Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan

Semester: Spring 2022

Program: MSc Pakistan Studies
Course Code: 545
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q.1 How do political parties boost political development? Critically analyze the role of political parties in
political development in Pakistan.
Ans: Political parties are the most imperative element of political system in determining the direction, nature
and level of political development. Political history of Pakistan is marred with military interventions and for the
first time a smooth democratic transition of power was made possible after general elections in 2013. This
study evaluates the role and functions of political parties in Pakistan regarding political development. For this
purpose, survey was conducted among the research scholars at post graduate level and faculty members at
political cience departments of different universities. In survey, questions were asked about the perceived role
and functions of political parties, concept of political development and role of political parties in political
development of Pakistan. Most of the respondents are convinced that the role of political parties in political
development of Pakistan is imperative but not appreciative yet. They are of the view that political parties have
not even played sufficient role towards the political, social and economic development of the country.
Results of survey also illustrate that the political setup of Pakistan needs substantial reforms, capacity
building and institutionalization. Political parties are often explained as institutionalized mediators between
civil society and those who decide and execute decisions like parliamentarians. By this, they facilitate their
members and supporters, and represent their demands in front of parliament and government. Although
parties play numerous fundamental roles and perform some functions in a democratic society, but the
selection and presentation of candidates in electoral campaign is the most obvious function. Several
scholars have written about political parties and highlighted their significance in democracy. In direct
contravention to founding fathers' envision, Pakistan was ruled, by the military for much of its existence.
Whenever civilian rule manage to come about has been compromised at best and distorted at the worst, at the
behest of the men in Khaki. The Pakistani military is often held responsible for and accused of undermining
institutional growth. Moreover political representatives when in power did not deliver on 'stability' and
development front due to ideological and structural inadequacies, giving an excuse for military to intervene.
Besides the power relations that Pakistan inherited - feudal dominance - continued unabated even after
independence, establishing its iron hold onto state institutions including that of the military. In fact, social
composition of feudal elites did not alter all these decades, pushing majority of people out of the corridors of
power.

1
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
Even presently unraveling social, economic and political upheavals, it seems not powerful enough to rupture
and debase elites. Given these socio-political and economic realities prevalent in Pakistan as to what are the
prospects of civilian rule in the country? This paper explores answers to that question in a context of renewed
optimism that is sweeping the country at present - because a democratically elected government has completed
its full five year term (2008-2013) - a rare political achievement; and argues that civil-military relations shall
continue to radiate disappointment in view of ever growing role of security establishment on account of
extremely volatile neighborhood and violent politics within.
As a rule, political parties are like pillars on which the edifice of nations rests. A political party is a
polity or an illumination political system with an authority structure, pattern of power distribution, a
representative process, electoral and decision-making system. Societies are never homogeneous. There are
people of divergent views and ideologies in every society and state if taken broadly. Actually, the difference of
opinion or preference makes political parties. The beauty of democracy lies in the disarray of people having
different and varied views, ideas, ambitious and political aspirations. So much so that in every house a father
may differ from his son ideologically.
"A political party, as such is polity or organized political system authority equipped containing power
distribution loaded with representative process and paradigm of electoral and decision-making mechanism. A
political party is a connecting bridge between the public and the government emanating and taking its roots
from the general masses. It helps people to have a forum to identify, express and articulate their interests." In
the context of the emerging scenario Pakistani people feel strongly about lawlessness, unemployment, religious
extremism and the burning and blazing problem of terrorism. Then, foreign relations with the world around also
require a forum to tackle such matters. Thus, political parties are barometers to gauge the political temperature
of states or nations. Pakistan’s party politics has witnessed a new trend of third party which held strong political
ground in the electoral mechanics of the country. It stepped into an orderly two-party rotation since 2008. The
PPP and the PML-N have strong voter bases in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab, respectively. PTI developed
its voter base in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which was hit by terrorism and bad governance. Since PTI won
the 2018 general elections and emerged as a strong party in NA, the party politics of Pakistan has undergone
important changes at the federal and provincial levels. The changes correspond to both the political scenario and
social structure devoid of upholding democratic traditions. The new changes have the following characteristics:

Transformation from a Two-Party to a Three-Party System

2
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
From 2008 to 2018, the parliamentary democracy in Pakistan has witnessed transition of two regimes
peacefully completing their respective constitutional terms. The PPP and the PML-N served their terms and
handed over power after elections, which was unprecedented in the political history of Pakistan (Chaudhary
2013; Shah 2013). During their respective periods in power, the two parties have made great progress on issues
such as political stability, economic growth, diplomatic cooperation, and combating terrorism. The two-party
structure in the political fabric had established itself particularly in the context of their previous respective terms
in government. Public opinion had not only accepted the two-party structure, but also had expectations of long-
term rotation. PTI’s victory ended this pattern of two-party rotation.
The 2008 general election laid the basic pattern of party politics in Pakistan’s democratic order. Footnote1
The election witnessed the PPP, led by Asif Ali Zardari, win 120 seats in NA, which made it the largest party in
parliament (BBC 2008). Half a year after the election, General Pervaiz Musharraf handed over power to the
elected government. The President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker came from the PPP, which secured a
majority in NA. For the first time since the founding of Pakistan, the ruling party held these key powers at the
same time. During the 5-year term from 2008 to 2013, the People’s Party utilized political stability and
mobilized resources for governance, which achieved domestic political stability to a considerable extent,
safeguarding the social order and preventing economic downturn. Although the PPP was replaced by the PMLN
in the 2013 general election, it made history by becoming the first party ever to complete its 5-year term and
introduced a landmark 18th constitutional amendment bringing about one of the most dramatic DE
concentrations of power in Pakistan.
In the 2013 Pakistani general election, PML-N won the largest number seats in NA. To establish a
government, independent candidates joined the PML-N which allowed that party to establish a simple-majority
government (Tribune 2013). The elections marked the first transition in the country from one democratically
elected government to another (PRI 2013). In the general election of May 2013, PTI gained a rapid increase in
seats in NA and in the four provincial assemblies, forming a government in the province of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa. Although the political status of PML-N was stable, the PTI emerged as the third largest party,
wining almost as many seats as the PPP. After the 2018 general elections, the PTI, which had no previous
experience on the federal level, won a relative majority in the parliament, breaking the expectation and
sequence of the two parties’ rotation.
Change in Tradition of Dynastic Politics
Political parties in Pakistan have always been dominated by influential families and their heads. For
instance, the Bhutto family dominated the PPP and the Sharif family dominated the PML-N. The Bhutto family
had huge land holdings and political influence in Sindh, while the Sharif’s family belonged to the rich industrial
class of Punjab province. The status quo political parties of Pakistan have oligarchical system, because they are
3
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
identified by their founders instead of ideology or policy. For instance, there are core committees and central
working committees those not only control the party politics but also give direction to the party.
Since the founding of the country, Pakistan has inherited the institutional legacy of British India, allowing
multiple political parties to gain ruling status through competitive elections. However, at the same time,
Pakistan is also in the process of transition from a traditional agrarian country to a modern industrial country.
The political parties and party systems that grew up along with the founding of Pakistan were all influenced by
the traditional social structure, which means that the traditional factors such as family, social status and religion
still perform a substantial role in Pakistani politics. The party politics of Pakistan is highly personalized. The
political system struggles, because personalities and pressure groups are more powerful than the institutions and
ideologies.

Q.2 What are the important characteristics of a pressure group? Discuss the prominent pressure groups
in Pakistan and their role in political domain.
A pressure group could be described as a cohesive group that endeavors to influence government policy,
legislation, or public thinking. A pressure group could also be known as an 'interest group' or a 'lobbying unit' or
even a 'protest team'. A pressure group has certain defined objectives or common interests that range from
protection of rights, assets, thinking, or activities, etc. Pressure groups could be of permanent nature having an
organization with volunteers or paid professional staff, or formed for specific purposes such as putting into
action a programme to respond to an event, decision, or policy or even created to affect fundamental changes in
the thinking of the citizens. In Pakistan, as in other countries, the business community also has organizations or
committees that perform the role of pressure groups to protect, promote, and project the interests of its
members.
These organizations may cater to the combined interests of the business community, such as Federation of
Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry, or they may look after the interest of, for example, the
automotive industry, the textile spinning mills or the rice exporters. At the same time, the various chambers,
such as Karachi Chamber or Lahore Chamber, have to tread a fine line when it comes to protecting the interests
of members. There is always a clash of interests between the industrialists and the traders. It is more prominent
in those areas where there is a serious competition between the domestically produced products and the
imported goods. It becomes more critical when the local industry is susceptible to duties, taxes, and other
restrictions while the imported goods find their way into the country and are sold comparatively at a lesser price
due to the advantage of under-invoicing, smuggling, or misdeclaration.

4
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
A case in point is the tug-of-war between the local fabric industry and the importers of cloth through
various channels. At the same time, there is a diversity of views within industries too, e.g. between the polyester
filament industry and the weavers. A similar disagreement is between the original equipment manufacturers
(OEM) in the automobile industry and the car showroom owners. Generally, the pressure groups within the
business community in Pakistan do not put up candidates for election as MNAs, MPAs, or even Senators.
Although some businessmen have managed to get elected, they have usually gone through the process in their
individual capacity.
There have been no reported cases of a trade association or a chamber nominating a candidate on an
official level. Some businessmen have been appointed Ministers or even Governors, again in their personal
capacity, rather than acknowledging them as leaders of any particular organisation. At many times in the past,
the business community has taken cudgels against with government.
Certain campaigns by the business community have made formidable impact on the economic policies.
The Fuel Adjustment Charge that KESC used to levy on its customers was termed discriminatory since the
customers of WAPDA were exempted. The Karachi industrialists, spearheaded by SITE Association of
Industry, initiated a media blitz resulting in the end to this discriminatory practice. This was done during the
dark days of General Zia-ul-Haq.
Similarly, during Junejo's regime, the CBR came up with a novel idea to simplify the excise rules. This
was another bureaucratic stratagem to stifle the working of industries. Again, the SITE Association of Industry,
with the late Ejaz Shafi at the helm, took up the challenge. For nine consecutive days, hundreds of industries
stopped production and a huge crowd of 500-600 industrialists would be present in the offices of SITE
Association of Industry.
Today, if such an occasion arises, hardly a few dozen would come to register their protests. The
notorious decision was withdrawn due to the pragmatic thinking of Premier Junejo who came to Karachi and
accepted the contention of the industrialists. SITE Association of Industry became known as a powerful
pressure group and earned the title of Voice of Industry.
A few years ago, CBR commenced the process of registering the industries, business establishments,
retailers etc under the Sales Tax regime by using the services of the armed forces. A concerted campaign by
retailers throughout the country put paid to this scheme. A pragmatic process was derailed due to the myopic
thinking of the CBR hierarchy and because of the influence that the pressure group had on the streets and even
on the nonelected policy-makers in the government.
Another worthwhile example of the success of a pressure group has been the joint effort of SITE
Association of Industry, All Pakistan Textile Processing Mills Association, Pakistan Yarn Merchants
Association, and Pakistan Silk and Rayon Mills Association.
5
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
The intensified campaign conducted by the leaders of these Associations through lobbying at every
forum, through writing to policy-makers or in the newspapers, through speeches and presentations, and through
various forms of persuasion resulted in the formation of the Committee for the Rationalisation of Tariff on
Textiles and Raw Materials for the Polyester Industry under the leadership of Zubair Motiwala by the CBR
Chairman. The recommendations of the committee were accepted in toto and thus import duties were slashed,
sales tax on textiles became a thing of the past, and CBR spurred into action to curb under-invoicing,
misdeclaration, and smuggling. This is a vivid example of the effectiveness of a serious and genuine pressure
group. The denial of Most Favored Nation status to India is also the success of pressure groups. The anti-Indian
lobby is vehemently opposed to granting this status because they consider MFN to mean that the enemy is the
best friend. This nomenclature devised by someone sitting in the hallowed halls of a government building in
Washington, has connotations that this lobby considers as anathema. The other lobby is that vested interest that
deals or facilitates undocumented trade between the two neighbours. The power of these two pressure groups
has had such a forceful effect on the government that inspite of ratifying SAFTA, the MFN status has been
denied to India. However, the pressure groups within the business community have recently been under pressure
themselves. The leaders among the trade and industry organisations have been infected by the effect of being
close to the people in power. This has undermined to a large extent the role of these bodies. There is a general
feeling among the traders and industrialists that more often than not, they are being taken for granted by the
powers-that-be, and that the incentives given to the business community through changes in tariffs, through re-
profiling of rules, or even through acceptance of even minor demands, are less of a generosity or benevolence,
and more of the dictates of the global trade environment. The situation has evolved in such a manner that it is
being depicted as a 'partnership' between the trade and industrial community and the government of the day.
The pressure groups within the trade and industry community is also vulnerable to political influences
nowadays. What is happening is that there is a reverse syndrome in vogue in many instances. Criticism of a
Minister is construed a personal affront rather than accepting it as a genuine disagreement with the policies.
This has also affected the workings of many a pressure group within trade and industry. Furthermore, these
organizations are also under the strain of dissension among their own members.
The desire by leaders in an organization to 'rule' over its affairs has rendered many such organizations
ineffective or futile bodies. This has impacted on their effectiveness and influence in propagating the objectives
of that organization. And, this is what hurts the cause of the members and allows other pressure groups to
intensify their own influence and ideas.
The success of the pressure groups depends on the seriousness, genuineness, and determination of the
leaders. These leaders have to be courageous, pragmatic and must have a sincerity of purpose in order to
achieve their objectives. Polarization within organizations or within the business community would become
6
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
counterproductive as it would create a vacuum that would be filled by inimical vested interests, such as those
playing partisan politics, those that are affiliated with radical advocacy groups, and those that want to perpetuate
a stranglehold over their turf.

Q.3 Define the role of Political Party in modern political system.

Ans: Political party, a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Political parties
originated in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century, along with the electoral and
parliamentary systems, whose development reflects the evolution of parties. The term party has since come to
be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution. In
earlier, prerevolutionary, aristocratic and monarchical regimes, the political process unfolded within restricted
circles in which cliques and factions, grouped around particular noblemen or influential personalities, were
opposed to one another. The establishment of parliamentary regimes and the appearance of parties at first
scarcely changed this situation. To cliques formed around princes, dukes, counts, or marquesses there were
added cliques formed around bankers, merchants, industrialists, and businessmen. Regimes supported by nobles
were succeeded by regimes supported by other elites. These narrowly based parties were later transformed to a
greater or lesser extent, for in the 19th century in Europe and America their emerged parties depending on mass
support.
The 20th century saw the spread of political parties throughout the entire world. In less-developed
countries, large modern political parties have sometimes been based on traditional relationships, such as ethnic,
tribal, or religious affiliations. Moreover, many political parties in less-developed countries are partly political,
partly military. Certain socialist and communist parties in Europe earlier experienced the same tendencies.
These last-mentioned European parties demonstrated an equal aptitude for functioning within multiparty
democracies and as the sole political party in a dictatorship. Developing originally within the framework of
liberal democracy in the 19th century, political parties have been used since the 20th century by dictatorships
for entirely undemocratic purposes.
Types of political party
A fundamental distinction can be made between cadre parties and mass-based parties. The two forms
coexist in many countries, particularly in western Europe, where communist and socialist parties have emerged
alongside the older conservative and liberal parties. Many parties do not fall exactly into either category but
combine some characteristics of both.
Cadre parties
Cadre parties i.e., parties dominated by politically elite groups of activists—developed in Europe and
America during the 19th century. Except in some of the states of the United States, France from 1848, and the
7
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
German Empire from 1871, the suffrage was largely restricted to taxpayers and property owners, and, even
when the right to vote was given to larger numbers of people, political influence was essentially limited to a
very small segment of the population. The mass of people were limited to the role of spectators rather than that
of active participants.
The first U.S. political parties of the 19th century were not particularly different from European cadre
parties, except that their confrontations were less violent and based less on ideology. The first U.S. form of the
struggle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, between conservative and liberal, was carried out in the
form of the Revolutionary War, in which Great Britain embodied the power of the king and the nobility, the
insurgents that of the bourgeoisie and liberalism. Such an interpretation is, of course, simplified. There were
some aristocrats in the South and, in particular, an aristocratic spirit based on the institutions of slaveholding
and paternalistic ownership of land. In this sense, the Civil War (1861–65) could be considered as a second
phase of violent conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. Nevertheless, the United States was from
the beginning an essentially bourgeois civilization, based on a deep sense of equality and of individual freedom.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Republicans—all belonged to the liberal family since all shared the same basic
ideology and the same system of fundamental values and differed only in the means by which they would
realize their beliefs.
Mass-based parties
Cadre parties normally organize a relatively small number of party adherents. Mass-based parties, on the
other hand, unite hundreds of thousands of followers, sometimes millions. But the number of members is not
the only criterion of a mass-based party. The essential factor is that such a party attempts to base itself on an
appeal to the masses. It attempts to organize not only those who are influential or well known or those who
represent special interest groups but rather any citizen who is willing to join the party. If such a party succeeds
in gathering only a few adherents, then it is mass-based only in potential. It remains, nevertheless, different
from the cadre-type parties.
At the end of the 19th century the socialist parties of continental Europe organized themselves on a mass
basis in order to educate and organize the growing population of labourers and wage earners—who were
becoming more important politically because of extensions of the suffrage—and to gather the money necessary
for propaganda by mobilizing in a regular fashion the resources of those who, although poor, were numerous.
Membership campaigns were conducted, and each member paid party dues. If its members became sufficiently
numerous, the party emerged as a powerful organization, managing large funds and diffusing its ideas among an
important segment of the population. Such was the case with the German Social Democratic Party, which by
1913 had more than one million members.

8
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
Such organizations were necessarily rigidly structured. The party required an exact registration of
membership, treasurers to collect dues, secretaries to call and lead local meetings, and a hierarchical framework
for the coordination of the thousands of local sections. A tradition of collective action and group discipline,
more developed among workers as a result of their participation in strikes and other union activity, favored the
development and centralization of party organization.
A complex party organization tends to give a great deal of influence to those who have responsibility at
various levels in the hierarchy, resulting in certain oligarchical tendencies. The socialist parties tried to control
this tendency by developing democratic procedures in the choice of leaders. At every level those in responsible
positions were elected by members of the party. Every local party group would elect delegates to regional and
national congresses, at which party candidates and party leaders would be chosen and party policy decided. The
type of mass-based party described above was imitated by many nonsocialist parties. Some cadre-type parties in
Europe, both conservative and liberal, attempted to transform themselves along similar lines. The Christian
Democratic parties often developed organizations copied even more directly from the mass-based model. But
nonsocialist parties were generally less successful in establishing rigid and disciplined organizations.

Q.4 How would you differentiate between two party and multi-party-political Systems.
Ans: In political science, a multi-party system is a political system in which multiple political parties across the
political spectrum run for national elections, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices,
separately or in coalition. Apart from one-party-dominant and two-party systems, multi-party systems tend to be
more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that use
proportional representation compared to countries that use first-past-the-post elections. Several parties compete
for power and all of them have reasonable chance of forming government.
In multi-party systems that use proportional representation, each party wins a number of legislative seats
proportional to the number of votes it receives. Under first-past-the-post, the electorate is divided into a number
of districts, each of which selects one person to fill one seat by a plurality of the vote. First-past-thepost is not
conducive to a proliferation of parties, and naturally gravitates toward a two-party system, in which only two
parties have a real chance of electing their candidates to office. This gravitation is known as Duverger's law.
Proportional representation, on the other hand, does not have this tendency, and allows multiple major parties to
arise. Proportional systems may have multi-member districts with more than one representative elected from a
given district to the same legislative body, and thus a greater number of viable parties. Duverger's law states that
the number of viable political parties is one, plus the number of seats in a district.
Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia,
Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Tunisia, and Ukraine are
9
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies. In these countries,
usually no single party has a parliamentary majority by itself. Instead, multiple political parties are compelled to
form compromised coalitions for the purpose of developing power blocks and attaining legitimate mandate.
Unlike a one-party system (or a dominant-party system), a multi-party system encourages the general
constituency to form multiple distinct, officially recognized groups, generally called political parties. Each party
competes for votes from the enfranchised constituents (those allowed to vote). A multi-party system prevents
the leadership of a single party from controlling a single legislative chamber without challenge. A system where
only two parties have the possibility of winning an election is called a two-party system. A system where only
three parties have a realistic possibility of winning an election or forming a coalition is sometimes called a
"third-party system". But, in some cases the system is called a "Stalled Third-Party System," when there are
three parties and all three parties win a large number of votes, but only two have a chance of winning an
election. Usually, this is because the electoral system penalises the third party, e.g. as in Canadian or UK
politics.
A two-party system requires voters to align themselves in large blocks, sometimes so large that they
cannot agree on any overarching principles. Some theories argue that this allows centrists to gain control,
though this is disputed. On the other hand, if there are multiple major parties, each with less than a majority of
the vote, the parties are strongly motivated to work together to form working governments. This also promotes
centrism, as well as promoting coalition-building skills while discouraging polarization.
The number one goal of a political party is to get elected and control the government, and the more
people that vote for you the better chance you have at that happening. This encourages having a moderate
viewpoint that appeals to a wide number of people. Some even argue that stability in a two-party system comes
in the form of having a more efficient government because there is a smaller likelihood that there will be
disagreement and fracture. In other words, it's easier to get two people to agree on something than a whole
group of people.
Sometimes, though, we want more than two choices. Sometimes choosing between chocolate ice cream
and vanilla is not enough. Sometimes we have a craving for strawberry instead.
Unfortunately, in a two-party system, that third choice is very rarely a viable option. Thus, one of the
disadvantages of a two-party system is the lack of choice. While choosing between ice creams may be fairly
insignificant in the greater scheme of life, choosing people who will make some very big decisions on laws that
will affect you is much more important. Therefore, many people would like to have more choice than just two
major parties.
Some also argue that significant change in some areas of society is hindered because the majority view
always overrules the voices of the minority. This can also lead to voter apathy because a person may see their
10
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
differing view as not mattering if they always feel outnumbered. Fewer choices can also lead to polarization
within the government. We said earlier that having only two parties created a smaller likelihood that there
would be disagreement and fracture within a government simply because the probability of disagreement
between two people is less likely than disagreement between many people.
But this also means that two-party systems can be quite polarizing. Often, inter-party compromise doesn't
happen once a majority party takes control of a government. Instead, we see a rise in partisanship, or bias in
favor of a particular party. Any time a new party takes majority control, they tend to reverse the policies of the
previous government when voted into power, and this does not benefit the state in the long run.

Q.5 Elaborate the causes of making and breaking of intra and inter alliances of political parties in
Pakistan during 1988 to 1999.
Ans: The annuls of history of Pakistan are enriched with the phrases of ‘security concern’, ‘strategic depth’,
‘Indian threat’ and the notion that ‘strong army equates with a strong nation’. The phenomena of ‘Indian threat’
was coined the moment Pakistan came into being. It was initially this perception that brought military into the
domain of foreign policy making. In the latter period the military retained a veto on vital foreign policy and
security-related issues including the policies related to Kashmir, Afghanistan, nuclear issue and the domestic
politics.
There are two dimensions in answering the question as to why the Pakistan army concerned itself so
much with the state’s foreign policy. The first sees this in terms of the geopolitics of the region and Pakistan’s
strategic insecurity regarding its mighty Indian neighbor. This is encapsulated in depictions of Pakistan’s wars
with India. The second understanding focuses on the emergence of the military as a powerful interest group
unwilling to see any thaw in the Sub-continental Cold War, as this would endanger the swollen defense budget.
[ii] Certainly as early as 1958, an American intelligence report assessed that the “Pakistan Army had developed
as a pressure group” and would “continue to have priority over economic development for appropriations”
irrespective of the Indian factor.
The period, 1988-1999 was ostensibly democratic in nature but the troika politics and the musical chair
of Prime Minister was tangibly engineered by the military establishment in collaboration with civil bureaucracy.
The power politics between PPP and IJI, led by PML of Nawaz Sharif was in fact the extension of ideological
war between Bhutto and Zia, orchestrated by civil-military establishment.
The sudden demise of Zia-ul-Huq in an air crash on August 17, 1988, ushered in a new era in the
political history of Pakistan. It was an era of hope and suspicion. Hope in a sense that it would bring long
awaited democratic, social, economic and political changes in Pakistan. The suspicion part provided the sense

11
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
of thinking as to who was the main pillar of strength that molded the whole stream of events. It was the Civil–
Military bureaucracy, for sure, that proved to be the main molder of events during this democratic era.
There were certain foreign policy goals, such as Kashmir, Afghanistan and the Nuclear Issue. In fact, the
civil military bureaucracy looked towards these goals through the ‘India-centric’ prism. They molded the
internal and external affairs only to achieve the aforementioned goals through what so ever cost they had to pay
for, either in the form of internal disorder or through ‘behind–the–scene’ moves of political instability in
Pakistan. In fact the anti-India stance in foreign policy was a ‘life saving boat’ for the military-centered
establishment. Owing to this perception, we might very well judge how pre-planned were the depositions of
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif respectively
Benazir first came to office December 1988, and Ghulam Ishaq Khan, chairman of the senate, became
the president. Like her father, she came to power unexpectedly as a direct result of Zia’s death in an air crash.
Benazir was extremely intelligent, had strong contacts aboard (especially in the United States) and was the
PPP’s undisputed leader. However, she inherited two grudges. One went back to 1972 when her father had
nationalized the Ittefaq Foundry, the heart of Sharif family’s industrial empire. This set the Sharif family against
her, and their distrust was shared by the entire Pakistani business community. The second grudge was that of the
army. Its people doubted her professional competence, were intensely suspicious of her since she was not part
of the establishment, and feared that she might seek revenge for her father’s death.
Thus, only after behind- the- scene compromises, did Benazir Bhutto assume the office of Prime
Minister. On assuming power, Bhutto was quick to concede that she had not emerged as a ‘free agent’ on the
Pakistani political scene, and had to make major compromises to form the government. She showed pragmatism
and flexibility on accepting the office of Prime Minister, giving the impression that she understood the
bargaining, compromises, and consensus-building that politics entails. Appeasing the military, she agreed to let
General Aslam Beg continue as the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and to give a direct role in foreign policy to
the military by retaining Sahibzada Yaqoob Ali Khan, who had been elected senator on the IJI ticket, as foreign
minister. She consented to remain as nominal head of the defence committee, not interfere in the internal affairs
of the military, retain a large budget for the armed forces, and let the military handle an independent Afghan
policy.
She also agreed to support the candidacy of Ghulam Ishaq khan as president, and said she would abide
by agreements that had been signed by the interim government with the IMF in an ill-conceived manner.
The military had agreed to the 1988 elections, hoping that the PPP would not be able to sweep the polls. For 11
years under General Zia-Ul-Haq, a generation of military officers had been indoctrinated against the PPP, which
they believed presented a security threat. They perceived Benazir Bhutto as anti-establishment, so there was a

12
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
perception that a party had come to power whose leadership had inspired against the military from exile abroad.
Thus, mutual distrust and hostility existed between Bhutto and the military elites.
There were certain initiatives on the part of Benazir Bhutto that antagonized the military and widened
the gulf between the civilian leadership and military elites. The last of the Soviet troops left Afghanistan in
February 1989, but the struggle in the neighboring state did not end. Rival factions fought for control of the
provinces and the Marxist Najibullah government remained in place in Kabul. Pakistan’s Inter Services
Intelligence (ISI), under the leadership of Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, had sustained its assistance to the
various Afghan fundamentalist orders but they were prevented from taking strategic Jalalabad, which remained
under Najibullah’s control. Wali Khan, the leader of ANP, condemned the operations of the ISI, declaring that
they had prolonged the war and inflicted even greater hardship on both the Afghans as well as the people of the
Frontier provinces. In May 1989, against the advices of the COAS, Benazir dismissed the powerful ISI chief,
Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, and replaced him by Lieutenant General Shams-ur-Rahmam. General
Hamid Gul was considered not only the creator of IJI, but also the key strategist in the Afghan war during Zia’s
year. This decision not only widened the gulf between Benazir and military elite but also angered her coalition
partner ANP which broke with her government.
Later in the year another conflict surfaced which not only antagonized the military but also the
President. Admiral Sirohi was to retire as chairman in November 1991 upon completion of his three years term.
The issue was constitutional, as to who had the power, the President or the Prime Minister, to appoint the chief
of the services and the chairman of JCOSC.
Apart from the constitutional problem there were also some political problems. The Pucca Qila incident
of May 1990 gave surge to Karachi turmoil which had long lasting impacts on her government and the
deteriorating relations between the civil and military administration. There was a severe military crackdown
mostly on the Mahajirs. The targeting of the MQM by the army was believed to have been ordered by the Prime
Minister, although she denied all such accusations. As a consequence of the army crackdown, MQM also broke
with the PPP and joined with the IJI. Instability in Sindh also promoted the Jiye Sindh leader, G.M. Syed, to
renew his call for an independent or autonomous Sindhu Desh. Owing to the political chaos and establishment-
oriented goals, Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed the Benazir’s government using his power under the 8 th
amendment. The 1990 elections were held in which IJI and its coalition partners, MQM and ANP got 155 sets
against 45 sets of PPP. Nawaz Sharif became the Prime Minister with a strong government. This time again the
Prime
Minister was caught in tussle with Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Although Nawaz Sharif was considered as a
protégée of Zia-ul-Haq in terms of his Islamization programme and support granted by the military
establishment, yet the power politics brought him in direct conflict with the president and army establishment.

13
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
It was not Benazir or the PPP that threatened Nawaz Sharif and the IJI government, but rather the country’s
traditional power source, the higher military and bureaucratic institutions. The incident that sparked the final
confrontation between the Prime Minister and the President was the appointment of a new COAS, following the
sudden death of General Asif Nawaz on 8 January 1993. The president chose Lieutenant-General Abdul
Waheed Kakar, but the manner of his decision angered the Prime Minister, and he reacted by calling for the
repeal of the President’s Eighth Amendment powers. A desperate move, the maneuver was orchestrated to draw
the broadest popular support, but it also destroyed Nawaz Sharif’s ability to work with Ghulam Ishaq.
The plot thickened when the widow of the late General Asif Nawaz claimed that he had been poisoned,
and appeared to accuse Nawaz Sharif of the dead. Benazir maneuvered herself into a more advantageous
position. Ingratiating herself with the President, Benazir called upon Ghulam Ishaq to dissolve the IJI
government and call midterm elections. Benazir promised to support Ghulam Ishaq in his quest for another term
as president if he removed her rival. Nawaz Sharif, somewhat belatedly, recognized the folly of his campaign
against Ghulam
Ishaq, and tried to outmaneuver Benazir by announcing his party’s support for the president’s candidacy.
Nawaz Sharif’s incredible performance, however, was too little and too late.
On 18 April 1993, Ghulam Ishaq again used his power under the Eighth Amendment to dismiss the
Prime Minister and his government as well as to dissolve the National Assembly. Nawaz Sharif immediately
appealed to the Pakistan Supreme Court to reinstate his government. The Supreme Court surprisingly responded
in favor of Nawaz Sharif and declared the President’s action illegal and unconstitutional. Following a round of
intense negotiations, it was General Abdul Waheed Kakar who intervened and engineered an agreement
between the two. Thus, on 18 July 1993 both Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Mian Nawaz Sharif simultaneously
resigned their respective positions.
The 1990 decade soon witnessed the third phase of the troika politics in Pakistan. Benazir became the
Prime Minister for her second term in October 1993. The PPP government was also found in Sindh and Punjab
apart from the Centre. This time Benazir Bhutto seemed to be more secure when it was announced that the PPP
candidate for President, Farooq Leghari, had defeated his PML rival, Wasim Sajjad. Leghari’s victory heralded
a new era in Pakistani politics wherein the head of government and the head of state were expected to work in
concert with one another. But as mentioned earlier the military establishment continued its back-door politics
and engendered the anti-government tactics, the moment it felt that the ruling junta has deviated from the
military-oriented foreign policy goals i.e. Kashmir, Afghanistan and Nuclear issue.
Benazir Bhutto was viewed with anger and suspicion by the military elite when ever US hinted towards the
Pakistan’s nuclear program. She was considered as more inclined towards US. Relations with the United States
had reached a new low during the Nawaz Sharif administration. Washington was increasingly wary of Pakistani
14
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
intentions in the nuclear area and, ever fearful that the country’s nuclear weapons capability would only
intensify Pakistan-India rivalry. It pressurized Benazir to freeze the country’s nuclear programme. Benazir
declared that she was duty-bound to maintain the country’s nuclear programme, yet, she could not satisfy the
military junta.

Benazir inherited still another tense situation in Pakistan’s relations with its adversarial neighbour when
the Babri Mosque was demolished by a frenzied mob of Indian Hindu zealots. That event had provoked
retaliatory assaults on Hindu installations in Pakistan. The incident precipitated a rash of bombings and
communal assaults in both India and Pakistan. New Delhi accused Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)
for the bomb blasts in Bombay, whereas Islamabad pointed the finger of blame at New Delhi’s clandestine
service, RAW, accusing it of committing a number of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The fire that burned a portion
of Pakistan’s National Assembly building on 9 November 1994 was also attributed to RAW agents. The
expulsion of diplomatic representatives by each country only heightened tensions, and the massing of troops on
their mutual frontier, as well as the recurring skirmishes on the ceasefire line in Kashmir, were not aimed at
improving the atmosphere between the two neighbors. Like her father before her, she was denounced for
befriending India and it was alleged, even encouraging New Delhi to advantage itself at Pakistan’s expense.

Benazir also found herself trapped in a banking scandal. The arrest of Younus Habib, President of the
Mehran bank, on grounds that he had diverted huge sums of money to political leaders as well as former high-
ranking army officers, ultimately led investigators to the President’s House, where president Farooq Leghari
was alleged to have personally benefited from the bank’s sale of a piece of worthless property. Benazir sought
to divert attention from herself and her administration ny ordering the arrest of Brigadier Imtiaz, the Intelligence
Chief during the Nawaz Sharif’s administration. Imtiaz was accused of plotting the overthrow of Benazir’s first
administration, and the Prime Minister sought to demonstrate to her current detractors that she would not
hesitate to act against them if they persisted in their tactics to undermine her rule.

The two challenges that weakened Benazir Bhutto most were violence in Pakistan’s commercial center
and largest city, Karachi, and bickering with her brother Murtaza Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan after sixteen
years in exile. The ISI had established contacts with Murtaza Bhutto by the late 1980s. When Benazir Bhutto
became Prime Minister for the first time in 1988, she did not allow her brother’s return to the country in view of
her political difficulties. In the 1993 election, Murtaza Bhutto ran against the official PPP candidate in the
family’s home district. Murtaza Bhutto continued to challenge her in harsh statements leading to what the media
described as “the battle of Bhuttos.” He failed to divide the PPP significantly but did succeed in creating a
media spectacle that distracted his sister from governing effectively. In order to continue the military’s charisma

15
 Political Parties and Pressure Groups in Pakistan
in its image as a kingmaker and behind-the-scenes manipulator, the President in collaboration with the
establishment dismissed Bhutto’s government three years later by using the power of 8th Amendment.
Nawaz second and more remarkable tenure began on February 17, 1997, and ended on October 12, 1999. This
time he was swept into office by a huge majority nearly 50 percent of the vote and 66 percent of the seats.
Although, he was the product of establishment and knew how to “work” with it, yet, he failed as
miserably as his predecessors to build his own power base and reduce the army’s. In his second term, he
stripped the President of the constitutional power to dismiss the parliament. He then purged the bureaucracy and
freely transferred judges. Nawaz Sharif’s most provocative step was an attempt to reduce the army’s influence
by removing the army chief, Jehangir Karamat, because Karamat had proposed a National Security Council that
would include representatives from the services, the bureaucracy, and the cabinet to deal with a wide range of
issues. His pro-India stance angered the military establishment utmost since thought in terms of amicable
relations with India to enhance the economic cooperation and trade opportunities with India. Nawaz Sharif also
met Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Lahore in February 1999. The army, then commanded by
General Pervez Musharraf, was upset with the Lahore summit, especially because the original communiqué
made no mention of Kashmir. Thus to undermine the pro-Indian stance of civilian government, in the words of
Stephen P.Cohen, military orchestrated its “India problem” and launched the Kargil episode in 1999. This
drama was the final blow to the zero-sum game of the Troika politics in Pakistan from 1988 to 1999.

16