We are on the crossroads of history with serious threat to our federation. Pakistan was created with a hope of providing people from different ethnic, religious and social backgrounds an opportunity to live a life which was free of political, economic and socio-religious biases which, in Quaid’s words, was not possible in united India after the rule of the British Raj was over.
Democracy no matter how worse it is devolves on federal system. Many democratic countries i.e. United Kingdom and Switzerland with unitary elements have over the years become largely federal. Pakistan too was supposed to be a democratic republic with federation as its major form of government. But certain things happened which were contrary to the concept of federation during the country’s 61 years of existence.
Factors have contributed to the deterioration of federation one after another. A major blow to the federation came in 1970/71 when the east wing of Pakistan separated after a humiliating defeat and surrender of our forces. That eastern wing became Bangladesh. Lessons were not learnt from the tragedy and mistakes were repeated by our rulers, which did not strengthen the federation.
The federation has continuously been suffering due to the long period of martial law, and the army playing the role of praetorian ruler.
The federation is a dependent variable with democratic process as casual variable for its survival and development. The democratic model might not be on the pattern of Capital Hill or Westminster but a reasonable accountable governance of the people for the people.
When the military takes over with a general in power having direct support of the GHQ, the consideration of the representation of masses over the country becomes secondary or optional. The formative phases of this regime over a year or two might produce good results, but in reality the foundations on which a strong federation can be built are directly or indirectly undermined.
The beauty and integration of the federation is the constitutional setup with sheer division of powers, largely political, economic and financial between the centre and the federating units. Political history of the nations faced with praetorian rules is witness to the fact that a constitutional setup was put in abeyance, dissolved or tampered with to fulfill the needs of the rulers. The abeyance of constitution directly affects the units which are still discontent with the division but remain united by the representative process with provincial assemblies and elected chief ministers.
The longer is the period of military rule the higher are the stakes of policymaking as the legislative system providing feedback to the policymakers is absent. There is neither a debate inside or outside the assemblies nor a check on policymakers.
The decisions are largely the whim of one or few bosses with a hand-picked cabinet supporting the decisions, whether it is the construction of a mega project, dam, trade concessions or allowing foreign troops on our soil.
Who can deny that the growing Talibanisation, terrorism and foreign troops’ intervention had been the result of the decisions taken during the period when democracy was absent? The decisions reflected the crisis of legitimacy the rulers faced and to win the support of the super power.
Political parties and leadership play an important role in the development of the federation. It has been reciprocal. Leadership at the national, provincial and even local level thrives under political parties while parties under leadership. The leaders, no matter at whatever level, enjoy symbolic, administrative, political and even social powers to bridge the gap of input and output in a heterogeneous society like Pakistan. But the process is possible under representative system and not without it. The larger and popular the role of political parties is the higher are the chances of democratisation and trust-building of federation.
Popular parties have been discouraged, purged and banned. The channels of popular leadership are discouraged with all support for crown parties. Will it be an exaggeration to say that the 1985 non-party elections in Pakistan held under Ziaul Haq’s establishment were designed to prevent the already eight-year repressed popular party from emerging on Pakistani politics? In the longer run it was against the spirit of democratisation and federation.
The situation in Balochistan would have been less volatile and sensitive had the nationalists enjoyed the trust of the rulers and contested elections. Their non-participation was due to the fact that they had been pushed to the corner by repressive methods of governance in the past.
