Cover Story 
 

Cover Story

One-party Rule

In order to become a self-reliant state, Pakistan must abandon multiparty democracy for some time and pursue a single-minded agenda to put the nation on track.

By Col. Muhammad Hanif (Retired) | November 2021


Pakistan has been administered by elected governments under the multiparty parliamentary democracies of 1956 and 1973 constitutions . Now there is a strong perception in Pakistan that this system of governance has failed to deliver, and probably one-party rule seems to be the solution. Will one-party rule prove better for Pakistan?

Successive Governor Generals and Presidents, have quite often dismissed prime ministers of Pakistan. Six prime ministers were appointed and removed from October 16, 1951 to October 7, 1958, when finally Gen. Ayub Khan declared Martial Law. These governments remained inefficient and barely managed the country’s affairs.

Gen. Ayub Khan’s martial law was a golden period for Pakistan, with many positive achievements. The economy attained 6 per cent average growth, touching the highest in 1965. Manufacturing growth rose to a record 8.51 per cent. People’s incomes increased, prices remained stable and a lot of employment opportunities were created. The law and order situation was also quite good.

In Ayub Khan’s era, Pakistan established its first automobile and cement industries, and the government constructed several dams, (notably Tarbela Dam and Mangla Dam), canals, and power stations, in addition to launching Pakistan’s space programme. Thus, in the 1960s, Pakistan was seen as a model of economic development around the world. Many countries sought to emulate Pakistan’s economic strategy, including South Korea which replicated the city of Karachi’s second “Five-Year Plan”. Ayub’s foreign and defence policies were also very robust and successful.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s time from January 1972 to 1977, based on adopting socialist policies, reversed the advantages achieved by Ayub Khan. It was marked by nationalization of industries and other key institutions, such as banking, insurance and education. This adversely impacted industrial production and overall national production, thus lowering annual economic growth to 4 per cent and reversing the gains made in Ayub Khan’s time. But, Bhutto forged strong foreign relations and started Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.

The PPP governments under Benazir Bhutto (1988 onwards) as the PM (twice), and Yousaf Raza Gilani and Raja Pervez Ashraf as PMs and Asif Ali Zardari as President, (from 2008 to 2012), were marked by low economic growth, corruption and governance failures, as was clear from Benazir’s dismissals twice by the President and dismissal of PM Gilani by the Supreme Court on grounds of governance failure. Some PPP stalwarts are still facing corruption and money laundering charges. The PPP governments relied heavily on foreign and domestic loans. The government ignored development projects but it countered rising prices by increasing salaries and pensions.


The martial law of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq from 1977 to 1988 brought stability. The economy and prices remained stable, foreign aid and loans were well-managed, very good law and order situation prevailed and corruption and black marketing was considerably controlled. However, much attention was not paid to new economic development projects.

Compared to the PPP, Nawaz Sharif-led PML/PML (N) governments from 1991 to 2018, are known for carrying out some economic development. The PML (N) government also gets credit for signing the CPEC agreement with China and for speedy construction of power projects. As the government depended on heavy foreign and domestic loans, the currency and prices remained stable. However, exports and forex reserves remained quite low as dollar outflow was allowed. Nawaz-led PML (N) governments also faced corruption and governance failure charges, as Nawaz Sharif was dismissed three times as PM and was disqualified and punished too.

The martial law government under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, from 1999 to 2008, remained politically very stable, the economy progressed well with 8 per cent economic growth and there were good forex reserves and minimum foreign loans. Prices remained stable and road construction and development projects were encouraged. A very good law and order situation also prevailed. However, not much was done to address corruption and provincialism. Not constructing the Kalabagh Dam was also a failure. The period was visibly hampered by expanding terrorism.

The current PTI government has been spearheading the accountability process since 2018 but has not achieved results mainly due to institutional weaknesses and the wealthy people facing corruption charges being too influential. The government is also facing difficulties in handling Pakistan’s economy due to heavy loan installments, stringent IMF conditionality and COVID-19 lockdowns. Also, due to devaluation of currency, and poor control over black marketers and profiteers, the rising prices have created immense frustration in the people. The PTI government is also sluggish in implementing development projects, although this government gets credit for increasing exports/forex reserves and for starting new hydropower projects as part of the CPEC.

It can be gauged that under the multiparty parliamentary system, despite some successes, governments have not been able to create a just society and make Pakistan an economically self-reliant sovereign state. Quaid-e-Azam wanted to eliminate bribery, corruption, black-marketing, nepotism and provincialism but these have multiplied. He wanted law and order, justice, fair play and impartiality to prevail in Pakistan, but this is not so.

Also, not much attention has been paid to education and health, and the country’s economy has become much weakened, being under heavy foreign debt burden, thus negatively impacting Pakistan’s integrity and sovereignty, despite it being a nuclear power. Provincialism has been further strengthened through the 18th Amendment, which gives too much autonomy to the provinces, weakening the Centre.

It seems that one party rule, like China, Singapore, Vietnam, etc., like Ayub Khan’s rule in Pakistan, Mahathir and Erdogan’s rule in Malaysia and Turkey respectively, is worth trying in Pakistan. The country needs to ensure sustainable economic progress and true nation-building. The countries mentioned here are ruled by single parties, led by honest leaders.

It is obvious that in Pakistan it is not possible to have a clear one-party system as in China and Vietnam, nor is it possible to end the multiparty parliamentary system, as it has become deeply entrenched . However, it is possible to have successful one-party rule if a political party led by an honest, dedicated and bold leader emerges and is backed by the powers that be.

Since there will be a lot of opposition by the corrupt to accept one-party rule for Pakistan, it will be possible only if such a leader and his party are fully supported by the people of Pakistan. It is also important for the relevant Pakistani institutions to cooperate with such a leader, in addressing corrupt practices, ending crime and providing quick justice and carrying out socio-economic development of Pakistan. Sincere nation-building efforts must be made to make Pakistan a cohesive and self-reliant state.

Read More