Rediscovering Jinnah’s dream
EVERY new government that comes to power in Pakistan reiterates its commitment to restoring the country as envisioned by its founder, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. However, concrete measures have never been realised or taken in accordance with Jinnah’s ideals of a truly progressive, democratic, and free society in which all people could live together in harmony and with equal opportunity.
Once again, Pakistan is in dire straits, and the state is generally unable to perform its essential functions smoothly. Therefore, before this goes any further, it is high time we refer back to our founding father’s ideals. As Muhammad Ali Jinnah stated in his historic speech on August 11, 1947, he envisioned Pakistan as a progressive, democratic state where religion was a personal matter and had nothing to do with state affairs, ensuring no discrimination against any minority — religious or otherwise.
Jinnah believed the state’s primary duty was to protect the lives and property of all citizens and promote their welfare. He saw all citizens as equal members of a new nation with a constitution rooted in democracy, social justice, and the rule of law. Jinnah wanted Pakistan, a newly created Muslim state, to follow the principles of mutual goodwill in the comity of nations. From the word go, Jinnah envisioned the country as modern, moderate, and enlightened.
However, things have gone otherwise, contrary to the dreams of the founding father. Or, in the words of Faiz Ahmed Faiz, this is not that long-awaited daybreak we had longed for. At this point in time, regrettably, Pakistan finds itself at a critical juncture where religious radicals, along with right-wing forces, are gaining greater influence, and the country is literally held hostage by unelected forces — far away from the ideals of justice and democracy once revered by Jinnah himself.
Pakistan’s journey as a forward-looking nation state now hinges on developing a long-term, multipronged strategy to imbue Jinnah’s ideals into all strata and levels of society.
Long story short, Pakistan’s journey as a forward-looking nation state now hinges on developing a long-term, multipronged strategy to imbue Jinnah’s ideals into all strata and levels of society, including the general populace, academia, and civil society, not to exclude the armed forces too. Given that similar attempts in the past have failed, Jinnah’s untimely death in September 1948 left him unable to foresee the challenges Pakistan would face later. Subsequent rulers have miserably failed in nation-building and governance, unable to maintain law and order or protect citizens.
However, achieving such a formidable task requires a long-term process and unwavering willingness, laced with an ironclad determination to make it happen without resorting to quick fixes.
Daunting challenges
Considering the daunting governance challenges facing the country, the current administrative setup, which is based on a single federal territory and four provinces, hinders sound management, proper administration, and equitable justice and is thus no longer workable in our case. A solution could be dividing the country into at least 20 ‘administrative units’ or ‘states’ and rechristening Pakistan as “United Pakistan.”
This would create a federation similar to the UAE, the UK, the USA, or the erstwhile USSR. At the same time, the proposed administrative units or states would be demarcated administratively, disregarding any kind of linguistic or ethnic divisions.
In a similar vein, each state would have its own capital city, governor, chief minister, and state assembly, supported by a robust local administrative structure. This would bring governance closer to the people, improve law and order, and address citizens’ concerns more effectively.
It would also foster new and young leadership based on merit and enhance local identity and distinctiveness. India and the US are examples of countries where smaller administrative units successfully led to improved local governance.
Pakistan should also consider whether a parliamentary or presidential system is more appropriate for the nation, reflecting practical political experience and popular sentiment.
The feudal system is a significant impediment, and creating more administrative units could diminish the power of feudal lords and expedite the devolution of power at the grassroots level. Shortening the parliamentary term from five to four years could promote democratic norms and reduce feudal influence.
Separating legislative roles from ministerial appointments could also reduce corruption. Ministers should be appointed based on expertise and qualifications, not parliamentary membership. This would ensure competent leadership, particularly in the health, education, and finance sectors.
Surveys indicate that provincial governments are not effectively addressing citizens’ problems, while local governments are more responsive. Strengthening local governance by creating smaller administrative units could improve service delivery and governance.
The writer is a communication practitioner and founding chairman of the Society for Global Moderation, a think tank strengthening tolerance, interfaith harmony and democracy.