PAKISTAN is currently facing a dismal state of perpetual turbulence and huge democratic crisis, mainly because of our failure as a nation to uphold the principles of pluralism, democracy, and genuine interfaith harmony. Political complacency with the instances of injustice, sectarian violence and discrimination against minorities have tarnished the image of the country which was envisioned by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a democratic and inclusive nation state where the rule of law would reign supreme ensuring equality of all citizens.

Political instability and the lack of sincere leadership have caused the decline of democratic culture mainly because of inability of our leaders to understand virtues of the Quaid’s transformational leadership, acumen, vision, and moral standing.

The political system has become incapable of opening dialogue and debate on key challenges triggered by changing global power dynamics, domestic politics, and regional security environment. Egocentric nature of political narratives and immature political leadership have prevented us from pursuing the democratic path to resolve political issues through deliberations in flexible and friendly manner. Impatience, with undemocratic vision, has further caused unstable politics, weak economic growth, and deteriorating law and order in the country, where corruption is rapidly affecting all aspects of national life.

Forgetting the past

The present leaders have forgotten the past. However, the ruling elites still control knowledge and build narratives for their own benefit because they believe in George Orwell’s saying that “Those who control the present control the past, those who control the past control the future.” Thus, instead of learning from the past, they are committing blunder after blunder which demotivates the youth from playing a vital role in the development of the country.

Jinnah never believed in fragmentation. Instead, he firmly believed that the honest and selfless leadership can convert disunity into unity.

The Congress, dominated by a Hindu majority, was determined to deny the Muslims rights and deprive them of their own homeland. Our youth need to understand that the Quaid-i-Azam and his colleagues held liberal views and followed the principle of rule of law in letter and in spirit. Their demand for Pakistan was purely based on political, nationalistic reasons supported by geographical and demographic factors, and it was the Muslims’ reaction to nefarious intentions of the Congress leaders.

History poses many unsolved questions. One of these, in fact an enigma, is the failure of the Quaid’s successors to develop democratic institutions. They did not create a society based on enlightenment and democratic values. Frustratingly, we are often unable to reconnect ourselves with the past and understand the experiences of Muslims who were targeted as a minority community. Suppression of their nationhood and political identities was the marker of pugnacious mindset of Congress leadership, which divided people of India and put the lives of Muslims in danger by adopting aggressive posture and propagating extremist ideas during its rule (1937-39). Had our politicians understood the past and followed the Father of the Nation, there would not have been such irresponsiveness to the multifarious crises Pakistan faces even after 77 years of its creation.

Nearing a century

We have hardly 23 years to correct ourselves and make sure that we are on the right path as Pakistan completes a century of its creation. Society require leaders and policymakers free from narcissistic traits who can guide it towards protecting its unique civilisation and culture and lead it to navigate global challenges that differ so markedly from the present century.

Pakistan’s politicians should get deep inspiration from the Quaid’s commitment, dedication, and untiring efforts he made as the sole spokesman of Muslims of British India, who gave their leader wholehearted support for his firm and inflexible stand and edged inexorably towards their destination. Nevertheless, perfectly mannered and impressive-looking Jinnah was described by many leaders as a man with matchless leadership style, which made him very effective in situations that required initiative, creativity, and independent action.

Jinnah’s way of making arguments and debating issues was remarkably persuasive and very convincing. H.V. Hodson in The Great Divide has gone so far as to suggest that Lord Mountbatten was not the first viceroy to be baffled in debate with Mr Jinnah, who was unbeatable and thus Mountbatten was unable to make headway despite using his best persuasion techniques. Hodson further believes that when the argument was legal or constitutional, Jinnah was almost always right as a successful pleader. Congress had Mr Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel and Acharya Kirpalani to represent different viewpoints within their party. But All-India Muslim League (AIML) had only one Jinnah who, unlike Mr Gandhi, possessed both unchallenged supreme authority as well as firm responsibility of being the single spokesman of the Muslim community.

Being a compassionate and conscientious leader, Jinnah possessed remarkable ability to get along with others in politics and to pursue his goal in a purposeful way. His high moral leadership, and way of distinguishing right from wrong and doing right, seeking the just, honest, and moral conduct in his actions increased his personal impact on hearts and minds of his followers during a troubled time in the history of the subcontinent. Confluence of these qualities offers great opportunity to learn what our Quaid left for us: his legacy teaches us four magnificent lessons that can rekindle our spirit and pave the way for a brighter future for our generations to come.

Far-sightedness

First, the Quaid’s vision transcended the boundaries of his time, and continues to serve as a beacon of light for us. He strongly believed in democratic and constitutional means to secure the rights of Muslims in British India. His 14 points were a fine example of his unflinching belief in democracy and constitution. Muslims’ economic rights were guaranteed in his legal framework, which suited India at that time. Nevertheless, negative attitude of Hindus towards Muslim demands further created a sense of deprivation among Muslims. Jinnah’s unflappability, commitment and sincere leadership gave them hope and confidence to achieve their homeland through a democratic and peaceful mass movement.

But the post-independence politicians kept people in the dark. The education system remained in tatters, having been systematically deprived of adequate funding to keep people uneducated. Being at the lowest in the government’s priority list, education did not work as a prescription for social ills. The unequitable system of education failed to address gender bias and thus women remained always worse off in our crisis-driven society. Further the lack of awareness about voting, electoral politics and democratic values caused the decline of democratic culture in Pakistan.

The lack of democratic education generated moral decay, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness. Political bickering and intolerance began in the 1950s, when governments were toppled and parties were switched overnight. The centralisation of power and denial of provincial autonomy fuelled the politics of identity and caused ethnic divide. The mainstream leaders did not possess flair or capacity of Jinnah to deal with sensitive issue of provincialism and ethnic-based nationalism, which later caused disintegration of the country. Insensitiveness to issues and public irritation were rooted in monopolisation of power by an arrogant bureaucracy under General Ayub Khan’s regime, which generated the feelings of deprivation among people and created the way for our hostile neighbour to exploit the situation.

Further, in the absence of political dialogue and our leaders’ lack of belief in the institution of democracy, the nation lost its other half. However, the new Constitution of 1973 under the Pakistan’s Peoples Party, led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was made with parliamentary consensus after many unsuccessful attempts in the past. It created new hope for survival of democracy in Pakistan’s political environment, marked by active civil-military dichotomy. The lingering turmoil of 1977 created reasons for Ziaul Haq’s intervention in politics. He made changes to the Constitution and manipulated religion to remain in power. The process of religionisation of politics began with a vengeance by the repressive Ziaul Haq regime to increase tensions and polarised the situation further by creating various extremist groups who carried out violent acts of terrorism and vendettas against each other.

This triggered two major outcomes: sectarian violence and terrorism during the 1980s and 1990s onwards. Pakistan faced disastrous consequences of the wave of terrorism and extremism during the post-9/11 era, which forced the country to embark on stringent measures under the National Action Plan.

The trend of intolerance affecting democratic process has continued and remained unstoppable during the last many decades due to lust for power and greed for wealth. Leadership of mainstream political parties including PML-N, PPP, PTI, JI, MQM and others was unable to come out of the political quagmire to figure out how this trend could be reversed. Consequently, almost all elections became controversial, and thus, politics of revenge started soon after the formation of various governments, with the opposition launching smear campaigns, creating public disillusionment with democracy. Thus, democracy did not thrive due to disruptions caused by intolerant and egregious behaviour of rulers and their failure to channel dissent and disagreement in a positive way.

They lacked patience, maturity, and democratic resilience. Only a few leaders were able to make strides in key fields. Surprisingly, these leaders were also made controversial, and their sacrifices were ignored due to prejudice against democracy. It can be argued that some politicians came into politics to make money and others joined politics to quench their thirst for power. Most of them largely ignored the advice of our great leader who in his address in 1948 shared his strong belief in maintaining discipline and selfless devotion to duty as key to achieving big national goals.

An inclusive society

Second, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as an inclusive society. He joined Muslim League in 1913 and created political consciousness among Muslims. He tried to create unity between Hindus and Muslims through Lucknow Pact in 1916 for the purpose of collaboration between two major communities. However, Congress politics, based on communal lines, was inimical to Muslim interests and thus, it was exposed during the movement for restoration of Khilafat (1919-1924). Later, in the wake of Simon Commission, an all-India conference was organised to respond to the British challenge that Indian political leaders were not capable of making a constitution for India. In response to the British, the Nehru Report recommended unitary form of government and rejected separate electorate system for Muslims, which was agreed by Congress in the Lucknow Pact. Unlike the Nehru Report, Quaid-i-Azam’s 14-points outlined the legal edifice of a true democracy and recommended federal system with provincial autonomy. The 14-points charter not only safeguarded the political and economic rights of Muslims, but also protected Muslim education, culture, language, religion, personal laws, and institutions to ensure Muslim unity. The seventh point among the 14 points created pluralistic society by ensuring “full religious liberty, ie, liberty of belief, worship, observance, propaganda, association, and education for all communities of India.”

Further the rights of all communities were protected under the eighth point that “No bill or resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourths of the members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill, resolution or part thereof on the ground that it would be injurious to the interests of that community.” This point clearly indicates that Jinnah strongly believed in pluralistic society and in his view protection of the rights of all communities was imperative for harmonious communal relations. The third point codified the rights of minorities and provided that “in all legislatures in the country and other than elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every province without reducing the majority in any province to a minority or even equality.”

After a series of constitutional plans, major points of Jinnah were incorporated in the Government of India Act of 1935. The elections based on this act were held in 1937. These elections provided opportunity to make assessment of the causes of unsatisfactory performance of AIML. Secondly, the dictatorial rule established by Congress made it clear that this Hindu-dominated organisation will never be in a position to protect Muslim interests. Thus, they began to join the AIML which was reorganised by Jinnah, who exhorted factions and groups within the party to overcome their conflicts. Its policy was made clear when the party passed for the first time a resolution in 1940 which remarkably increased the popularity of Muslim League by orchestrating the demand for a separate homeland.

Eventually the AIML took the shape of a movement led by the great leader. The Quaid took a strong position and based his concept of nationhood on secular orientation, and his firm belief in democracy. He said at the time of independence that “Islam and its idealism has taught us democracy. It has taught us equality of men, justice, and fair play to everyone. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state.” He reiterated that both Muslims and non-Muslim communities will enjoy same rights and privileges. He strongly believed that equal citizenship and protection of minorities would strengthen further the foundation of Pakistan.

In post-independence period, the disunity among people became a big challenge and the nation was divided into groups based on ideological, ethnic, and sectarian orientation, which banished harmony and affinity from society. Radicalisation and extremism in post-independence society further increased the insecurity for minorities, endangering citizenship contrary to the vision of Jinnah. The post-independence politicians failed to implement the pluralistic vision of Jinnah who made it clear that everyone in Pakistan, irrespective of his religious affiliation, would be treated as a citizen of the state with equal rights and obligations.

Today’s ever-growing bellicosity of political system is threatening our society with intolerance and undemocratic attitudes. Here is the great lesson that we can learn from the epic struggle of Jinnah that he never believed in fragmentation. Instead, he firmly believed that the honest and selfless leadership can convert disunity into unity of the nation. Our leaders and policymakers must follow Jinnah’s integrity, honesty and selflessness which are core values he was committed to throughout his life. In 1947, at the time of independence, Quaid-i-Azam advised the government officials “to sink individualism and petty jealousies and make up their minds to serve the people with honesty and faithfulness.”

Third, strong institutions and their disciplined behaviour was the real power to run a new state of Pakistan. Jinnah was a lifelong believer in strengthening of institutions. During the various phases of the Pakistan Movement, the Quaid not only developed political institutions but also strengthened their credibility. For instance, he organised AIML to compete with the Indian National Congress. He created among party workers a new motivation and enthusiasm and enabled them to work together for achieving the goal with unwavering commitment and dedication. This provides enough guidance to our politicians. They have established dynastic control over party politics. They are wasting their energies just to keep their political opponents down. The country is now politically too poor to afford such activities. It is not just because of intervention of external undemocratic forces that parties disintegrate. The rot that causes terminal damage to their reputation starts within their own hierarchical structure and rash policies.

The party bosses have remained engaged in politicising national institutions and exerting relentless pressure on bureaucracy to get things done. Every minister possesses a huge number of assistants who work according to political whims and serve their political bosses like khalifas of pirs. Their political bosses want obedient civil servants who are supposed to be in the hands of their masters like a corpse in the hands of the washer of the dead. Quaid-i-Azam knew that without maintaining high reputation and prestige of civil service the democratic system will not work. Thus, Jinnah stressed the point that administrative structure must be free from corruption and the government officials should not be influenced by any political pressure. In his informal talk to civil servants on April 14, 1948, he advised the officers that “If you want to raise the prestige and greatness of Pakistan, you must not fall victim to any pressure, but do your duty as servants to the people and the state fearlessly and honestly.”

Corruption, bribery and nepotism were considered by Jinnah as horrible diseases which could devastate the legitimacy of institutions slowly and gradually. The major causes of these diseases pointed out by the Father of Nation included the lack of professionalism, inadequate training, and failure to find the right person for the right job. These factors caused unbearable loss to people who were already reeling under the ravages of red tape and administrative corruption sheathed in discretionary powers.

‘Live as free men’

Fourth, at the core of Jinnah’s thoughts was the idea of freedom. In his speech of October 11, 1947, he said that “the idea was that we should have a state in which we could live and breathe as free men.” The Constitution of Pakistan provides the freedom of speech, movement, assembly, association, and freedom to profess religion. However, concept of freedom should not be interpreted according to wishes of ruling elites. Encroaching unnecessarily upon the private sphere of people under recent political arrangements can endanger peace and stability. Freedom and democracy are inseparable ingredients of desired political culture. Neither democracy without freedom can flourish nor freedom can exist without democratic values and ethos. True democracy enables the people to freely express and contribute ideas in an organic way for improvement of governance. Nevertheless, curbing media and putting restrictions on freedom creates space for dictatorship, generates public discontent, and plunges the country into a chaotic situation leading to derailing of democracy and the constitutional order.

Thus, political leaders and legislators ought to use politics as an avenue of solving contentious and complex issues in a simple way, avoid downgrading each other, improvise a way out and remain steadfast in pursuit of the Quaid’s principles of justice, equality, tolerance, and fairness.

The writer is professor and director, Pakistan Study Centre, University of Sindh, Jamshoro.

shuja.mahesar@usindh.edu.pk