Politics is art of compromise where political forces of the
country strike regular bargains among themselves within the parameters of the
constitution; this art (skill) develops in the democratic societies where the
normal political process is allowed to function; if repeatedly stopped, as in
our case, then there is logjam among the politicians on each step of the way as
we are seeing it now.
Politics was not allowed to take its roots in Pakistan owing
to repeated breakdown of the political process in the country. Though we were
inheritors of Mughal empire in the subcontinent, which formed the concluding episode
of the long list of the Muslim dynastic rule here, it did not as such
disqualify us from graduating out of the tradition, unless we bring other
factors into the play, like early death of Quaid e Azam, lack of home work by
the Muslim league before partition, the country not having both the leadership
continuity and any counter weight to Nehru in India etc.
The English were different or may be better from the
previous rulers in the subcontinent in the sense that they introduced a concept
of rule of law, here, which was hitherto unknown in this part of the world
right from the time immemorial - from Guptas and Maryas. Power here was private
property in the hands of the rulers, which they freely dispensed among their
cronies at their will - free from all the niceties of the constraints in terms
of the rules and regulations!
The
English tried to change it in a limited way in the sense that they left behind
a legal democracy, which in case of India matured into popular democracy and in
our case it fell down to the medieval devices; but the question is why? Was it
due to lack of towering political figure after Quaid Azam; relative lack of the
English - based education in our part of
the subcontinent; the Muslim history of autocracy; opportunism in the
remaining Muslim league; or a combination of all this and much more.