SINCE the Platonic period, philosophers have sought to determine the nature and meaning of a ‘good society’ and a ‘good state’, often giving their own interpretations of what ideal societies and states ought to be. Their interpretations have been formulated in western political thought as diverse concepts of an ideal state.

For the people of Pakistan in general and students of political philosophy in particular, the challenge remains to find our place in the annals of political history. For our political illiterates, however, ‘a good society and a good state’ or for that matter ‘good methods of government’ remain merely philosophical expressions with no practical relevance. To them, the essence of politics today is nothing else but power and bounty, no matter how they achieve these.

Ever since the emergence of the nation-state, the world has experienced many forms of political systems ranging from monarchies to republics; from aristocracies to oligarchies and from tyranny to democracy. After centuries of trial and error, democracy has emerged as the preferred choice. It is now considered universally applicable and is also the most prevalent model of government in our era.

With national boundaries redrawn, and new concepts and ideas having replaced old ones, the dominant themes of world affairs today are those of globalisation and integration through greater economic interaction among nations, the promotion of development and democracy as mutually reinforcing imperatives and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Viewed from this perspective, we must confess, the evolution of the political system in our country has been a tale of woes and wiles. We have been experimenting with different systems at different times - and on occasion at the same time. We have done things in the name of democracy that no other country in the world has.

We lost half the country after holding what we thought were “free and fair elections”. We have executed an elected prime minister and exiled two others. We have had three constitutions — two of them abrogated by successive military rulers within a period of 10 years, the third one adopted by an “elected” legislature of a truncated Pakistan in 1973 and which has been amended by two military rulers 17 times stripping the original text of its essence. In fact, it is a different constitution altogether.

Pakistan came into being in the name of Islam and democracy but we distorted religion in a way that it is being used as the hotbed of extremism and terrorism in the name of jihad. Muslims are killing Muslims. Even mosques, churches and religious congregations have not been spared as venues of cold-blooded communal and sectarian killings.

Ironically, as a country, which on its creation, was considered a “twentieth century miracle” and which was fought and won entirely through a democratic and constitutional struggle, Pakistan has been struggling haplessly throughout its independent statehood for genuine democracy and constitutional primacy. With the ingrained culture of political opportunism and ineptitude we have yet to discover a theory of state and methods of government which will suit the genius of our nation.

The nature and form of our political system has long been the subject of debate in our own country with no clarity in the minds of our people as to which system suits them most. At the time of our independence, we inherited, like India, a parliamentary tradition but soon lost track, groping in the maze of political chaos and confusion. Since then, while India has persisted with the basic norms of parliamentary democracy, we have been experimenting with distorted versions of almost every form of government ranging from democracy to dictatorship, from civilian to military rule, and from parliamentary to presidential system.

India, despite its huge size and socio-economic challenges, remains steadfast in its democratic experience and today enjoys global respect as the world’s largest democracy. It has enjoyed a providential continuity in its leadership and political institutions with the supremacy of the constitution and sanctity of the recognised political processes remaining inviolable. Governments have always changed through an electoral process and the political leadership remains subservient to the will of the people which is exercised on a regular basis through fair and free elections.

Even a country like Bangladesh, which broke away from Pakistan after being subjected to a military operation, is today respected globally as a democratic country where governments change through elections. It is also the home of the internationally acclaimed Grameen Bank which gave the world the concept of micro-credit.

On our part, we have been experiencing systemic aberrations with endless political merry-go-rounds and jockeying for power. Consistency has never been a virtue as our history of frequent governmental breakdowns and military coups reflect. In every instance, we found salvation in our own version of the historically infamous “doctrine of necessity”, which has become our political creed. For decades, we have had a parliamentary system without parliament ever functioning as a “full sovereign body” or playing a role in the decision-making process. Even today, “legislating” is a business beyond our parliament’s purview. The legislators give priority to power and bounty. To them, genuine pluralism, good governance, the rule of law, the separation of powers, institutional integrity, and normative standards are secondary.

We have also been experimenting with our own version of the presidential system, at times under chief martial law administrators, including a civilian one, with no precedent and no relevance to established models of world republics. Our present parliamentary-cum-presidential system under military uniform also has no parallel in political philosophy or contemporary history. The closest parallel is perhaps the Cromwell era of the seventeenth century in England, when various governmental, constitutional and parliamentary experiments were carried out.

The tragedy of our nation is that democracy was never allowed to flourish in our country. We deviated from our ideals. Unfortunately, in its short history since independence, Pakistan has seen a continuing cycle of governmental changes through non-political means. Machiavelli’s political philosophy based on the “doctrine of necessity” has become an integral part of our body politic.

Against this background, the charter of democracy recently signed in London between Pakistan’s two mainstream political parties is a ray of hope for people who want to see the serious shortcomings of our political culture corrected. The document in essence is an action plan and a remedial roadmap for the restoration of a robust democratic order in the country rooted in the will of the people and based on the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of parliament.

One only hopes that all political parties will now join together to ensure their strict adherence to democratic norms and ethical standards, rising above all factional considerations including tribal, feudal and business interests. But the big question is: in a country where even constitutions adopted by democratically elected parliaments do not survive the onslaught of power and bounty, how can a document signed by two leaders, both living in exile and representing the country’s major political parties, make a difference?

Given our country’s peculiar socio-economic and political culture, based on a feudal and tribal structure, and a high rate of poverty and illiteracy, and also in view of our long tradition of remote-controlled elections, the prospects of a robust democratic order, genuinely rooted in the will of the people, are very slim.

At a recent seminar, three panelists comprising eminent scholars and journalists were asked to analyse our domestic situation and to identify the impending challenges to Pakistan’s political stability. The emergent unanimous view linked the prospect of a genuine democracy in Pakistan to the holding of free and fair elections under an independent and neutral caretaker government as well as a free and autonomous election commission. But everyone agreed that elections in Pakistan would be free and fair only when our politics come under complete civilian control.

According to the conceptual outline of the seminar, democracy had played hide and seek with the Pakistani people, mainly because it had failed to harmonise the interests of the principal stakeholders, namely, America, the army, the administration, and the people. It was, however, agreed that the best way to harmonise the divergent interests of the major stakeholders in Pakistan’s stability was to let them be on their own in accordance with universally established practices and principles and in accordance with the Constitution as adopted by an elected parliament.

Unfortunately, for a country as domestically unstable and unpredictable as ours, there cannot be many choices. In today’s world, our options are limited. We must accept that in the ultimate analysis, our problems are not external; our problems are domestic. Putting our own house in order is what we need to do.

We need to overcome our domestic weaknesses through political reconciliation and national confidence-building. The country must return to a genuine democracy rooted in the will of the people, constitutional supremacy, the rule of law and good governance, and must adopt a culture of political consistency, institutional integrity and civilianised body politic.

The world’s major powers must also recognise that Pakistan under a democratically elected civilian government and with stable institutions, including an army with professional integrity, will be a more reliable, more effective and more appropriate partner of the free world, in pursuit of common goals and in defence of shared values.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.