Get the latest news and updates from Dawn
THROUGHOUT our history, we have played around with varying notions of democracy, dictatorship, autocracy, and despotism, mixing and matching these formulas with presidential and parliamentary systems to create a much sought-after hybrid model. These models have wreaked chronic instability, often changing with a greater frequency than people tend to change their cars, houses and, in some cases, jobs. Ironically, amid these constant changes, instability has remained the only real constant underpinning Pakistan governance landscape.
Behind these changes have been arguments regarding the inefficiencies of the existing model, the failure of alternatives, or changed socioeconomic circumstances. Whatever the reason, objective, or deficiency identified, one truth has remained: the tendency to sway from one extreme to another because of a consistent state of impatience. What this means is that no matter what model we apply — and then declare a failure — the underlying motivation for doing this again and again is our persistent refusal to fully commit to a solution and give it the time it needs to produce results.
Those in power do not have the patience to let the people decide, air their grievances, or make any meaningful contribution to the governance models the rulers extol unless they wholly align with their worldview. Nor do they have the patience to allow institutions — which will sometimes overreach and at others course correct — to develop organically and settle into an equilibrium that serves as an effective system of checks and balances against executive excesses. The people, on the other hand, grow impatient on being disenfranchised, ie, when their voices are restricted, rights curtailed and participation denied. They grow disillusioned, frustrated and eventually angry.
