The State of Democracy At Odds With The State of Pakistan?

From an early age, I understood the bitter reality of democracy that remains an illusory concept in my country. A progressive image may be conjured by the state to stay on good terms with the Western powers and to separate ourselves from authoritarian states. Yet things are strikingly different in reality. Being a student of journalism and politics, I was always eager to learn about the different global power structures and the role of democracy as a balancer. To my surprise, one day I was stopped from walking into an academic office because of the bag I carried which displayed an image of the incarcerated opposition leader, who was jailed for allegedly inciting unrest. The same place where I was taught the freedom of expression as foundational to democracy, also stripped me of that very principle. I set the bag down with a quiet apology to my values of liberty and creative expression, as I left them outside to be allowed to enter. That experience shaped my worldview significantly about how much democracy is preached and how much is actually practiced.

Pakistan, the ‘Land of the Pure’, was, at its inception, ambiguous about the nature of the state it aimed to embody. While the country takes pride in being an Islamic Republic, it simultaneously claims to be rooted in democratic ideals. As per the 1973 constitution of Pakistan, all sovereignty belongs to God, while democratic principles entail that sovereignty belongs to the people. While the Pakistani Constitution justifies that the people exercise that sovereignty, and there is no doubt that Islamic states can practice democracy, the problem lies in the history of Pakistan’s governance, which seems to satisfy neither Islamic principles nor democratic ideals. Since the country has more often than not found itself at a crossroads regarding its government categorically, the only constant variable in this constitutionally complex equation has been instability. With each changing government, it seems that the people of Pakistan are dealt with a game of Russian roulette, deciding which form of governance awaits them: democratic, dictatorial, or declared martial law? 

Analysts in Pakistan often sweep the shortcomings of the status quo under the rug by presenting a pessimistic view that hardly any country is fully a liberal democracy at its core. Although that may be true, it does not justify the institutional weakening by the alternating governments in Pakistan with regard to the democratic principles that the constitution formally mandates. Judging by the performance of recent governments, some have gone so far as to refer to “draconian” law and order. There have been many failed instances of governance that have led to such extreme conclusions. In this web of institutions that seem unable to grasp the concept of democratic processes, it is the common people who are often left hanging in the balance as collateral damage between one government and the next.

The problem lies with the basic foundation of democracy and the rule of the people. It seems that in Pakistan, the ‘demos’ are often removed and only the ‘kratos’ remains. Why is it that after each election cycle in the country, there are widespread allegations of rigging? The ordinary citizen is losing his confidence in the institutions that promise to safeguard his interests when he feels his electoral mandate has been stolen. This is not merely a matter of investigating rigging factors but understanding the psychological effects on the voters whose mistrust in the ballot keeps rising. An example of the state’s reluctance to instate an electronic voting system as a step to resolve rigging allegations reflects its lack of trust of the people and their opinion. 

Since the absence of the rule of law lies at the root of governance issues, let’s take a look at the performance of the judicial system. Repeatedly, the opposition leaders have claimed allegations that the judiciary is compliant with the country’s hybrid civil-military power structure and, as a result, partisan in its rulings. Judges may recuse themselves from hearing certain high-profile cases (for example, the cases against the former premier Imran Khan) to avoid receiving flak for their decisions. This fueled the public’s speculation that the judiciary’s hands are tied. While there is no concrete evidence to support the suppression of the judiciary, it should be noted that the former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa told the opposition “if you can’t stand in the heat, get out of the kitchen”, which gives the edge to the opposition leaders to further argue a prejudiced judicial system. On the other hand, if the judiciary asserts its independence and its courts to be free from any influence, it may be the target of even more criticism. For instance, in the recent ruling of the lawyer-cum-activist Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha  who were sentenced to jail for 17 years over a case of social media posts, under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). Such decisions contribute to the growing disillusionment amongst the public with their institutions. On the scale of justice, the judicial system of Pakistan hangs in the middle of seeking autonomy and complying with political pressures.

To judge a country’s democratic position, the freedom to criticise it proves to be one of the most telling factors. The latest World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders has ranked Pakistan 158th out of 180 countries, down six places from the previous year. This seems apt with the country’s record of criminalising the mechanisms of journal reporting. It has an unfortunate record of reportedly abducting Imran Riaz Khan, torturing Hamid Mir, who survived an assassination attempt, and allegedly eliminating Arshad Sharif, who was killed in Kenya under controversial circumstances. The media, as the fourth pillar of democracy, is under serious duress. Public trust in mainstream media has eroded as critics argue that media outlets at times may be used to shape public preferences and suppress opposing viewpoints. In such an environment, media outlets may be pressured to promote the state’s agenda and omit any viewpoint remotely in opposition. 

Despite constitutional guarantees, key state institutions in Pakistan seem to be constrained from working autonomously. Subsequently, the people are subject to bureaucratic apathy. These ground realities are reflected in the Freedom House democracy index, which ranks Pakistan as low as 32 out of 100. These statistics will only begin to matter when we understand the psychological element in an atmosphere where lack of accountability is normalised and deliberate institutional weakening becomes the new norm. These issues then contribute to frustration and brain drain in a society which ultimately accepts instability as routine. Think of a generation where emerging future leaders will grow up with not progressive liberal ideals but corrupt power-hungry principles. Democracy rarely vanishes overnight. Instead, it weakens when people expect less from it. If institutions keep compromising and accountability seems unimportant, frustration can turn into resignation. The real threat is not just one stolen election, a controversial court decision, or a silenced newsroom, but when a generation is accustomed to the status quo and internalises it. When that happens, democracy does not need to be dismantled. People simply stop demanding it.

Minkashay Afreen

Minkashay Afreen is a Pakistani graduate student pursuing a Master’s degree in International Relations at New York University. Her academic interests include democracy, media, political communication, and global governance, with a particular focus on press freedom and democratic institutions. Her work explores the intersection of media and politics in shaping public discourse and political outcomes.