Beyond the Lines | Why dictators hate democracies: How Pakistan’s early choices decided its future

When Imran Khan came to power in 2018, it was merely the second time Pakistan witnessed a civilian transfer of power in its history of periodic tumult and consequent military rule. For a country, whose previous such democratic event was when the nation gained independence over seven decades ago, the bloodless transfer of power was at once, an ignominious and a historic occasion. Another season of soap opera in Pakistan One wondered then: Was Pakistan finally turning to a democracy or had the army grown less ambitious? Neither was true. Imran was a product of the army’s system but had overstepped the line. His ascension and the army’s absence proved to be a mere hiatus — an undesignated pitstop — as Pakistan’s uniformed policymakers burst onto centre stage this year, with the familiarity of a hustling patriarch who hastened to office after having overstayed a holiday. The only difference being that this time the blustery appeal of a loud Punjabi soap opera that usually accompanies power play in Pakistani politics failed to amuse its citizens — it resembled a foggy nation state clutching on to IMF straws in debt winds, and yet found a brazenness to make the proverbial death wish. ‘Don’t go gently into that night,’ said the poet Dylan Thomas — a line Imran has taken to heart, spawning memes about his detention that span from the risible to the bizarre, with the return to democracy well nigh improbable. The army has ruled for so long that they are now ready to divide up the support for Imran, take desperate measures to ensure that politicians don’t overstep again. Why nations fail? The importance of early years Pakistan is undergoing a political catharsis, which can have a likely outcome of its military becoming more entrenched and warier than ever after a triumphant return, if they were to affect one. Reams are expected to be written in the weeks to come and more drama will likely unfold before the climax. However, going back to the intriguing piece of statistic about Pakistan’s failed tryst with democracy, it is instructive to note that out of the 66 countries that attained freedom in the period between 1947 and 1950, around half of them failed as democracies or were taken over by martial law, they either turned unstable for prolonged periods or slid into civil war. In this medley of modern states born after the Second World War, India is one of the rare beacons of democracy and stability. Most nation states that became independent in the previous century, adopted democracy to begin with. However, in most cases, the political system began to develop fissures in the first two decades of their existence. Pakistan, formed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a young democracy needed just 11 years to slide into a military dictatorship. Myanmar was born as a democracy in 1948 but within 14 years, 1962, General Ne Win captured power. Myanmar has been run by military juntas ever since, with civilian governments for very brief periods in between. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Maldives, Bangladesh, Fiji, Nepal, and many others have similarly found themselves facing military takeovers or tremendous political instability — with most of them struggling to maintain democracy and stability within the first two decades. It can be argued that African nations were often victims of Cold War weapons trade and power-broking that pitted leaders opposite each other in internal wars. However, a nation state’s internal stability has been defined by the consistency of its governance, which in turn is the result of the robustness of institutions established early on in its existence as a modern state. It is the framework of institutions in a democracy that can help avert instability or thwart ambitious dictatorial tendencies. India: Role of institutions and reforms The tenets laid down for India’s democracy and its institutions in its first twenty years are a case in point. Like Pakistan, India inherited an experienced bureaucracy and military alongside a political class that had earned its stripes as an effective protesting force but had been untested in national governance. What did the political class in India do? Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru kept civilian control of the military and ensured that a situation around a military coup didn’t arise. The subordination of the military to political authority with the ascent of defence minister Krishna Menon had its downsides in national crises such as wars, especially with the defence minister’s meddling in areas of military planning. However, at a headline level in terms of establishing democratic stability, fairness and sound governance, India had ensured that its civilian institutions remained above board. Making a Choice: Civilian Governance or Military Rule? Manoj Joshi, journalist and strategic commentator, writes that ‘during the first interim government in 1946, Nehru kept the Commander-in-Chief out of the Cabinet and insisted that all communications came through the civilians in the Ministry of Defence (MoD)’. This was amongst the first reforms that changed the colonial system where the Commander-in-Chief was the Army Chief and the Minister of Defence. Subsequently, the civilian bureaucracy’s lack of understanding of national security matters didn’t go down well with military leaders and brought serious challenges in civil-military relations, especially during wars in this period — the 1962 India-China conflict being a case in point. However, adopting the functional principle of civilian supremacy over the military at the beginning helped build institutional effectiveness in governance. Author and Singapore-based academic Anit Mukherjee says that within the Indian army too, there was an emphasis to remain apolitical and not interfere in the affairs of the state. Thus, Nehru’s early focus on nation building and socio-economic development, through robust institutions of justice and administration, with an emphasis on science and industrialisation gave India a culture of democracy that found a natural arbiter in an unbiased electoral process. On the other hand, on 8 October 1948, Pakistan prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, in his broadcast to the nation, said: “The defence of the State is our foremost consideration …and has dominated all other government activities. We will not grudge any amount on the defence of our country.’ Veena Kukreja and MP Singh emphasise in their book Pakistan: Democracy, Development and Security Issues about Pakistan’s prioritisation of security establishments over political institutions and believe that ‘the institutional poverty of Pakistan is the result of the birth, development and demise of a number of political institutions, none of which took root.” Why military is the elite in failed democracies Like the other failed political systems of the countries mentioned earlier, the political elite benefited from a newly independent country in Pakistan. The fact that it was carved out to create a separate religious identity helped create a narrative that harped on defending against a possible threat from India and about completing the unfinished business of Kashmir. Pakistani scholar Ayesha Jalal believes that scarce resources were diverted to the establishment of ‘a political economy of defence.’ Besides, unlike India, there were no land reforms in Pakistan after its independence. As Maya Tudor writes in her book The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan, “A colonially entrenched landed aristocracy formed and dominated the independence movement for Pakistan made it highly unlikely that a country governed by such a movement would become democratic.” The military class, thus progressively grew to become the economic, social, and political elite. The middle class, thriving and vocal in India, was virtually rendered non-existent in Pakistan as the gap between the landed and oppressed grew wider in the absence of land reforms. In the absence of equitable economic development, ethnic divides began to show up. In Myanmar, another country in the region wracked by a continued military dictatorship, the ethnic divides were never addressed in the first two decades of its democracy and the institutions of governance and justice never grew strong. The military junta took over in 1962 and has run the country for most of the decades to follow. In 2015, when Aung San Suu Kyi took over as the civilian de facto leader of the country, it promised to usher in a new era of democracy, given her stature. But the military threw her out in 2021, sensing that a continued democracy will remove their hold on power. How do dictators deal with stirrings of democracy? Choices for Pakistan Military dictatorships do not tolerate long periods of democracy and find means of breaking up opposition to their rule. In Myanmar, the military has swept aside all protests by eminent people — who don’t count when the country is ruled by an iron hand. The Myanmar experience is instructive in Pakistan’s case too. “The army believes this is their country; politicians only come and go,” says Lt General Rakesh Sharma of the Vivekananda International Foundation about the current situation in Pakistan. Pointing to the possible counter strategy the Pakistani army could adopt, Lt Gen Sharma writes that issues that bind the nation, and rejuvenate its nationalism and patriotism are anti-Indianism and the Jammu and Kashmir issue. These could be time-tested and assured routes to resurrection of Pakistan military in the public eye, he feels. As Pakistan lurches from one crisis to the other to decide who comes out on top, its system will continue to be defined by an inability to separate political governance from military hubris. As India’s experience shows, the foundation of a modern nation is created in its first twenty years of successful nation-building. The history of Pakistan’s tottering stability as a state was penned when Fatima Jinnah, the nation’s founder’s sister, was defeated by the dictator General Ayub Khan in the early years, and the latter remarked that if she was indeed the mother of the nation or madar-e-millat, she should at least behave like one. Which was, stay at home. Nothing much has changed. Seven decades later, the army has grown much more powerful and is unlikely to let Imran ‘step out of line’. Military dictators are terrified of popular civilian leaders and are forever conspiring to make political dissent disappear — and they are likely to succeed using the force at their command, especially in a country such as Pakistan whose people are unfamiliar with freedom and democracy. The writer is the author of ‘Watershed 1967: India’s Forgotten Victory over China’. His fortnightly column for FirstPost — ‘Beyond The Lines’ — covers military history, strategic issues, international affairs and policy-business challenges. Views expressed are personal. Tweets @iProbal Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.