16th July 16, 2024

Evaluation of Thesis by MUHAMMAD SALEEM QAZI Roll No.

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN: 2002-2018

The topic of this dissertation is timely and crucial given the ongoing political crisis in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the
importance of the topic is lost amidst lack of clear thesis, organization and analysis. The thesis requires major
revisions before it could be considered suitable as a PhD dissertation. Here are my suggestions for the revisions.

Though the key arguments are not very clear but after reading the dissertation I see the following arguments implicit
in the writing: once the political class agreed through the charter of democracy to revive democracy and limit the
influence of extraconstitutional forces the consolidation of democratic process commenced in Pakistan. The
significant constitutional changes such as the 18th amendment during the 2008-2012 parliamentary era came about
because the political class worked through consensus and responded to issues such as demands by various provinces
for greater recognition and power. This consensus-based approach helped consolidate democratic process as
evidenced by the completion of PPP’s government and smooth handover of power to PML(N) in 2013. 2007-2013
period was thus most significant for democracy because it brought the politicians on the same page in deciding that
the role of military in politics must be limited and constitution must be restored to its original 1973 position.
But the parliamentary democracy in Pakistan continued to be challenged by the war against terror, military’s
inability to let go of political engineering and the politician’s addiction to looking to the ‘establishment’ as a way to
get political advantage. The dharna politics of PTI and its refusal to accept the electoral results of 2013 brought
back the division among the political class opening the way for even further intervention by extra-parliamentary
forces (military) in the democratic process.
Thus, the overall thesis that when politicians cooperate with each other and respond to complex challenges through
consensus, democracy becomes stronger but when they divide and look to the nonparliamentary forces such as
military to gain political advantage the democratic process weakens. This is a sensible argument and something that
other scholars have empirically demonstrated.

Now the question is how to demonstrate the validity of this thesis through arguments and evidence?
Introduction
Most of the introduction is okay but the author might want to more clearly outline the key arguments of the thesis.
The introduction should not only outline the key research questions but also tell the reader what are the most
important findings of the thesis.
The literature review needs to be integrated more fully into the thesis. For instance, on page 30
the author says the following: “Few scholarly works address the question of how to measure
the development of democracy in Pakistan through time and which indicators are most
relevant.”

If that is the case, then how is this thesis filling that gap? What indicators is it using through
time. Make that explicit. For instance, how frequently does the Parliament meet and how active
has it been legislatively is one indicator and the author outline that information in one table.
Make that clear in your introduction. Another important indicator for democratic transition is the
political class cooperating with each other in order to keep extra-parliamentary forces at bay.
This is a crucial factor that should be outlined in the introduction.

On page 31 the author quotes the following indicators from theoretical literature: “Aspects of
electoralism, liberalism, participation, deliberation, and egalitarianism are all included in the
aforementioned principles.” Fine but how do these indicators relate to Pakistan during the time
period covered in the dissertation?

Chapter Two

The key focus for this chapter should be what we can learn from 2002-2008 period regarding
democratic transition in Pakistan. Most of the information presented in the chapter is okay but
need to be organized in a way that supports the key arguments of the thesis. No doubt that the
military has often claimed to be the ‘modernizer’ and have used the arguments of stability,
national integration and economic development as justifications for its rule. Musharraf’s
‘enlightened moderation’ was one articulation of the idea that military leader are better rulers for
Pakistan.

The claim made by the author on page 46 that Nawaz’s removal through military coups “was
met with a collective sense of relief among the populace” is problematic because there is no
solid evidence to support such a sweeping statement. Just because some newspaper prints such a
commentary is not sufficient for scholars. There were no public opinion surveys conducted and
even if they were conducted how reliable would they be under a military government?

What the pages from 47 onward do show is that the political class did not stand united against
the military take-over. PPP saw in Musharraf a possible allay and that the general used elements
of political engineering through creation of pml (q) to legitimize the military rule. It took a
social movement (lawyers’ movement) to weaken and eventually force Musharraf to give up
power.

The final several sentences in chapter two make no sense:

It was anticipated that those in prestigious positions would acquire a feeling of

responsibility by studying the events of the past and applying what they learned. There was
an expectation that the coalition government would conduct a reexamination of the
relationship that exists between the federal government and the provincial institutions.
This expectation was based on the fact that there was an existing expectation.

Chapter Three
This is the most important chapter of the dissertation, and it should be reorganized to make the
key arguments clear. The focus should be why and how the two major political parties finally
agreed to cooperate in making changes that will restore democracy in Pakistan

Not clear why energy crisis section is discussed on page 81, how is that related to the key issues
discussed in the chapter?

Looking at Party manifestos is okay but cannot be the only evidence presented because parties
make tall claims before elections but what counts is how they actually behave.

The author often uses the present tense to discuss things that happened in 2008/2009, that needs
to be corrected.

Pages 195-119 contain important information but make sure you connect it to what comes before
and after. In other words there should be continuity within different sections and write a clear
conclusion to the chapter.

Chapter Four

The chapter is weak because it describes basic facts that we know already without giving any
analysis. For instance, the author does not need to cite another scholar to just tell us that Nawaz
Sharif became the Prime Minister the third time on page 140. Instead we need to know what
Schaefer book tells us about how Nawaz Sharif ruled during the third time in office, how did he
take on the challenge of containing military’s influence, what were some of the political mistakes
he made, etc., The author does mention an important ‘mistake’ on pages 141 onward of
confronting Musharraf, but needs to expand that section rather than jumping into the section on
Zarab-e-Azab.

From pages 146 onward the author provides important information that reinforces the key
argument of the thesis that the division within the political class made it difficult to constrain
military’s influence in politics.

Chapter Five

Conclusion is generally okay though the author may want to make some changes to reinforce the
key arguments of the thesis.

Farhat Haq

Professor of Political Science

Monmouth College