Skip to content
Question

Q.Why has the democratic system not been stable in Pakistan ? Explain any two reasons.

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2020Subjective· 4mImportance★★★★★
🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Pakistan’s democracy has been unstable primarily because of the military’s repeated interventions in politics and the weak roots of democratic institutions in the country’s social and economic structure.

To understand why democracy has struggled in Pakistan, it helps to compare it with India. Both countries gained independence in 1947 from British rule, and both began with similar political institutions — a parliamentary system, a constitution in the making, and a diverse, multi-ethnic population. Yet India’s democracy, despite its own crises, has endured, while Pakistan’s has been repeatedly interrupted by military rule. The difference lies not in some inherent flaw in the people of Pakistan, but in the specific historical and structural conditions that shaped the two nations.

One of the most powerful reasons for democratic instability in Pakistan is the dominant role of the military in politics. From the very early years, the army in Pakistan positioned itself as the ultimate guardian of the nation’s integrity, especially against the perceived threat from India. This was not just a matter of defence policy; the military came to see itself as a more efficient, disciplined, and patriotic alternative to civilian politicians, whom it accused of corruption and incompetence. The first military coup came in 1958, just over a decade after independence, when General Ayub Khan took over. This set a dangerous precedent. Each time a civilian government faced a serious crisis — whether it was political deadlock, economic trouble, or regional separatism — the army stepped in, promising to restore order. Over the decades, Pakistan has spent more years under direct or indirect military rule than under genuine civilian democracy. This repeated interruption means that democratic norms, such as peaceful transfer of power, respect for civilian authority, and the rule of law, never had a chance to take deep root. Each military takeover weakened the institutions — parliament, judiciary, political parties — that are essential for a functioning democracy.

Important

The military in Pakistan did not just seize power occasionally; it actively shaped the constitution and political rules to keep civilian governments weak, even when it formally returned to barracks. …

Unlock everything free for 14 days

  • Full step-by-step solutions
  • Concept-first explanations
  • Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
  • PYQ mapping + timed mock tests

Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.