FOLLOWING Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination in 1951, Pakistan witnessed a carousel of prime ministers, with six leaders in seven years, each serving an average term of 14 months. The wobbly start not only destabilised governance, but also paved the way for Gen Ayub Khan’s first military coup. The constituent assemblies floundered, and could not agree on a constitution until 1956; the document was abrogated within two years once martial law was imposed in 1958. This contrasts with India’s experience under Jawaharlal Nehru, whose leadership and enforcement of the constitution as early as January 1950 laid the groundwork for democracy.

What happened in the first 11 years set a pattern that repeated itself in the later years of Pakistan’s political life. The 1962 constitution introduced by the Ayub regime was abrogated by Gen Yahya Khan, whose mishandling of the post-1970 election events led to the dismemberment of the country. Gen Ziaul Haq focused on the so-called Islamisation process and Afghan jihad while easy money flowed in from the US. The 1990s was a lost decade because four democratically elected governments took turns to rule — with none completing its term. It was a time when globalisation had set in and many countries were registering remarkable economic growth. Following 9/11, Gen Pervez Musharraf’s term was consumed by the domestic and global fight against terrorism.

In 2013, just when we thought politics was stabilising because the PPP government had completed its five-year term and for the first time the transfer of power had taken place through a democratic process, a new, more lethal, trend was introduced: street agitation and dharnas, disruptive to the lives of the common man. This new method of toppling elected governments through undemocratic means has deeply affected the governance system, economic health and societal harmony. Owing to pol­i­tical turbulence and inconsistency of economic policies, foreign and domestic investors have lost confidence. Concurr­ently, there is a surge of violent extremism.

Where do we go from here? Since the past cannot be changed, one can always learn from it and build a future of peace and prosperity. A good starting point could be to reform the country’s fragile governance system. This writer and scores of other analysts have underlined the need for a grand national dialogue where all stakeholders come together to create a new political compact, a new charter of democracy. Without this, we will keep stumbling from one governance crisis to the next.

Scores of analysts have stressed the need for a national dialogue.

The first item on the agenda for a national dialogue should be a commitment by the political leadership to embrace democracy in its entirety and the practice of democratic norms within political parties: regular intra-party elections, and independent audits of party funds. For their part, state institutions must commit not to disrupt the political process, and function within their respective constitutional role. Political parties should not shy away from talking to each other, for politics is about building consensus. We should learn from the life of the Quaid, who practised politics with integrity and never closed the door on talks, even with those he completely differed with.

Second, for our democracy to be more relevant for citizens of the country and not just the elite, the national dialogue should focus on ways to make administrative units more suitable for effective governance. One way is to turn the existing 39 administrative divisions into provinces. Afghanistan has 34 provinces for a population that is one-sixth of Pakistan’s. Turkey has 81 for a population nearly one-third of ours. The advantage of smaller provinces is that service delivery at the grassroots level can be better ensured. The argument that this would entail larger governments is not tenable because local governments would serve as provincial governments with minimal protocol. Since this needs a constitutional amendment, the dialogue should agree on this, in principle, before the matter goes to parliament.

Third, local governments must be established despite the opposition of lawmakers, whose role is to legislate and not engage in development activities, which fall within the purview of locally elected representatives.

Fourth, the existing NFC Award signed 14 years ago requires a review because most of the funds are transferred to the provinces while the centre is left with inadequate reso­urces to settle debt payments. Provincial finance awards must also be reviewed to devolve greater financial and administrative powers to the districts and tehsils.

Pakistan’s future hinges on the ability to embrace democracy fully, reform governance, and engage in constructive dialogue. The path forward is navigable, with lessons from the past lighting up the way to a more prosperous country.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Published in Dawn, March 24th, 2024