Opinion | Democracy in India and Pakistan

Indian and Pakistan democracies differ very much since both states got independence from Britain in the year 1947. Due to similar historical and cultural backgrounds each of the countries has a parliamentary system but each country has evolved their democratic system in a different way. India has had an unbroken democracy and today it has become the largest democracy of the world. Pakistan on the other hand has had its electoral process regularly affected by a coup, with military overthrowing civilian governments that has made the Pakistan’s democracy as very much weak and contested. Nevertheless, the pathways of democratization of both countries talk much about the effective democratization prospects in South Asia.

The Indian democracy can be said to have started when the country adopted its constitution making January 26, 1950, as the official starting point establishing a parliamentary form of government guaranteeing civil rights, secularism and federalism. The Constitution makers were very careful to make provisions for federal structure and other features of Indian democracy that contended with the plurality of the country; in fact, India has not only maintained its democracy across linguistic, religious and cultural differences, but has also grown confidently mature in its practices during its post-independence history. This has been due to India’s relative flexibility in responding to the proliferation of interests that requires the change of governance structures evident by the emergence of multiple parties. The Indian National congress was the major political party in India for years but after 1990 BJP and regional parties have been at the forefront because Indian polity is a multicultural polity hence very dynamic.

Pakistan’s experience of democracy has been much more volatile though during the last two terms of General Musharraf’s presidency. Many problems of ethnical cleavages, political instabilities, and weak governmental institutions surfaced in Pakistani society, and a nascent parliamentary system failed within a short time period. This led to Pakistan’s first military coup in 1958 when Governor General requested to Ayub Khan, the commander of the Pakistani army to take control of the government throughout the country. The military has since then come to power and ruled Pakistan several times including in 1977 and 1999 while it has also maintained influence even in civilian dispensation. The military’s interference in the political system has effectively helped to undermine the democratic growth of Pakistan and the establishment of a matured political system in the country. The Pakistani democracy exists in vulnerable political context and face major domestic and foreign constraints hindering its consolidation and democratization. Among these problems, the most significant interference originates from outside the country; this external interference shapes its policies and politics. Due to the geographical location of Pakistan and its dependence in specialist on foreign handout, especially from the United States, China, and Multilateral Bank and other international banks thus other countries have great control over internal affairs of Pakistan specially in the fields of foreign policy and defense. This external control also undermines the sovereignty of Pakistan’s elected leadership making it incredibly difficult to focus on domestic issues. Besides, a history of military imperialism in Pakistan has negatively affected the country’s democratization process through military attack in civilian government affairs in the guise of providing order in situations of turbulence. These interventions do not only subordinate civilian leadership but also retard the spirit and development of competitive democracy in Pakistan.

Political leaders in Pakistan sometimes work in situations that do not inspire trust and are even accused; Constant undermining of authority leads to the loss of public support. The government leaders, especially the prime ministers and other top officials, are usually charged with corruption and inefficiency which results in investigations and litigations that erode their authority. Pakistan is well renowned for its two charismatic leaders Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan, but both and many other faces bitter resistance from their political opponents, judiciary and at times military bureaucracy which combined, have greatly limited their authority to run the government. This political insecurity has made it hard for the leader to set a much needed and secure government because the heads get stressed with constant probing, corruption and ambition struggles. The prevalent atmosphere of mistrust that see leaders pulled into public squabbles hampers democratic mechanisms and erodes the citizens’ trust in the government efficiency.

Even social issues have made the democratic structure of Pakistan worse. Pakistan’s trans population remains marginalized in the society and the problem of their political representation persists even if there were some legal improvements. This has led to some trans activists expressing what could be deemed as unreasonable and unrealistic call for a second vote for trans people, to, in their view, better represent trans people – this not only speaks to the progress in activism but must be seen as call for enhanced political representation. However, social problems like homosexuality and related matters to the better recognition of the rights of sexual minorities are already emerging in Pakistan and its society is actively parsing with conflict attitude towards it.

On the other hand, the democratic structure of India regime has not only encouraged openness and participations but also offered chances for those people who belong to different social classes. India is already a democratic country that empowers even the lowest class in the country, including the DALITs and the tribal people to the extent of sponsoring them to political leadership. Some of the leaders have had a disadvantaged background, and in fact, illiterate persons who managed to be elected to serve the Indian political system in important federal positions. By being democratic, India has given the rural and illiterate population the significance chance to vote hence making the vision of demonstrating that leadership can accommodate all the diversified citizens of the country by allowing for a representation of every person. Although there are all these problems, India’s democracy has grown healthier than before and is demonstrating adaptability that is not seen in the problems faced in the democratic experience of Pakistan, where it is observed that in order to have a successful society, it is compulsory that everyone in the society should be treated with equity and fairly and the democracies should have strong institutions to resolve the problems effectively.

The cases of Indian and Pakistani demonstrate that democracy is strong, but vulnerable in South Asia. India has been steadily democratic with stable institutions and civil dominance over the military while Pakistan has had intermittent democracy demonstrating the difficulty of maintaining a civil democracy with these kinds of established weaknesses to insistent pressure. Thus, the experience of both nations, their hardships and triumphs, can be an important lesson in maintaining a democracy in a multicultural, and constantly transforming global environment. Both India and Pakistan demonstrate that, often, people and government do not need only democracy, but they need willingly to sustain it and leaders who are willing to support democratic values.

vadaiekashmir@gmail.com