz Musharraf, the middle class of
Pakistan prospered. Moreover, the economy had a good growth rate, and the economy was seen
to be less corrupt than those of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Institutions such as the
National Accountability Bureau were set up to act as a watch dog and a devolution plan was set
up for education and health.
However, it must be noted that the era of Pervaiz Musharraf was riddled with controversies as
well, two of them were the sale of the Pakistan steel mill, which was sold at a much undervalued
amount, and the other was the missing persons case, whereby, citizens would be taken away
without a warrant and be imprisoned with a trial. Hence, it would be unfair to say that all was
good during the 1999 2008 era.
Moving onto the political scene in Pakistan, we see that the 1988 1999 era sees a change of 4
governments in a space of 11 years. This shows that the political situation is Pakistan was highly
unstable and the political foes would do anything to get the upper hand. One such example is
given by Tahir Kamran, where he states that, Benazir sent a telegram to President Ghulam Ishaq
Khan pressing on him to sack Nawaz Sharif.218 In November 1992 she also orchestrated a long
march on Islamabad and immediately afterwards a train march just to see Nawaz Sharif led IJI
government unraveled. That indeed was a strange turn of events, Benazir had been hobnobbing
with the same President who represented establishment and importantly enough had also
dismissed her government. (kamran, T. (2008). Democracy and governance in Pakistan,
pg.150).
On the other hand, a dictators rule is seen as a period of stability, with one person staying in rule
for many years to come; although this is indeed not a positive aspect, we should note that people
have made a clear distinction a that a democratic government is unstable and ever-changing,
whereas, a dictator is stable and here to stay.
Moving onto the armys power in Pakistan, we find that the army had different powers and
played a slightly different role during the rule of a democratically elected government. It can be
seen throughout the reading that during the 1988 -1999 period the army was desperately trying to
consolidate the power it had gained though the rule of Zia ul Haq, starting with the deal that
Benazir signed with army, we see that the army did not want the ruler to interfere with matters
which were directly related to the army, such as the defense budget and the defense policy.
However, the army failed to consolidate its power, and this was proved during the zenith of
Nawaz Sharifs power, when upon his request the Chief of Army Staff resigned and he was able
to place his own hand-picked general to lead the Pakistan army.
I believe that it was during this time that the people of Pakistan began to think that the power of
the all mighty army had deteriorated and a democratically elected government had succeeded it.
However, if we compare this situation to that of 1999, we see a vast difference. During the coup
of 1999, we see that the army had once again taken over power by force; it had stormed that
parliamentary house and arrested political leaders to curb down all political activity. We find that
the army uses a more authoritarian approach and that once its power is challenged, it will
respond with an equally devastating answer.
Therefore, to conclude, I have proved my arguments by justifying that people were clearly able
to make a distinction between democratic and dictatorial rule through socio- economic, political
and power of military. The socio- economic conditions were far better in 1999-2008 era since the
GDP growth rate was higher, the growth rate was fuelled by an increase in the industrial base
and there was less overall corruption. Moreover, the 1999-2008 was seen as a more stable
political era than the 1988-1999 era where 4 governments had come and gone in a space of 4
years. Finally, the military is always viewed more powerful during dictatorial rule since a
dictator achieves his power though the backing of the military. Hence we can say that Pakistan
knew the distinction between the rule of democracy and dictatorship.