What were the major obstacles that hindered the quest for constitutionalism and
political legitimacy after the creation of Pakistan?
Answers
There are a few major reasons for Pakistan’s lack of constitutionalism and political legitimacy such as:
Jagirdar System[1]
Lack of an Industrial Base
Military’s ambitions[2]
Lack of a strong National Identity
Allow me to explain, more in depth, each of the 5 main points which I believe were most instrumental in its self-inflicted injuries.
Jagirdar System: This is a system by which land is controlled by, often hereditary, Jagirdars, a hold over from the Imperial British rule as the British Raj wherein poorer, rural areas were nominally controlled by warlords, who would leave the foreign policy to the British, pay taxes to the British and be a part of the British Empire. Seeing as the lands which constituted Pakistan had no factories, no major cities (compared to other major cities in the British Raj such as Delhi or Calcutta), most of the lands were controlled by such people who had no interests in furthering the state, only the continuation of there own tribal holdings. They in turn were a major obstacle to land reform, political participation, gender equality, education for both sexes, modernization, infrastructural development, incorporation into the province and obeying the dictates of Parliament.
Lack of an Industrial Base: I cannot stress this enough, prosperity and stability go hand in hand. No money, no stability, Pakistan had no industrial base at its independence hence had very little to develop its already neglected areas.
The ambitions of the Military: The Military in Pakistan is a double-edged sword. They defended and furthered the interests of the Dominion of Pakistan in the first Kashmir War, but their new found power in a country where the police was corrupt hence unreliable, meant they wielded immense power. Power corrupts, and this is true in the case of Zia-ul-Haq and Yahya Khan, two of Pakistan’s most disgusting military despots. Another issue was that a Military is made to do war, you can use whatever euphemism, name your ministry of war, Ministry/Department of ‘Defense’. But when you are invading foreign, sovereign land, that is not ‘defense’, you are waging war. Every time a military coup has taken place, they have gone to war. Ayub Khan, 1965 Indo-Pak War, Yahya Khan, 1971 Indo-Pak War, Zia-ul-Haq, Soviet-Afghan War, Pervez Musharraf, 1999 Kargil War. These wars damage the economy, damage trade and kill civilians. An army should not be the government, Pakistan is not Prussia, atleast not yet anyway.
Lack of a strong National Identity: You ask a tribal man in rural Baluchistan, a region despised by the elite and neglected by the government, whether being Baluchi means more, or Pakistani, the answer will be ridiculously lop-sided. At the end of the day, being Pakistani means one thing, born in Pakistan. We lost the title of being the Land for the Muslims of India when we started persecuting Muslims for their beliefs, or even that there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. For a strong national identity you need leaders, artists, poets, writers, national struggles, a unifying language, a common culture, food, belief, way of looking at the world. Pakistan, has none of these.