Skip to content
Question

Q.Explain any two factors that are responsible for Pakistan's failure in building a stable democracy.

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2024Subjective· 2mImportance★★★★★
🔒 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 failure to build a stable democracy stems from the overpowering role of its military in politics and the weak, fragmented nature of its civilian political parties.

To understand why democracy has struggled to take root in Pakistan, it helps to compare its journey with India's. Both countries emerged from the same partition in 1947, inheriting similar colonial structures. Yet India built a remarkably stable democratic system, while Pakistan has lurched between military dictatorships and weak civilian governments. The reasons are not mysterious — they lie in two deep, structural factors that have repeatedly derailed democratic consolidation.

The first and most decisive factor is the dominance of the military in political life. From the very beginning, Pakistan's army saw itself not just as a defender of borders but as the ultimate guardian of the state itself. This was partly a consequence of the country's birth in conflict with India over Kashmir, which gave the military enormous prestige and a massive share of the national budget. The army's first direct takeover came in 1958 under General Ayub Khan, and it set a pattern: whenever civilian governments seemed chaotic or corrupt, the generals would step in, promising order and efficiency. Each military regime — Ayub, Yahya, Zia-ul-Haq, and later Pervez Musharraf — stayed in power for years, rewriting the constitution to suit itself and actively weakening democratic institutions like the judiciary and the legislature. Even when the military formally returned to barracks, it never truly left. It retained vast economic interests — running industries, banks, and real estate — and continued to control foreign and security policy. This meant that elected civilian governments were never fully in charge; they governed at the army's pleasure. The result was a political system where the ultimate authority was not the ballot box but the GHQ in Rawalpindi.

Important

The military's direct rule for over three decades, combined with its continued behind-the-scenes control during civilian periods, has prevented the normal growth of democratic accountability and civilian supremacy. …

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.