ASSIGNMENT No.

1
JEHAN ZADA

0000281035

0545
Q.1 Why political party is consider as a basic components of
democracy? Identify the differences between the traditional
parties and mass parties. Elaborate the organizational structure of
political party.

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
there 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 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 cadre parties of the 19th century reflected a fundamental conflict

between two classes: the aristocracy on the one hand and
the bourgeoisie on the other. The former, composed of landowners,
depended upon rural estates on which a generally unlettered peasantry
was held back by a traditionalist clergy. The bourgeoisie, made up of
industrialists, merchants, tradesmen, bankers, financiers, and
professional people, depended upon the lower classes of clerks and
industrial workers in the cities. Both aristocracy and bourgeoisie
evolved their own ideology. Bourgeois liberal ideology developed first,
originating at the time of the English revolution of the 17th century in
the writings of John Locke, an English philosopher. It was then
developed by French philosophers of the 18th century. In its clamoring
for formal legal equality and acceptance of the inequities of
circumstance, liberal ideology reflected the interests of the bourgeoisie,
who wished to destroy the privileges of the aristocracy and eliminate
the lingering economic restraints of feudalism and mercantilism. But,
insofar as it set forth an egalitarian ideal and a demand for liberty,
bourgeois classical liberalism expressed aspirations common to all
people. Conservative ideology, on the other hand, never succeeded in
defining themes that would prove as attractive, for it appeared to be
more closely allied to the interests of the aristocracy. For a
considerable period, however, conservative sentiment did maintain a
considerable impact among the people, since it was presented as the
expression of the will of God. In Roman Catholic countries, in which
religion was based upon a hierarchically structured
and authoritarian clergy, the conservative parties were often the
clerical parties, as in France, Italy, and Belgium.
Conservative and liberal cadre parties dominated European politics in
the 19th century. Developing during a period of great social and
economic upheaval, they exercised power largely through electoral and
parliamentary activity. Once in power, their leaders used the power of
the army or of the police; the party itself was not generally organized
for violent activity. Its local units were charged with assuring moral and
financial backing to candidates at election time, as well as with
maintaining continual contact between elected officials and the
electorate. The national organization endeavored to unify the party
members who had been elected to the assemblies. In general, the local
committees maintained a basic autonomy and each legislator a large
measure of independence. The party discipline in voting established by
the British parties—which were older because of the fact that the
British Parliament was long established—was imitated on the Continent
hardly at all.

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.

In terms of party structure, U.S. parties in the beginning differed little

from their European counterparts. Like them, the U.S. parties were
composed of local notables. The ties of a local committee to a national
organization were even weaker than in Europe. At the state level there
was some effective coordination of local party organizations, but at the
national level such coordination did not exist. A more original structure
was developed after the Civil War—in the South to exploit the votes of
African Americans and along the East Coast to control the votes of
immigrants. The extreme decentralization in the United States enabled
a party to establish a local quasi-dictatorship in a city or county by
capturing all of the key posts in an election. Not only the position
of mayor but also the police, finances, and the courts came under the
control of the party machine, and the machine was thus a development
of the original cadre parties. The local party committee came typically
to be composed of adventurers or gangsters who wanted to control the
distribution of wealth and to ensure the continuation of their control.
These people were themselves controlled by the power of the boss,
the political leader who controlled the machine at the city, county, or
state levels. At the direction of the committee, each constituency was
carefully divided, and every precinct was watched closely by an agent
of the party, the captain, who was responsible for securing votes for
the party. Various rewards were offered to voters in return for the
promise of their votes. The machine could offer such inducements as
union jobs, trader’s licenses, and immunity from the police, and the
like. Operating in this manner, a party could frequently guarantee a
majority in an election to the candidates of its choosing, and, once it
was in control of local government, of the police, the courts, and public
finances, etc., the machine and its clients were assured of impunity in
illicit activities such as prostitution and gambling rings and of the
granting of public contracts to favored businessmen.
The degeneration of the party mechanism was not without benefits.
The European immigrant who arrived in the United States lost and
isolated in a huge and different world might find work and lodging in
return for commitment to the party. In a system of almost
pure capitalism and at a time when social services were practically
nonexistent, machines and bosses took upon themselves
responsibilities that were indispensable to community life. But the
moral and material cost of such a system was very high, and the
machine was often purely exploitative, performing no services to the
community.

By the end of the 19th century the excesses of the machines and the
bosses and the closed character of the parties led to the development
of primary elections, in which party nominees for office were selected.
The primary movement deprived party leaders of the right to dictate
candidates for election. A majority of the states adopted the primary
system in one form or another between 1900 and 1920. The aim of the
system was to make the parties more democratic by opening them up
to the general public in the hope of counterbalancing the influence of
the party committees. In practice, the aim was not realized, for the
committees retained the upper hand in the selection of candidates for
the primaries.

In its original form the British Labour Party constituted a new type of
cadre party, forming an intermediate link with the mass-based parties.
It was formed with the support of trade unions and left-
wing intellectuals. At the base, each local organization sent
representatives to a district labour committee, which was in turn
represented at the national congress.

The early (pre-1918) Labor Party was thus structured of many local and
regional organizations. It was not possible to join the party directly;
membership came only through an affiliated body, such as a trade
union. It thus represented a new type of party, depending not upon
highly political individuals brought together as a result of their desire to
acquire and wield power but upon the organized representatives of a
broader interest—the working class. Certain Christian
Democratic parties—the Belgian Social Christian Party between World
Wars I and II and the Austrian Popular Party, for example—had
an analogous structure: a federation of unions, agricultural
organizations, middle-class movements, employers’ associations, and
so on. After 1918 the Labour Party developed a policy of direct
membership on the model of the Continental socialist parties,
individual members being permitted to join local constituency
branches. The majority of its membership, however, continued to be
affiliated rather than direct for most of the 20th century. At the 1987
annual conference, a cap on the proportion of union delegates was set
at 50 percent.

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 laborers 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.

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 made
an effort 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

no socialist 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 no socialist parties were generally less successful in establishing
rigid and disciplined organizations.
The first communist parties were splinter groups of existing socialist
parties and at first adopted the organization of these parties. After
1924, as a result of a decision of the Comintern (the Third International,
or federation of working-class parties), all communist parties were
transformed along the lines of the Soviet model, becoming mass parties
based on the membership of the largest possible number of citizens,
although membership was limited to those who embraced and
espoused the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

The communist parties developed a new structural organization:

whereas the local committees of cadre and socialist parties focused
their organizing efforts and drew their support from a particular
geographical area, communist groups formed their cells in the places of
work. The workplace cell was the first original element in communist
party organization. It grouped together all party members who
depended upon the same firm, workshop, or store or the same
professional institution (school or university, for example). Party
members thus tended to be tightly organized, their solidarity, resulting
from a common occupation, being stronger than that based upon
residence.

The workplace cell system proved to be effective, and other parties

tried to imitate it, generally without success. Such an organization led
each cell to concern itself with problems of a corporate and
professional nature rather than with those of a more political nature.
These basic groups, however—smaller and, therefore, more numerous
than the socialist sections—tended to go their separate ways. It was
necessary to have a very strong party structure and for party leaders to
have extensive authority if the groups were to resist such centrifugal
pressure.

This resulted in a second distinctive characteristic of the communist

parties: a high degree of centralization. Although all mass-based parties
tend to be centralized, communist parties were more so than others.
There was, in principle, free discussion, which was supposedly
developed at every level before a decision was made, but afterward all
had to adhere to the decision that had been made by the central body
(see democratic centralism). The splintering that has from time to time
divided or paralyzed the socialist parties was forbidden in communist
parties, which generally succeeded in maintaining their unity. A further
distinctive characteristic of communist parties was the importance
given to ideology. All parties had a doctrine or at least a platform. The
European socialist parties, which were doctrinaire before 1914 and
between World Wars I and II, later became more pragmatic, not to say
opportunistic. But in communist parties, ideology occupied a much
more fundamental place, a primary concern of the party being to
indoctrinate its members with Marxism.

The 1920s and ’30s saw the emergence of fascist parties that
attempted, as did the communist and socialist parties, to organize the
maximum number of members but that did not claim to represent the
great masses of people. Their teaching was authoritarian and elitist.
They thought that societies should be directed by the most talented
and capable people—by an elite. The party leadership, grouped under
the absolute authority of a supreme head, constituted such an elite.
Party structure had as its goal the assurance of obedience to the elite.

This structure resembled that of armies, which are also organized in

such a way as to ensure, by means of rigorous discipline, the obedience
of a large number of individuals to an elite leadership. The party
structure, therefore, made use of a military-type organization,
consisting of a pyramid made up of units that at the base were very tiny
but that, when joined with other units, formed groups that got larger
and larger. Uniforms, ranks, orders, salutes, marches, and
unquestioning obedience were all aspects of fascist parties. This
similarity rests upon another factor—namely, that
fascist doctrine taught that power must be seized by organized
 minorities making use of force. The party thus made use of a militia
intended to assure victory in the struggle for control over the
unorganized masses.

Q.2 Critically evaluate the role of different interest groups in civil

society of Pakistan.
(20)
ANS:

The civil society in Pakistan is shaped by a variety of interest groups

that play a crucial role in influencing public opinion, policy formulation,
and governance. These interest groups represent diverse social,
economic, and political interests, contributing to the overall democratic
landscape of the country. Here's a critical evaluation of the role of
different interest groups in the civil society of Pakistan:

1. Political Parties:
 Strengths: Political parties are crucial actors in civil society,
representing diverse political ideologies and providing a platform
for citizens to engage in the political process. They mobilize and
organize people around common political goals.
 Weaknesses: The political landscape in Pakistan has been marked
by instability, with frequent changes in government. This
instability can hinder the long-term effectiveness of political
parties in representing the interests of the people.
2. Media Outlets:
 Strengths: Media serves as a watchdog, holding the government
and other institutions accountable. It provides a platform for
diverse voices and opinions, contributing to an informed citizenry.
  Weaknesses: Media in Pakistan faces challenges such as
censorship, self-censorship, and threats to journalists. These
issues can limit the media's ability to function as an independent
and objective check on power.
3. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs):
 Strengths: NGOs often fill gaps in social services, addressing issues
such as education, healthcare, and human rights. They provide an
avenue for citizens to participate in social and developmental
initiatives.
 Weaknesses: Some NGOs may face accusations of being
influenced by foreign agendas or lacking transparency. The
regulatory environment can also be restrictive, limiting the
autonomy of NGOs.
4. Business and Industry Associations:
 Strengths: Business and industry groups contribute to economic
development, job creation, and policy advocacy. They represent
the interests of their members and can play a role in shaping
economic policies.
 Weaknesses: Some business interests may dominate, leading to
policies that favor certain sectors over others. This can contribute
to economic inequality and hinder the development of a fair and
competitive business environment.
5. Religious and Ethnic Groups:
 Strengths: These groups play a vital role in preserving cultural
identity and providing a sense of belonging. They can also serve as
advocates for the rights of their communities.
 Weaknesses: In some cases, religious and ethnic groups may
contribute to social and political divisions. Extremist elements
within these groups can pose a threat to national unity.
6. Labor Unions:
 Strengths: Labor unions advocate for workers' rights, better
working conditions, and fair wages. They contribute to a more
 equitable distribution of resources and help protect the interests
of the working class.
 Weaknesses: Labor unions may face challenges such as
government interference, limitations on the right to strike, and
issues of corruption within union leadership.

In conclusion, the role of interest groups in the civil society of Pakistan

is complex and multifaceted. While they contribute significantly to the
democratic process and societal development, challenges such as
political instability, censorship, and external influences can impact their
effectiveness. It is essential for these interest groups to operate within
a framework that promotes transparency, accountability, and the
overall well-being of the nation.

Q.3 Discuss the making and breaking of alliance among political parties
of MRD. (20)
ANS:

The Pakistan National Alliance , was a populist and consolidated right-

wing political alliance, consisting of nine political parties of the country.
Formed in 1977, the country's leading right-wing parties agreed upon
to run a political campaign as a single bloc against the left
oriented PPP in the 1977 general elections.
 Movement for the Restoration of Democracy, which was a political
alliance in Pakistan in the late 1980s. The alliance was formed to
oppose the military dictatorship of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and
to demand the restoration of democracy in the country.

If there have been developments or changes in the political landscape

related to the MRD after my last update, I may not have the latest
information. However, I can provide a general overview of how
alliances are typically formed and broken among political parties.

Making of Alliances:

1. Common Objectives: Political parties often form alliances based on

common objectives or shared ideological beliefs. In the case of the
MRD, the participating parties likely united against the authoritarian
rule of General Zia-ul-Haq.
2. Strategic Benefits: Parties may form alliances to gain strategic
advantages, such as a stronger position in elections or increased
bargaining power.
3. Electoral Considerations: Parties may come together to enhance their
chances of electoral success by pooling resources and consolidating
votes.
4. Crisis or Threat: External threats, such as an authoritarian regime or a
perceived threat to democratic principles, can bring parties together in
a united front.

Breaking of Alliances:

1. Divergence in Objectives: If parties in an alliance no longer share

common objectives, the alliance may break. This could be due to
changes in political priorities, leadership, or ideological shifts.
2. Internal Conflicts: Intra-party conflicts or power struggles can lead to
the breakdown of alliances, especially if these conflicts spill over into
the alliance dynamics.
3. Policy Differences: Parties may part ways if there are significant
differences in policy preferences or approaches to governance.
4. Betrayal or Lack of Trust: If one party feels betrayed or loses trust in
the other members of the alliance, it can lead to a breakup.
5. Electoral Performances: Poor electoral performances by one or more
parties in the alliance can create dissatisfaction and prompt some
members to reconsider their commitment.
6. External Pressures: External factors, such as pressure from influential
individuals or interest groups, can also contribute to the breaking of
alliances.

It's important to note that political dynamics can be complex, and the
making and breaking of alliances depend on various contextual factors.
If you have specific information about the current status of the MRD or
any other political developments after January 2022, I recommend
checking more recent sources for the latest details.

Despite each parties standing with a different ideology, PNA was noted
for its large physical momentum and its right-wing orientation,
originally aimed to oppose Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and
the PPP.[1] Despite its right-wing populist agenda, the alliance
performed poorly in the 1977 general election and levelled accusations
of rigging the elections. After months of spontaneous violent political
activism, the martial law came in effect under chief of army
staff General Zia-ul-Haq who made call for a political retribution. By
1978, the alliance met its end when parties diverged in each of its
agenda. The left-wing parties later would form the MRD alliance under
PPP to oppose President Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s and the right-wing
forming the IDA alliance under PML.
History
The PPP came in power politics after the loss of East-Pakistan in 1971.
After uplifting the martial law in 1972 and promulgating
the constitution in 1973, the PPP made slow efforts to advance the
"Islam and democracy" in the country, but intensified
the socialism with a vengeance.[2] First and foremost,
the nationalization program was carried out to centralize the large-
scale industries, private-sector and commercial corporation to set up
the strong state sector.[2] Resentment and heavy disapproval came
from the elite corporate sector and PPP intensified its public programs
at the social circles.[2] Although the general elections were to be held on
half of 1977, Bhutto made a move and called for holding the general
elections on 7 January 1977.[3]
Early calls for the elections was an idea to not to given time to the
opposition to make decisions and arrangements for the forthcoming
elections.[3] Immediately after the announcement, Bhutto started his
election campaign and began allotting party tickets to party's
candidates.[3] Sensing the difficulty of facing PPP alone, the
conservative mass began to consolidate when JeI contacting
the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and TeI.[4] The other small nine
parties too joined the alliance and initially called for ending the era of
stagflation in the country and its manifesto was to bring back the 1970
prices.
On social views, the implementation of Islam was its primary election
slogan. They promised to enforce Islamic laws "Nizam-e-Mustafa" and
the Sharia laws.[4] The PNA's parties were a conglomerate of diverse
views and of contradictory causes and united by common dislike of
PPP's autocratic policies:
Right-wing populism and violence
At this platform, the modern European style-influenced forces formed
an alliance with totally opposite of hard-line Islamist forces.[3] The
alliance decided to contest the elections under one election symbol
"plough" and a green flag with nine stars as its ensign.[3]

Each star represented the parties under this

alliance. There were nine parties, therefore flag's star represented the
nine stars.
Contesting the 1977 elections jointly the PNA launched a national
campaign against the government after the controversial and allegedly
rigged results showing the Peoples Party as an overwhelming victory in
the general elections.[5] The agitation caught the Peoples Party and its
political scientists, by surprise and after several months of street
fighting and demonstrations. Under advised by his advisers, Bhutto
opened negotiations with the then PNA leadership but whether or not
it would have been signed by all PNA parties or by Bhutto remains open
to speculation. In a single unusual anti-Bhutto bloc, the alliance seemed
to be effective when tapping a wave to remove Bhutto from
government.
Meanwhile, Bhutto's trusted confident and a lifelong companion
dr. Mubashir Hassan tried to handle the situation on behalf of Bhutto
by bringing the alliance on a table to reach an agreement of co-
existence and a vital political solution.[6] On other hand, Hassan advised
Bhutto to not to rely either on establishment or use the force to curb
the alliance.[6] An agreement was eventually reached in June 1977 and
Bhutto was to sign it on 5 July.[6] However, despite the enthusiasm of
the negotiating team, other PNA leaders had reservations about the
agreement.[6] In response, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto also tried to crush the
power of this alliance, with the help of his agencies such
as FSF and Rangers and for this reason was also considered for the
cause of Bhutto's hanging on 4 April 1979.[6] In a coup staged by
General Zia, Bhutto was removed from office with majority of his
colleagues.[6]
Authoritarianism and PNA split
The conservatives and Islamist fronts went to General Zia-ul-Haq, Chief
of Army Staff and Admiral Mohammad Shariff, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Committee, and convinced them to remove Bhutto and
no other agreement is reached with Bhutto and his colleagues
remained stubborn.[6] The absence of a formal agreement between the
government and the PNA was used as an excuse by the Pakistan
Defence Forces under its chairman Admiral Mohammad Shariff which
led to stage a Coup d'état (see Operation Fair Play) by General Ziaul
Haque to break the impasse. Those justifying the coup, argue that no
agreement had been reached between the two sides.[6]
Controversy regarding foreign support
On 5 July 1977, the PPP accused the United States of plotting the coup
and maintained that the coup had tacit consent from the United
States.[7] A few before the martial law, Bhutto had indicated that few
foreign powers had been engineering his downfall, though he did not
name which foreign powers.[7] Several Pakistani scholars and
researchers have given credence to Bhutto's claim.[7][8] The veracity of
these claims are difficult to verify since the United States has strongly
rejected any claims of their involvement in downfall of
Bhutto.[6][9] Though, former American Attorney General Ramsey
Clark did questioned the "knowledge, hence the tacit approval" of the
coup staged against the PPP.[6][10]
Further media investigative research showed that one of PNA's leading
politician, Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan who was perhaps closer to
the secret establishment, had received millions of Rupees from the
establishment account to fight against the PPP.[11] Reportedly, it was
Asghar Khan who ultimately called for military take over and hanging of
Bhutto. After imposition of martial law, the retired air marshal
withdrew himself from the front line of the PNA and took a back
seat.[12]
In 1998, Benazir Bhutto publicly announced her belief that her father
was "sent to the gallows at the instance of the superpower (most
believe it to be USA) for pursuing the nuclear capability,[13] though she
did not disclosed the name of the foreign power.[13]
Alliance members
The Alliance unusually consisted of 9 parties, with complete different
ideologies, backgrounds, and political goals. As of today, the parties
have been separated from its original bloc, and formed different parties
with different names. And, as of the 1970s, the fronts and parties that
Bhutto and his colleagues were facing are listed below in their
respective categories:

 Jamaat-e-Islami (JI)
 Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI)
 Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP)
 National Democratic Party (NDP)
 Balochistan National Party (BNP)
 Muslim League (Qayyum) (ML-Q)
 Muslim League (Functional) (ML-F)
 Democratic Party (PDP)
 Q.4 Identify the source of public opinion. Describe the role of political
parties in development of public opinion. +(20)
ANS:

Public opinion is a complex and multifaceted concept that represents

the attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments of the general public on various
issues. It is shaped by a diverse range of sources, and understanding
these sources is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of public
opinion. Additionally, political parties play a significant role in both
influencing and reflecting public opinion.

Sources of Public Opinion:

1. Media: Mass media, including television, radio, newspapers, and online

platforms, plays a vital role in shaping public opinion by disseminating
information, framing issues, and influencing the public narrative.
2. Social Networks: Interactions within social networks, both online and
offline, contribute to the formation of public opinion. People often
discuss and share their views within their social circles, influencing each
other's perspectives.
3. Education: Educational institutions play a role in shaping individuals'
perspectives on various issues. The curriculum, teaching methods, and
academic environment contribute to the development of certain values
and beliefs.
4. Cultural Factors: Cultural values, traditions, and norms can significantly
influence public opinion. These factors shape people's worldview and
guide their attitudes towards social and political issues.
5. Personal Experiences: Individuals' personal experiences and
encounters can shape their opinions. Direct experiences with certain
events or situations can strongly influence how individuals perceive
specific issues.
6. Political Leaders and Figures: The statements, actions, and policies of
political leaders can sway public opinion. Leaders often have the ability
to set the agenda and influence public discourse.
7. Interest Groups: Organizations advocating for specific causes or
representing particular interests can influence public opinion by
actively promoting their perspectives and lobbying for policy changes.

Role of Political Parties in the Development of Public Opinion:

1. Agenda Setting: Political parties have the ability to set the agenda by
highlighting specific issues, thereby influencing what the public focuses
on. Through party platforms, speeches, and campaigns, they bring
certain topics to the forefront of public attention.
2. Information Dissemination: Political parties play a crucial role in
disseminating information about their policy positions, goals, and
values. They use various communication channels, including campaign
speeches, party platforms, and advertisements, to convey their
messages to the public.
3. Mobilization: Political parties are instrumental in mobilizing the public
for elections and activism. They engage in grassroots organizing, rallies,
and events to energize their supporters and encourage civic
participation.
4. Policy Advocacy: By presenting and advocating for specific policy
proposals, political parties shape public opinion on how certain issues
should be addressed. Their stances on key policy matters can influence
public perceptions and preferences.
5. Representation: Political parties, through their candidates and elected
officials, represent the interests and views of their constituents. The
party's alignment with public sentiment can enhance its popularity,
while divergence may lead to a loss of support.
6. Feedback Loop: Public opinion also influences political parties. Parties
conduct polls, surveys, and focus groups to gauge public sentiment,
allowing them to adapt their strategies and platforms in response to
changing public views.

Public opinion, an aggregate of the individual views, attitudes, and

beliefs about a particular topic, expressed by a significant proportion of
a community. Some scholars treat the aggregate as a synthesis of the
views of all or a certain segment of society; others regard it as a
collection of many differing or opposing views. Writing in 1918, the
American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley emphasized public opinion
as a process of interaction and mutual influence rather than a state of
broad agreement. The American political scientist V.O. Key defined
public opinion in 1961 as “opinions held by private persons which
governments find it prudent to heed.” Subsequent advances in
statistical and demographic analysis led by the 1990s to an
understanding of public opinion as the collective view of a defined
population, such as a particular demographic or ethnic group.

The influence of public opinion is not restricted to politics and

elections. It is a powerful force in many other spheres, such as culture,
fashion, literature and the arts, consumer spending, and marketing
and public relations.
Theoretical and practical conceptions
In his eponymous treatise on public opinion published in 1922, the
American editorialist Walter Lippmann qualified his observation
that democracies tend to make a mystery out of public opinion with the
declaration that “there have been skilled organizers of opinion who
understood the mystery well enough to create majorities on election
day.” Although the reality of public opinion is now almost universally
accepted, there is much variation in the way it is defined, reflecting in
large measure the different perspectives from which scholars have
approached the subject. Contrasting understandings of public opinion
have taken shape over the centuries, especially as new methods of
measuring public opinion have been applied to politics,
commerce, religion, and social activism.

Political scientists and some historians have tended to emphasize the

role of public opinion in government and politics, paying particular
attention to its influence on the development of government policy.
Indeed, some political scientists have regarded public opinion as
equivalent to the national will. In such a limited sense, however, there
can be only one public opinion on an issue at any given time.

Sociologists, in contrast, usually conceive of public opinion as a product

of social interaction and communication. According to this view, there
can be no public opinion on an issue unless members of the public
communicate with each other. Even if their individual opinions are
quite similar to begin with, their beliefs will not constitute a public
opinion until they are conveyed to others in some form, whether
through television, radio, e-mail, social media, print media, phone, or
in-person conversation. Sociologists also point to the possibility of
there being many different public opinions on a given issue at the same
time. Although one body of opinion may dominate or reflect
government policy, for example, this does not preclude the existence of
other organized bodies of opinion on political topics. The sociological
approach also recognizes the importance of public opinion in areas that
have little or nothing to do with government. The very nature of public
opinion, according to the American researcher Irving Crespi, is to be
interactive, multidimensional, and continuously changing. Thus, fads
and fashions are appropriate subject matter for students of public
opinion, as are public attitudes toward celebrities or corporations.

Nearly all scholars of public opinion, regardless of the way they may
define it, agree that, in order for a phenomenon to count as public
opinion, at least four conditions must be satisfied: (1) there must be an
issue, (2) there must be a significant number of individuals who express
opinions on the issue, (3) at least some of these opinions must reflect
some kind of a consensus, and (4) this consensus must directly or
indirectly exert influence.

In contrast to scholars, those who aim to influence public opinion are

less concerned with theoretical issues than with the practical problem
of shaping the opinions of specified “publics,” such as employees,
stockholders, neighbourhood associations, or any other group whose
actions may affect the fortunes of a client or stakeholder. Politicians
and publicists, for example, seek ways to influence voting and
purchasing decisions, respectively—hence their wish to determine any
attitudes and opinions that may affect the desired behaviour.

It is often the case that opinions expressed in public differ from those
expressed in private. Some views—even though widely shared—may
not be expressed at all. Thus, in an authoritarian or totalitarian state, a
great many people may be opposed to the government but may fear to
express their attitudes even to their families and friends. In such cases,
an antigovernment public opinion necessarily fails to develop.

Historical background
Antiquity
Although the term public opinion was not used until the 18th century,
phenomena that closely resemble public opinion seem to have
occurred in many historical epochs. The ancient histories of Babylonia
and Assyria, for example, contain references to popular attitudes,
including the legend of a caliph who would disguise himself and mingle
with the people to hear what they said about his governance. The
prophets of ancient Israel sometimes justified the policies of the
government to the people and sometimes appealed to the people to
oppose the government. In both cases, they were concerned
with swaying the opinion of the crowd. And in the
classical democracy of Athens, it was commonly observed that
everything depended on the people, and the people were dependent
on the word. Wealth, fame, and respect—all could be given or taken
away by persuading the populace. By contrast Plato found little of value
in public opinion, since he believed that society should be governed by
philosopher-kings whose wisdom far exceeded the knowledge
and intellectual capabilities of the general population. And
while Aristotle stated that “he who loses the support of the people is a
king no longer,” the public he had in mind was a very select group,
being limited to free adult male citizens; in the Athens of his time, the
voting population probably represented only 10 to 15 percent of the
city’s population.

The middle Ages to the early modern period

In the traditional rural European societies of the middle Ages, most
people’s activities and attitudes were dictated by their social stations.
Phenomena much like public opinion, however, could still be observed
among the religious, intellectual, and political elite. Religious
disputations, the struggles between popes and the Holy Roman Empire,
and the dynastic ambitions of princes all involved efforts to persuade,
to create a following, and to line up the opinions of those who counted.
In 1191 the English statesman William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, was
attacked by his political opponents for hiring troubadours to extol his
merits in public places, so that “people spoke of him as though his
equal did not exist on earth.” The propaganda battles between
emperors and popes were waged largely through sermons, but
handwritten literature also played a part.

From the end of the 13th century, the ranks of those who could be
drawn into controversy regarding current affairs grew steadily. The
general level of education of the lay population gradually increased.
The rise of humanism in Italy led to the emergence of a group of writers
whose services were eagerly sought by princes striving to consolidate
their domains. Some of these writers served as advisers and diplomats;
others were employed as publicists because of their rhetorical skills.
The 16th-century Italian writer Pietro Aretino—of whom it was said
that he knew how to defame, to threaten, and to flatter better than all
others—was sought by both Charles V of Spain and Francis I of France.
The Italian political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, a contemporary of
Aretino, wrote that princes should not ignore popular opinion,
particularly in regard to such matters as the distribution of offices.

The invention of printing from movable type in the 15th century and
the Protestant Reformation in the 16th further increased the numbers
of people able to hold and express informed opinions on contemporary
issues. The German priest and scholar Martin Luther broke with the
humanists by abandoning the use of Classical Latin, which was
intelligible only to the educated, and turned directly to the masses. “I
will gladly leave to others the honour of doing great things,” he wrote,
“and will not be ashamed of preaching and writing in German for the
unschooled layman.” Although Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, which were
distributed throughout Europe despite being printed against his will,
were of a theological nature, he also wrote on such subjects as the war
against the Turks, the Peasants’ Revolt, and the evils of usury.
His vituperative style and the criticism he received from his many
opponents, both lay and clerical, contributed to the formation of larger
and larger groups holding opinions on important matters of the day.

During the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48), extensive attempts were made
to create and influence public opinion, including the use of tracts
illustrated with woodcuts. Opinions were also swayed by means of
speeches, sermons, and face-to-face discussions. Not surprisingly, some
civil and religious authorities attempted to control the dissemination of
unwelcome ideas through increasingly strict censorship. The first Index
Librorum Prohibitorum (“Index of Forbidden Books”) was published
during the reign of Pope Paul IV in 1559. Charles IX of France decreed in
1563 that nothing could be printed without the special permission of
the king. The origin of the word propaganda is linked to the Roman
Catholic Church’s missionary organization Congregatio
de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith),
which was founded in 1622.

More quietly but more significantly, other means of distributing

information were becoming a common part of life. Regular postal
services, started in France in 1464 and in the Austrian Empire in
1490, facilitated the spread of information
enormously. Rudimentary private news services had been maintained
by political authorities and wealthy merchants since Classical times, but
they were not available to the general public. Regularly printed
newspapers first appeared about 1600 and multiplied rapidly
thereafter, though they were frequently bedeviled by censorship
regulations.

The great European news centres began to develop during the 17th
century, especially in cities that were establishing sophisticated
financial exchanges, such as Antwerp, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London,
and Lyons. With the introduction of a paid civil service and the
employment of paid soldiers in the place of vassals, princes found it
necessary to borrow money. The bankers, in turn, had to know a great
deal about the credit of the princes, the state of their political fortunes,
and their reputations with their subjects. All kinds of political and
economic information flowed to the money-lending centres, and this
information gave rise to generally held opinions in the banking
community; the ditta di borsa (“opinion on the bourse”) is often
referred to in documents of the period.
The 18th century to the present

Jacques Necker
Jacques Necker, print by Henri Grévedon after a painting by Louis-
Joseph-Siffrède Duplessis, 1822; in the Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam.(more)
Significantly, it was another financial official who first popularized the
term public opinion in modern times. Jacques Necker, the finance
minister for Louis XVI on the eve of the French Revolution, noted
repeatedly in his writings that public credit depended upon the
opinions of holders and buyers of government securities about the
viability of the royal administration. He too was vitally concerned with
the ditta di borsa. But he also remarked on the power of public opinion
in other areas. “This public opinion,” Necker wrote, “strengthens or
weakens all human institutions.” As he saw it, public opinion should be
taken into account in all political undertakings. Necker was not,
however, concerned with the opinions of each and every Frenchman.
For him, the people who collectively shaped public opinion were those
who could read and write, who lived in cities, who kept up with the
day’s news, and who had money to buy government securities.

The final years of the 18th century showed how enormously the power
of public opinion had grown. Revolutionary public opinion had
transformed 13 North American British colonies into the United States
of America. In France, public opinion had inspired both the middle
classes and the urban masses and had ultimately taken shape as
the French Revolution. Observers of the Revolution were mystified—
and often terrified—by this new spectre, which seemed able to sweep
aside one of the most-entrenched institutions of the time—the
monarchy.

In keeping with theories of social class developed in the 19th century,

some scholars of the era viewed public opinion as the domain of the
upper classes. Thus, the English author William A. Mackinnon defined it
as “that sentiment on any given subject which is entertained by the
best informed, most intelligent, and most moral persons in the
community.” Mackinnon, who was one of the first authors to focus on
the subject, drew a further distinction between public opinion and
“popular clamour,” which he described as

That sort of feeling arising from the passions of a multitude acting

without consideration; or an excitement created amongst the
uneducated; or amongst those who do not reflect, or do not exercise
their judgment on the point in question.
There is no doubt that public opinion was on the minds of the great
thinkers and writers of the era. The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel described public opinion as containing both truth and
falsehood and added that it was the task of the great man to distinguish
between the two. The English jurist and historian James Bryce, writing
in the late 19th and the early 20th century, maintained that a
government based on popular consent would give a nation great
stability and strength but did not believe that public opinion could or
should determine the details of policy, since in his view most people do
not have the leisure or inclination to arrive at a position on every
question. Rather, the masses would set the general tone for policy,
their sentiments leading them to take a stand on the side of justice,
honour, and peace.

Various theories of public opinion have been developed since the early
20th century, though none has been recognized as predominant.
According to a framework suggested by the Canadian communications
theorist Sherry Devereux Ferguson, most of them fall into one or the
other of three general categories. Some theories proposed in the first
half of the 20th century treat public opinion as a welling up from the
bottom levels of society to the top, ensuring a two-way flow
of communication between representatives and the represented. This
“populist” approach acknowledges the tendency of public opinion to
shift as individuals interact with each other or respond to media
influences. It has been opposed by theories of the “elitist” or social
constructionist category, which emphasize the manipulative aspects of
communication and recognize the multiplicity of perspectives that tend
to form around any issue. Reflecting a more pessimistic outlook,
theories belonging to a third category, known as critical or radical-
functionalist, hold that the general public—including minority groups—
has negligible influence on public opinion, which is largely controlled by
those in power.
The formation and change of public opinion

Alexis de Tocqueville
Alexis de Tocqueville, detail of an oil painting by T. Chassériau; in the
Versailles Museum.(more)
No matter how collective views (those held by most members of a
defined public) coalesce into public opinion, the result can be self-
perpetuating. The French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville, for
example, observed that once an opinion

Has taken root among a democratic people and established itself in the
minds of the bulk of the community, it afterwards persists by itself and
is maintained without effort, because no one attacks it.
In 1993 the German opinion researcher Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann
characterized this phenomenon as a “spiral of silence,” noting that
people who perceive that they hold a minority view will be less inclined
to express it in public.
 In summary, public opinion is shaped by a myriad of sources, and
political parties play a central role in influencing and reflecting public
sentiment through agenda setting, information dissemination,
mobilization, policy advocacy, representation, and a feedback loop with
the electorate.

Q.5 Critically evaluate the role of bureaucratic elite in Pakistani politics.

(20)
ANS:

The role of the bureaucratic elite in Pakistani politics has been a subject
of both scrutiny and debate since the country's independence in 1947.
The bureaucratic elite in Pakistan consists of civil servants, military
officials, and other administrative professionals who wield considerable
influence in shaping and implementing policies. Here is a critical
evaluation of their role:

1. Historical Influence:

 Military Coups: The military, a significant component of the

bureaucratic elite, has played a direct role in Pakistani politics through
several coups. The military's intervention in politics has disrupted
democratic processes and led to periods of authoritarian rule.
 Civil Bureaucracy: The civil bureaucracy, particularly the powerful
administrative and executive officers, has historically influenced policy
decisions. The bureaucracy's influence was particularly notable during
military regimes when bureaucrats often assumed key positions in the
government.

2. Stability vs. Democratic Processes:

 Stability Argument: Supporters argue that the bureaucratic elite has, at

times, provided stability in periods of political uncertainty. During
military rule, some argue that the bureaucracy brought a sense of order
to governance, albeit at the expense of democratic institutions.
 Undermining Democracy: Critics argue that the bureaucratic elite,
especially the military, has undermined democratic processes by
intervening in politics, suppressing dissent, and restricting political
freedoms.

3. Policy Implementation:

 Expertise and Efficiency: Bureaucrats are often trained professionals

with expertise in policy implementation. Their role in executing policies
can contribute to effective governance and the implementation of
development projects.
 Corruption and Inefficiency: On the downside, bureaucratic corruption
and inefficiency have been persistent challenges. Some argue that a
lack of accountability and transparency within the bureaucratic system
has hindered socio-economic development.

4. Role in Foreign Policy:

 Security Concerns: The military-dominated bureaucratic elite has

played a crucial role in shaping Pakistan's foreign policy, especially
concerning security issues. The military's influence has impacted
relations with neighboring countries and global powers.
 Civilian Diplomacy: Civilian bureaucrats, particularly those in the
foreign ministry, have contributed to diplomatic efforts. However, their
influence is often overshadowed by the military's role in strategic
decision-making.

5. Challenges to Democracy:

 Power Dynamics: The bureaucratic elite, at times, has been accused of

perpetuating power imbalances and protecting the interests of the elite
class. This has led to accusations of an entrenched, unelected
bureaucracy thwarting the democratic will of the people.
 Democratic Transitions: The role of the bureaucratic elite during
transitions between civilian and military rule has been a recurring issue.
The military's interference in politics has often disrupted the
democratic process.

6. Reform Efforts:

 Attempts at Reform: Various governments have attempted

bureaucratic reforms to enhance efficiency, accountability, and
transparency. However, the success of these efforts has been limited,
and bureaucratic resistance to change has been a challenge.

From the shadows of historical precedents to the corridors of modern

era, Pakistan’s bureaucracy and political elites, or to call it the elite
capture succinctly, have forged an unparalleled bond where they
carefully watch each other’s interests, but at the cost of taxpayers hard-
earned money.

Bureaucrats are very agile to respond to the needs of politicians, who in

turn keep the floodgates of support open for their serving baboos.
Governance reform has been a buzzword in Pakistan for years, with the
need to establish transparent, accountable, and efficient organizations
of administration gaining increasing prominence.
One of the critical aspects of governance that often faces scrutiny is the
relationship between bureaucratic institutions and political
associations. The nexus between bureaucracy and politics has been
both a driving force for development and a breeding ground for
corruption, leading to skepticism about the effectiveness of reforms.

The intertwining of bureaucratic and political forces in Pakistan can be

traced back to its inception. The civil-military bureaucracy has played a
significant role in shaping the country's political landscape. While this
symbiotic relationship has occasionally resulted in progress, it has
fostered a culture of patronage, nepotism, and corruption.

Political elites always come up with unforeseen allowances to the top

bureaucrats, which are usually more than what a whopping 80% or
more of the population earns a month -- a stark contrast to the
economic conditions of the majority of Pakistan's population. These
include executive allowance, utility allowance, and Secretariat
allowance, among many others.

Moreover, bureaucrats benefit from a range of privileges such as

drivers, cooks, luxury vehicles, free fuel, opulent accommodations, and
more, all funded by taxpayers. Despite these privileges, there is a lack
of accountability and performance audits for the bureaucracy.

Muhammad Ijaz, a former senior bureaucrat of repute, who served on

multiple administrative positions as DCO and secretary in the Punjab
and the federal capital, highlights this issue, stating that there has
never been a proper evaluation of the bureaucrats' service delivery to
the masses.

He points out that the bureaucratic-political partnership prioritizes the

interests of its political masters over the well-being of the common
man.
“There has never been a performance audit of these bureaucrats. There
is no mechanism for evaluating their service delivery to the common
man, who pays through the nose for their lavish lifestyles. They have an
army of servants even to open the door or fix their chair,” Mian Ijaz
remarks.

This political-bureaucratic nexus has put a spanner in the works of

public service delivery. The Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 and the
Punjab Rules of Business 2011 are very clear about the service delivery
aimed at facilitating the masses.

But, perhaps, these bureaucrats have deemed it appropriate to just

read these Acts and Rules rather than applying them as basic demands
of their jobs.

“There is an elite partnership between bureaucrats and politicians.

They are least bothered about the miseries of the common man. When
a bureaucrat gets a posting, transfer, allowances, bonuses through
political manoeuvring, he/she is bound to carefully watch the interests
of political masters,” Mian Ijaz laments, adding that the current state of
affairs of the bureaucracy is at its lowest ebb with regards to serving
the masses.

This nexus has been breeding corruption among bureaucrats and

politicians, resulting in unmitigated sufferings of the people. For
decades, Pakistan has had a prominent spot on Transparency
International's Corruption Perceptions Index.

In theory, institutions like NAB and FIA were established as watchdogs

to curb corruption and hold wrongdoers accountable. However, their
effectiveness has been questioned over allegations of selective
accountability and political interference.
Politicians are very vocal about curbing corruption and eliminating
nepotism prior to any election to garner public support. But once in
power, they realize that they have to work in tandem with the
bureaucracy to get their illegal orders approved.

“Amidst the backdrop of promises for a transformed governance

landscape, the cloud of skepticism continues to hover over the
bureaucratic-political association. This scepticism has cast a shadow
over the nation's pursuit of transparency and accountability,” says Mian
Ijaz.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2022 indicates that corruption was

among the top five problematic factors hindering doing business in
Pakistan. This hampered economic growth, discouraged foreign
investment, and perpetuated a cycle of poverty.

The former bureaucrat says the persistent skepticism surrounding

bureaucracy-politics association has hindered any meaningful
governance reforms. Public mistrust in the institutions' ability to bring
about change has created apathy and disillusionment among citizens,
posing a significant challenge to the government's efforts to enact
transformative reforms. Despite the rhetoric, the resistance to change
from within the bureaucratic and political circles also hampers
progress.

While skepticism is justifiable given the historical context and repeated

disappointments, it is essential to acknowledge that reform is a
complex and gradual process. The government, civil society, and
international partners must collaborate to rebuild trust in institutions
and ensure that accountability mechanisms are independent and
influential.
Moreover, fostering a culture of meritocracy and depoliticising
appointments within the bureaucracy can help mitigate the corrosive
effects of patronage.

Warnings regarding the perils that elite capture poses to Pakistan's

future have garnered attention and concern from the World Bank, IMF,
and prominent economists. The imperative need for Pakistan's power
elites to embark on reforms is not merely an external suggestion but a
necessity for safeguarding their own future in an evolving global
landscape.

Stefan Dercon, a distinguished British economist, has aptly articulated

that Pakistan's elites are ensnared in a relentless struggle for the
control of resources and authority within a clientelist patronage state.
Notably, their endeavours do not prioritize the nation's economic
growth and development, which is a matter of profound significance,
he maintains.

Beneath the surface, there exists a tacit agreement among influential

elite factions, encompassing political leaders, business magnates,
military figures, civil society luminaries, civil servants, intellectuals, and
journalists, to maintain status quo.

Pakistan undeniably possesses an abundance of intellectual prowess

and potential, but the crux of the issue lies at the intersection of politics
and economics. These elite bargains predominantly revolve around
governing access to resources and influential positions, perpetuating a
systemic challenge that hinders progress and prosperity.

The bureaucracy-politics association in Pakistan has long been a source

of contention, marred by corruption, patronage, and skepticism.
Despite promises of reform, the country's journey towards transparent
governance remains fraught with skepticism.
However, the way forward lies in collective efforts to rebuild trust,
strengthen accountability, and gradually dismantle the culture of
patronage. Only through sustained commitment can Pakistan navigate
this intricate landscape and pave the way for a more transparent and
accountable future.

In conclusion, the role of the bureaucratic elite in Pakistani politics has

been complex and multifaceted. While some argue that they have
provided stability and expertise in governance, others criticize their
historical interventions in politics, which have sometimes undermined
democratic institutions. The ongoing challenge lies in striking a balance
that ensures effective governance while upholding democratic
principles and the rule of law.