6

Chapter 1
POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
Political parties are an intriguing phenomenon. They intrigue the interests of the people in
organizing political parties (Duverger, 1964: 155; Lenin, 1904: 74), in enhancing political
participation (Disraeli, quoted by Cline, 1939: 509-512; Blake, 1966: 247-248;
Conancher, J. B. 1971), in decision making (Crotty, 1970: 294), in striving to acquire
power (Neumann, 1955: 403), in promoting national interest (Burke, quoted in Langford,
Paul 1981), in protecting their rights (Madison, see Morgan, 1981:613-625) and in
contributing their due share in the process of political development (LaPalombara and
Weiner, 1972: 399-438). The research on parties includes abundant writings whose
rationale lies primarily in a researchers desire to approach the study of parties from a
distinctive or simply better perspective than that of the other researchers. Like Disraeli
(Op.Cit.), viewed party as an organized opinion. Similarly, Benjamin Constant (see
Howard, 1980:10-20) wrote that a party is a group of men professing same political
doctrine. Maclver (1947: 298) defines a political party as: an association organized in
support of some principle of policy which by constitutional means it endeavors to make
the determinant of government. Lord Bryce (1921: 99) defines political parties as:
organized bodies with voluntary membership, their concerted energy being employed in
the pursuit of political power. Weber (1904-1905; trans. 1947: 31) defines political party
as: a voluntary organization of propaganda and agitation, seeking to acquire power in
order to procure chances for its active militant adherents to realize objectives, aims or
personal advantages or both. Edmund Burke (1790:16) thought of a party as a group of
7
men who had agreed upon a principle by which the national interest might be served.
Leon D. Epstein (1967: 127) says: any group, however loosely organized, seeking to
elect governmental officeholders under a given label. According to Leacock (1913: 31-
40), By party we mean more or less an organised group of citizens who act together as a
political unit. They share or profess to share the same opinion on public questions and by
exercising their voting power towards a common end, seek to obtain the control of the
government. Gettel (2004:274) states: A political party consists of a group of citizens
more or less organized who act as a political unit and who by the use of their voting
power aim to control the government and carry out their general policies Gettel and
Dnuuing, 2004: 274-290). To Gilchrist (2000: 640), A political party may thus be
defined as an organized group of citizens who prefer to share the same political views
and who by acting as a political unit try to control the government.

Variety of definitions has driven the task to a contradiction: that it seems difficult
to present a universally acceptable definition or theory of parties; yet it is essential too.
This dichotomy begins with the view of party organization as a Stratarchy. An Italian
sociologist Robert Michels (1959: iii-ix) offered his iron law of oligarchy that within
any larger organization, there is a tendency to devolve in to the hands of a small,
cohesive, tight-knit elite for the decision making. Michels argues that any large
organization is diarchical and is necessarily led by a small number of individuals who can
not be responsible to the rank-and-file membership, in any meaningful and effective way.

8
On the other side, Eldersveld Samuel (1959: 133-136) suggested an alternative
image of the party as a Stratarchy. Stratarchy stands as a special type of hierarchy in
which the ruling groups, power prerogatives and the exercise of power are diffused.
Contrary to the centralized unity of command, Stratarchy has numerous strata commands
which operate with varying but a considerable degree of independence.

A number of researchers have explored other fields, searching the structure,
functions, types and nature of political parties and the party systems. They all have
divergent views with different conclusions about the role of parties in political stability
and the political development. Thus, Duverger (1968: xv), and Barnes (1968: 105-138),
seem right to say that any general theory of the party or of any of the political institutions
or process does not now or never will exist. Numerous theories of the party are there
which may be more or less powerful, useful or reasonable but no theory is relevant for all
the times.

Absence of any pertinent theory has made the study of political parties
amorphous. Its varying limits have made it more or less subjective to the nature of
respective studies. The researchers generally pick and choose among literally thousands
of books articles, paying special attention to the one dealing with some specific aspect of
the party activity. Or, they may choose instead to concentrate on those items in the
literature that are pathfinders in their applications of new tools, new perspectives and new
9
dimensions to the study of parties. Similarly one may choose, as the present researcher
has done, to encompass a broad ranging spectrum of the role of political parties in the
process of political development. Very few researchers have explored this aspect directly,
their works will, however, be reviewed in the forthcoming pages in detail.

The role of political parties in political process instead of political development is
generally observed by various scholars with reference to the nature of the parties,
whereas, a liberal view appreciates the role of parties as the agencies of organized public
opinion with the help of which a political system operates. On the other side, Marxian
view examines the role of parties within the framework of class antagonism. Even
though, the liberals view the role of parties further in two divergent ways. The English,
French and Italian writers lay emphasis on the factor of principles lying in the
foundation and naturally the functions of a party. Whereas, American scholars view the
role of party as machine or a platform for a political strive to attain power on democratic
lines. Representing the English view Burke (1756:16) signifies the role of a political
party in the promotion of national interest on some particular principles to which its
members are all agreed. Jupp (1968: 2) quotes Disraeli reiterating the same view of
pursuance of certain principles by the parties. Similarly, Duverger (1964: xiv) quotes
Benjamin Constant stressing upon the commonly shared political doctrine of a party.
The American scholars (Henderson, 1976; Abbott and Rogowsky, 1978; Ippolito and
Walker, 1980; Blank, 1980), on the other side, deliberately avoid this reference to the
sanctity of principles and evaluate the parties simply as the competitors in the struggle
10
of power. For instance, Schattschneider (1942 : 35-37) uses a new phraseology that first
of all a political party is supposed to launch an organized attempt to get power, but it is
equally just to say that parties are held together by the cohesive power of public plunder.
This view regards political party as a vote catching machine or an agency to mobilize the
public support for a candidate at the elections, or an instrument aggregating the interests
that demand their voluble articulation, as Neumann (1955: 396) suggests: we take a
political party generally as the articulate organization of societys active political agents,
those who are concerned with the control of governmental power and who compete for
popular support with another group or groups holding divergent views. As such, it is the
great intermediary which links social forces and ideologies to official governmental
institutions and relates them to political action within the larger political community.
David E. Apter (1963: 328) has referred Dean and Schuman observing the same notion of
political party making it hardly distinguishable from a pressure or interest group. They
opine that parties have become essentially political institutions to implement the
objectives of interest groups. More or less a similar element is found in the
interpretation given by Crotty (1970: 294), who sees a political party as a formally
organized group that performs the functions of educating the public that recruits and
promotes individuals for public office, and that provides a comprehensive linkage
function between the public and governmental decision makers. It is distinguished from
other groups by its dedication to influencing policy making on a broad scale, preferably
by controlling government and by its acceptance of institutionalized rules of electoral
conduct more specifically capturing public office through peaceful means. Epstein
(1967: 9) also treats political party as any group seeking votes under a recognized
11
label. Jupp (Op.Cit.: 3), refers to Lasswell (1936), who observes: For many purposes, it
is enough to define a political party as an organization specialized with regard to
presenting candidates and issues under its own name in elections. Sartory (1976: 62) has
also quoted Lasswell and Kaplans work (1950), Framework for Political Enquiry
sketching the role of a political party as a group formulating comprehensive issues and
subjecting candidates in elections. Riggs (1970: 580) has also taken a structural view of
the role of a political party and has identified it as any organization which nominates
candidates for election to an elected assembly. Schumpetes (1942: 283) is indeed the
one who had laid the foundation of this prevalent notion of political parties held by some
American scholars declaring that a party is not a group of men who intend to promote
public welfare upon some principles on which they all are agreed. As Burke (1975, 16)
says Political party is, rather, a group whose members propose to act in concert in the
competitive struggle for political power. A refined version of the same notion is
available in the narration of Myron Weiner and Joseph la Palombara (1966: 3), who say
that by political party we do not mean a looselyknit group of notables with limited and
intermittent relationships to local counterparts. Our definition recovers instead, (1)
continuity in organization that is organization whose life-span is not dependent upon the
life-span of current leaders; (2) manifest and presumable permanent organization at the
local level with regularized communications and other relationships between local and
national units; (3) self-conscious determination of leaders at both national and local levels
to capture and to hold decision-making power alone or in coalition with others, not
simply to influence the exercise of power, and (4) the concern on the part of the
organization for seeking followers at the polls or in some manner striving for popular
12
support. Encyclopedia Encarta (2001) notes: Political Parties are organizations that
mobilize voters on behalf of a common set of interests, concerns, and goals. In many
nations, parties play a crucial role in the democratic process. They formulate political and
policy agendas, select candidates, conduct election campaigns, and monitor the work of
their elected representatives. Political parties link citizens and the government, providing
a means by which people can have a voice in their government.

Marxist view of political party on the other side is, indeed, an antithesis of its
liberal counterpart. Contrary to the liberal emphasis on party as a doctrine, it gives the
idea of a party as a class, which fights for initiating a new phase culminating in the era
of communism. Lenin (1904) opines that the proletariat has no weapon in the struggle
for power except organization ..Constantly pushed down to the depths of complete
poverty, the proletariat can and will inevitably become an unconquerable force only as a
result of this: that its ideological union by means of the principles of Marxism is
strengthened by the material union of an organization , holding together millions of
toilers in the army of the working class .

The communist party is, basically, declared by Lenin (1904:725) as the vanguard
of the revolution for the working class. The same view is reflected in the text of a
resolution adopted at the Congress of Communist International in 1920 that said: The
communist party is created by means of the selection of the best, most class-conscious
13
most self-sacrificing and far-sighted workers..the communist is the lever of political
organization, with the help of which the more progressive part of the working class
directs on the right path the whole mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat along
the right road (Degras, 1956:28).

Lenins theory of party goes further to declare that: the communist party stands
for the principle of democratic centralism. Maurice Duverger (Op. Cit.: 155), critically
observes: The idea of Lenin seems to concern not only the leaders but also the
militants. In practice, in so far as the latter are maintained by the party, they are
naturally given position of control, because they alone dispose of sufficient leisure to fill
these positions effectively. To create a class of professional revolutionaries is
equivalent to create a class of professional leaders of revolutionary parties, an inner
circle which stirs up the masses and which is founded upon the official duties performed
within the party; it is equivalent to creating a bureaucracy, but is to say an oligarchy. If
the posts of partys permanent officials were strictly elective, bureaucracy could coincide
with democracy. Practically, however this is not so and can not be so: the militants who
are capable of filling a permanent position and are willing to do so are not very
numerous: the leaders of the party are anxious to keep close control of them so as to be
certain of their technical ability and of their political trustworthiness: the leadership is
largely made up of permanent officials already in office. Thus, there is born an authentic
oligarchy which exercises power, restrains it, and transmits it by means of co-option. In
spite of all this criticism Duverger (Ibid: xv) has observed that the role of the Marxist
14
schema is true in one respect: the bourgeoisie and proletariat do not perhaps
constitute two classes, defined in strictly in economic terms, but they characterise two
states of mind, two special attitudes and two ways of life, the distinction between them
throws light on certain problems concerned with the structure of parties.

After the debate of political parties Duverger (1964), has noted we find
ourselves in a vicious circle of : a general theory of parties will eventually be
constructed only upon the preliminary work of many profound studies; but these studies
cannot be truly profound so long as there exists no theory of political parties. In the
absence of any general theory of political parties an International Comparative Political
Parties Project was initiated in 1967 for the purpose for conducting the first empirically
based, comprehensive, and comparative analyses of political parties through out the
world. The project focused 158 political parties working in 53 countries during 1950-
1962 and traced their providence through 1978. In studying these political parties the
project selected the set of organizations that pursued a goal of placing their avowed
representatives in government positions (Janda, 1968; Janda, 1969; Janda, 1970). The
project defined a political party as an organization entailing frequent interactions
among individuals with some distribution of work and role differentiation. Different
organizations may have multiple goals but to qualify as a political party an organization
should necessarily have as one of its goals that of placing its avowed representatives in
government positions. Furthermore, such individuals must also be avowed
representatives of their respective parties. Finally, the term placing should be
15
interpreted broadly to mean through the electoral process (Ibid, 1980: 5). Keeping these
very characteristics of the political parties the present study has opt the definition of
political parties as given in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. It
is noted as Political Party means a body of individuals or an association of persons
setting up an organizational structure or collecting funds or owning property, with the
object of propagating political opinions or indulging in any other political activity. This
is the same definition which primarily was given by the Political Parties Act 1962.
However the act of indulging in any other political activity in this definition will be
interpreted as placing which further is taken by the International Comparative Political
Parties Project as signifying through the electoral process.

1.1 HISTORY OF POLITICAL PARTIES
The origin of political parties can be traced in the western world where it is closely
associated with the development of the modern state and representative democracy.
Initially, the parties evolved through a struggle between the contending groups to grasp
control of the power of government (Milbrath, 1965: 120-22; Putnam, 1966:640-55;
Verba, 1965: 467-98). Such struggle for power initiated within legislatures, which were
formed initially to advise monarchs. By seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many
legislative bodies had started claiming for independent power bases and privileges of
their own (Latham, 1952:376-398; Krislov, 1963: 694-721). The earliest model of the
modern party system evolved in Britain in the eighteenth century. Subsequently, the party
system also evolved in the United States in 1788, after the ratification of the Constitution
16
of the United States (Beer, 1965:105-38; Chambers, 1967: 3-32; Converse and Dupeux,
1962:1-23). Competition between political parties, in both Britain and the United States,
undermined the traditional conceptions of politics. This conception was, indeed, rooted in
classical notions of virtue and public service. Under this tradition, political leaders were
supposed to place the common good above the interests of a fraction of the society.
Leaders striving to benefit only themselves or a limited portion of the society were
predominantly considered as corrupt. The party competition, however, put the public
figures to follow a contrary set of assumptions. First, that politics naturally involves
conflict and division, and second, that the true goals of politics are to secure the
economic interests and political influence of groups divided along lines of class,
ethnicity, race, and religion (Abramson, 1971: 131-55; Adrian, 1961: 251-63; Eckstein,
1968:33-43). Far from corrupting a society the party competition has measurably
strengthened and integrated it by providing a way to include and represent different
groups and interests, at varying times( Barnes, Op.Cit.: 105-38).

With the wide extension of voting rights to the adult male citizens, all through
Europe and the United States, the legislators had to appeal to a much larger segment of
their national populations. Political parties grew radically in size in the form of
independent, popularly based organizations, no longer serving merely the interests of
narrow elite in the 19th century (Hennessy, 1968: 1-44).

17
1.2 PARTY SYSTEMS
Notwithstanding the political party is difficult to define, it is relatively much easier to
describe and to identify the party system. The study of political system is, basically, the
study of political and para-political organizations of a society. According to Duverger
(1964: 5-17) it includes even the organizations that play the role of indirect parties. If
so, the scope of study is wider so as to include every political party whether big or small,
operating at the national, regional or local level with ideological commitment or
neutrality, and all the like more. Most of the writers have referred to three kinds of party
systems i.e. one party system, two party or bi-party system and the multi-party system.
There are some countries which have no party or the party systems so are declared as
nonpartisan. In a nonpartisan system, neither any official political parties exist, nor does
the law permit it. Every candidate for the office runs on his or her own merits in
nonpartisan elections. Resultantly, no typically formal party alignments exist within the
legislature in nonpartisan legislatures. Despite claiming nonpartisan voting, most of the
members have consistent and identifiable voting patterns. Founding fathers of the United
States intended the government to be non-partisan. Eventually, the first few sessions of
the United States Congress and the administration of George Washington were
nonpartisan. The unicameral legislature of Nebraska is the example of nonpartisan state
government body in the United States. So much so, many city and county governments
are also nonpartisan. Having legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within
nonpartisan governments generally evolve into political parties. (Burnham, 1970: 88-97)

18
In Single Party Systems, only one political party is legally allowed to hold power.
Although, minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they however, are legally bound to
accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be matching to
the government, whereas sometimes positions within the party may be more important
than the positions within government (Fainsod, 1968:221-46).

In Dominant-Party Systems, opposition parties are allowed. There may be even a
deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have
no chance to gain power. Sometimes, social, economic and political circumstances, and
public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries
with less established democratic traditions, it is possible that the dominant party will
remain in power by using patronage or sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the
definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather indistinct.
Examples of dominant party systems include the Peoples Action Party in Singapore and
the African National Congress in South Africa. One party dominant system also existed
in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the 1880s until the 1970s
and in Mexico with the Industrial Revolution Party until 1990s (Eckstein, 1968:436-53).

Two-Party Systems in which there are two political parties dominant to such an
extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is extremely difficult as
in the United States and in Jamaica. One right wing coalition party and one left wing
19
coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but the
political parties in two-party states are traditionally catch all parties which are inclusive
and ideologically broad. The relationship between the two-party system and the voting
system in practice was described by Maurice Duverger and is known as Duvergers Law.

Multi-Party Systems are the systems having various parties. In Canada and the
United Kingdom, there are two strong parties; with a third party that is an electoral
success. The party may repeatedly get second place in elections and pose a threat to the
other two parties frequently, but has still never held government formally (Ford, 1898:
21-32). However in times of minority governments, their support is often necessary to
either support or defeat a government. It means that they may have considerable
influence under the favorable circumstances. Only in some rare cases the nation may
have an active three-party system, in which all three parties routinely hold top office. It is
very rare for a country to have more than three parties who are all equally successful, and
all have an equal chance of independently forming government, as is there in Finland
(Dahl, 1966: 51-75).

Political systems having many parties but no one with the majority position are
called Mixed Party Systems. More commonly, in mixed party cases there are numerous
parties, no one party often has a chance of gaining power. The parties in such kind of
20
political systems work with each other to form coalition governments. This had been a
promising trend in the politics of Pakistan during the period under study.

1.3 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
The study of political development has its roots in the 1950s.The conscious
conceptualization and systemization of this notion, however, took place mainly in 1960s.
That decade, indeed, saw an epic outpouring of academic research on the meaning,
components, sequences, crises, causes, consequences, dimensions, patterns, uses and the
theories of political development. A series of bibliographical discussions of this literature
include mainly the works of Hah and Schneider (1968: 359-92), Montgomery (1969),
Deutsch (1961:493-514), Huntington (1971: 283-322), Packenham (1964:108-20) and
that of Pye (1966).

The Main factor behind this outpouring was mainly the outcome of two main
streams of scholarly activities. One was the expansion of area study programs in the
1950s. The second stream contributing to the study of political development stemmed
from what is known as behavioural revolution in political science. Actually prior to
World War II scholars of comparative politics limited their attention mainly to Western
Europe and North America. After World War II, however, their interest shifted to the
cold war against Soviet Union and then onto the American expansion policies and
pursuits in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. The behavioural revolution,
21
on the other side, initiated an effort to combine theoretical rigor and empirical research
with the aim to test generalizations through systematic cross-national comparisons. This
tendency led the behaviourist political scientists to adapt some concepts like structure,
function, input, output, feedback and system from the leading contemporary schools of
sociological analyses. Gabriel Almond, James S. Coleman and their associates took lead
in applying these concepts to analyse and compare the politics of different countries in
their work The Politics of the Developing areas, published in 1960. The behavioural
revolution also made a major contribution by introducing more precise and statistical
measurements of political phenomena (Russet, 1964). These potentialities of quantitative
research in the field of political development were first exploited significantly by Daniel
Lerner in his analyses of The Passing of Traditional Societies, published in 1958.

1.4 APPROACHES OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
A wide survey of the literature of this formative phase of the newly born domain of
political development reflects that at least three major schools of political development
analyses existed. Huntington and Dominguez (1975:1-96) have categorized them as:
i- System Function Approach.
ii- Social Process Approach.
iii- Comparative History Approach.


22
The system-function approach combined the elements of system theory and
structure-functionalism approach. It was derived and heavily influenced by the work of a
sociologist Talcot Parsons (1951, 1961, 1969, and 1971). The scholars applying this
approach in their works include David Easten (1953, 1965a, 1965b), Leonard Binder
(1962), Fred Riggs (1964), David Apter (1965, 1971), Levy (1966), Gabrial Almond and
G. Bingham Powell (1966), and Almond (1970).

The social process approach attempted to relate political behaviour and processes
to social processes such as industrialization, urbanisation and increasing media
consumption through comparative quantitative analyses of different societies. It can be
observed in the works of Lerner (1958), Deutsch (1961), Phillips Cutright (1963),
Hayward Alker (1966), Michel Hudson (1968), Martin Needler (1968), etc.

The comparative history approach represents a blend of a more traditional
approach with concentrated efforts at systematic and logical exactitude. It can be
observed in the works of Cyril Black (1966), S. N. Eisenstadt (1966), Seymour Martin
Lipset (1963), Barrington Moore (1966), Dankwart Rustow (1967), Reinhard Bendix
(1964), Samuel P. Huntington (1968), and Lucian W. Pye (1966).

23
Each of the aforementioned approaches has its advantages, limitations and
delimitations. In permutation they shed substantial new light on the phenomena of
political development.

Another researcher Chowdhury (1988: 8-11), has classified the approaches for the
study of political development into the following three perspectives:
i. Historical;
ii. Typological, and;
iii. Evolutionary.

Chowdhury narrates the contours of these perspectives as the historical
perspective presumes that the forces of history progress in a unidirectional way. Karl
Popper (1944), for instance defines historicism as an approach to the social sciences
which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim, and which assumes that
this aim is attainable by discovering the rhythms, or the patterns, the laws or the trends
that underlie the evolution of history.. Some other writers, like Comte, Hegel, Maine,
Spencer, and Durkheim also opine that development advances towards the Western
model. Marxist view states that all societies pass through five stages before coming to
attain communism i.e. primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and
socialism. This viewpoint of nonlinear growth has had an incredible impact on the study
of political development. W. W. Rostow ( 1960: 4-11) followed the footprints of Marx to
delineate his five stages of economic growth as: traditional society, preconditions for
take-off, take-off, drive towards maturity and the age of high mass consumption. In his
24
later research, Politics and the Stages of Growth, Rostow (1971: 230-266), includes
another stage named as the search for equality. Tagging on Rostow, A. F. K. Organski
(1965) demarcates four stages of development i.e. the politics of primary unification, the
politics of industrialization, the politics of national welfare and the politics of abundance.
This concept of political development implies that all the underdeveloped countries will
have to follow the same path which the developed countries had passed through, long
ago. This concept of a single course development is, however not universally applicable
in the presence of various patterns of development. Rostow and ward (1964) have also
rejected the unilinear stage theory in their work Political Modernization in Japan and
Turkey. They have proved that Japan and Turkey experienced development quite
differently. They further argue that the environmental conditions determine the patterns
and rates of development in a society.

The typological perspective of political development assumes that the developing
countries will have to follow the Western model of political development. These
ethnocentric tendencies developed in political science mainly due to the influence of the
sociologists like Weber, Parson and F. K. Sutton. Mannheim (1954) however attributes
these ethnocentric propensities to the value system of the elites in Western societies.
Almond and Pye have studied political development in this framework. Political activities
of the community elites in the developed countries also reflect the same notion.

25
Both the aforementioned perspectives become critical due to their insistence on
homogeneous and overlooking heterogeneous or reversible process of political
development. That is why, Coleman (1971: 73), has introduced another viewpoint i.e.
evolutionary perspective. This perspective looks political development as an inbuilt
capacity of a system to improve and transform itself. This approach is basically based
upon the idea that political development is a continuous interaction among the process
of structural differentiation, the imperatives of equality, and the integrative, responsive
and the adaptive capacity of a political system (Ibid: 74). Coleman further argues that
these three variables i.e. differentiation, equality and capacity constitute the development
prototype. Sidney Verba (1971), points out that all societies confront certain crises of
identity, legitimacy, participation, distribution and penetration in their attempt to realize
differentiation, equality and capacity. If a country, however, can resolve its identity crises
first, it can easily tackle with all the other crises of legitimacy, distribution, participation
and penetration (Ibid: 10).

Such a high concern with political development led the political scientists to
define the concept of political development. The definitions proliferated at an alarming
rate. Mainly because the term political development had positive connotations and the
scholars tried to apply it to the happenings, which looked important or desirable to them.
Resultantly, there was a large and often impressive body of literature that could only be
classified as political development studies. Political development is defined as the
emergence of mass participation in politics and the elaboration of political institutions
capable of responding to or directing such mass participation (Huntington, 1968).
26

Almond and Powel (1966:19-23), have defined political development as the
increased differentiation and specialization of political structures and the increased
secularization of political culture. Rustow (1967: 230-266) defines political
development as (1) an increasing national political unity plus (2) a broadening base of
political participation. According to Riggs (1970: 580), political development refers to
the process of politicization; increasing participation or involvement of the citizen in state
activities, in power calculations and consequences. Some other writers use the terms of
political development and political modernisation interchangeably. Coleman (1968:
395-396) defines political modernization in the following words: Political
modernization refers to those processes of differentiation of political structure and
secularization of political culture which enhances the capability, the effectiveness and
efficiency of performance _of a societys political system the interactions
characteristics of a traditional polity are predominantly ascriptive, particularistic and
diffused, those of a modern polity are predominantly achievement oriented, universalistic
and specific. Political modernization is viewed as the process of movement from the
traditional pole to the modern pole of the continuum.

Shills (1963:8) points out that the politics in the newly born states is elitist,
however the ruling elites are committed to equalitarianism and modernization. He
describes outlook of the elites in developing nations as follows: Modernity in the
eyes of the elites of the new states therefore entails the dethronement of the rich and the
27
traditionally privileged from their positions of preeminent influence. It involves land
reforms i.e. the breaking up of large private states, especially those which are owned by
absentee landlords. It involves universal suffrage, even if suffrage is exercised primarily
as acclamation. It involves breaking the power of the traditional interests of chiefs,
sultans and priesthoods. To be a modern democracy, according to the prevailing
conception in the new states implies that the rulers should be answerable to the people for
what they do. Where they are not in fact answerable to them through a legislature which
is popularly and periodically elected, then they allege that they exercise a stewardship on
behalf of the people and that they are answerable to the collective will, the high will is
more real then the empirical will of their people.

Hagen (1962) regards political development as the growth of institutions and
practices that allow a political system to deal with its own fundamental problems more
effectively in the short run, while working towards more responsiveness of the regime
popular demand in the long run. Eisenstatd (1962; 1967:252) considers political
development as the ability of a political system to sustain continuously new types of
political demands and organization.

"Political development may be defined in terms of the capacity of the political
system to satisfy the changing needs of the members of the society". (Park, 1984:58)
Harry Eckstein defines political development as the growth that occurs "in politics as
such", and elaborates what this growth looks like and how it arises.

28
All the aforementioned definitions show that there is a considerable difference
among the social scientists on the meaning, description and explanation of political
development. Actually, the stress of the contemporary social sciences on the knowledge
to be grounded on purely empirical investigation restricted many social scientists to pass
judgments on the political development in strange and unknown societies, which were
making new experiences in this domain. Resultantly, they deem it fit to follow the almost
euphorically hopeful view of the possibilities for rapid development in the new states,
which were so common a few years ago. So the guiding considerations which tried to
give a direction and discipline to the social sciences were challenged by the paradoxical
complexities and challenges of political development. Outcome was the visible level of
confusion, ambiguity and imprecision in the characterization of the term political
development.

That is why; Pye had to declare it helpful to elaborate some of the confusing
meanings generally attached with the term of political development. He (Pye; 1966: 33-
45) has enlisted ten definitions of the term with the purpose to eliminate a situation of
semantic perplexity which, he declares cannot help but impede the development of
theory. The enlisted definitions are:

1). Political Development as the Political Prerequisite of Economic Development.
2). Political Development as the Politics Typical of Industrial Societies
29
3). Political Development as Political Modernisation
4). Political Development as the Operation of a Nation State
5). Political Development as Administrative and Legal Development
6). Political Development as Mass Mobilization and Participation
7). Political Development as the Building of Democracy
8). Political Development as Stability and Orderly Change
9). Political Development as Mobilization and Power
10). Political Development as One Aspect of a Multi-Dimensional Process of
Social Change.

Pye has dealt with the matter at length and has tried to cover the maximum
aspects of the issue, but have declared them all insufficient to develop or evolve a theory
of political development. The first theory that is Political Development as the Political
Prerequisite of Economic Development was primarily based on the problem of
economic development and their transformation towards self-sustainability. Buchanan
and Ellis (1955), Baran (1957), Hirschman (1958), Higgins (1959), and Ward (1962), has
applied this perspective on the study of political development. Pye (Op.Cit.: 33-34),
however has declared this view of political development essentially negative. Basically,
the pattern of development was naturally varying with the variation of nature, problems
or situation of different societies. Secondly, economies manifestly change more slowly
than political arrangements. Certain societies have even experienced substantial political
change without any experience of industrial development or generous economic growth
(Ibid: 34).
30

The next view of Political Development as the Politics Typical of Industrial
Societies is also closely tied to economic considerations. It involves the politics of
already industrialized and highly advanced economies. In this perspective the industrial
societies, whether politically developed or not, set certain standards of political behaviour
and performance. These standards constitute the stage for political development as a
model for all the other societies to follow. Rostow (1952; 1960), has emphasized the
relationship between the process and stages of economic growth and the patterns of
political activity. The cyclical pattern of development of this approach, quite like the
previous one, becomes the dearth of this approach too. So, to tie political development
firmly to economic activity would be to overlook much that is of vivid importance in the
developing countries.

The view of Political Development as Political Modernisation, is basically the
extension of the previous two approaches. Industrial nations lay the fashions and set the
patterns in the phases of economic and social life. Consequently, many people expect the
same to be applicable in the political sphere as well. Cultural relativists like Lipset
(1959), Coleman (1960), and Deutsch (1961), however challenge the validity of
identifying the industrial experiences as the contemporary and universal standards for all
the societies.

31
To view Political Development as the Operation of a Nation State, however,
removes these objections to some extent. This view point is, indeed, based on the
assumption that historically there have been many types of political systems. The
political system of every community had its own political framework which had to make
structural and functional adjustments with the new model of modern nation-state. The
politics of traditional societies, therefore, must give way to the politics appropriate to
produce an efficient nation-state. The political development in this view involves the
development of a capability to establish and sustain the desired level of public order, to
mobilize resources for collective enterprises and to make and endorse the international
commitments and responsibilities. Political development then involves the growth of
potential to establish and sustain a certain level of public order, to generate resources for
a specific array of cooperative enterprises and to develop and efficiently uphold the
international obligations. This view suggests two main parameters to measure the level of
political development. First of all, the establishment of a specific set of public
institutions, that constitutes the basic infrastructure of a nation-state. Second parameter is
the controlled political expressions of the society in its experience of nationalism. Shills
(1962), Silvert (1964), and McCord (1965), have applied these parameters in their
narration of political development as the politics of nationalism or that of the nation
building.

The view of Political Development as Administrative and Legal Development
underlies the philosophy of the innovative colonial experiences. Strong bureaucratic
establishments and administrative structures are considered the bases of political
32
community in the European modus operandi. Weber (tr. 1947), and LaPalombara (1964),
associate the administrative development with the spread of rationality, secularization
and evolution of the legal concepts which in turn set the stage for political development.
While over emphasizing, this approach overlooks the vital aspects of the problems of
citizenship training and popular participation in the process of political development.

The concept of Political Development as Mass Mobilization and Participation,
involves another role of the electorate and new standards of allegiance and participation.
In some societies this becomes the popular view an end in itself in the pursuit of political
development. All the segments of those societies feel a significant level of advancement
with the intensity and frequency of public demonstrations with mass mobilization and
collective participation. Hoselitz (1952), Emerson (1960), and Greetz (1963), have
supported this view of political development. Shills (1963), however, has criticized this
view due to its stress on the hazards of either sterile emotionalism or debasing
demagoguery.
Political Development as the Building of Democracy, is the view that takes
political development as synonym to the establishment of democratic institutions and
practices. LaPalombara (1964), criticises this view with the argument that the political
development is embedded only in the strengthening of a set of democratic values and to
pretend that this is not the case in self-deceiving. Further argument in this case is that
democracy is a value-laden term while development is more value-neutral. Using the
33
edifice of democracy as a key to political development can thus be seen as an attempt to
impose American or the Western values upon others.

The perspective of Political Development as Stability and Orderly Change is
based upon the capability for purposeful and orderly change. Stability generally,
promotes stagnation and an arbitrary support of the status quo, which is not exactly
development except if its alternate is evidently a worse state of affairs. While attaching
stability with development, Deutsch (1963), however, declares that one way or the other
social and economic advancements more often than not depend mainly on orderly, sound,
stable and controlled environment. The main argument of this approach is that in modern
societies man reins nature for his purpose while in conventional societies man had to
adapt to natures orders. Political development thus can be conceived as depending upon
a aptitude to either control social change or be controlled by it. Riggs (1964), however
questions the questions the level, purpose and direction of change or of stability and
order. He also declares that the maintenance of order stands second to getting things
better.
The definition of Political Development as Mobilization and Power, leads to the
concept that political systems can be assessed in terms of the level and degree of absolute
power, which the system is capable to mobilize (Almond, 1963; Parson, 1964; Coleman,
1971). When political development is conceived in these terms of mobilization with an
amplified empowerment of the society, it becomes quite possible to differentiate between
both the purpose for development and the variety of characteristics linked with
34
development. These characteristics in turn may facilitate the preparation of indices to
measure the level and nature of development. This, however, generally applies to the
most developed and modern societies.

To view the Political Development as One Aspect of a Multi-Dimensional
Process of Social Change, is embedded in the perspective that it is somehow intimately
interlinked with some other aspects of social and economic change. This view is shared
by Lerner (1958) and Millikan and Blackmer (1961). This view declares that all types of
development are interlinked and interdependent. So, multiple social, economic and
political factors impinge upon each other one way or the other. Then various multi-
dimensional local and foreign influences are also there to determine the level and nature
of political development in a society.

Pye (Op.Cit: 45-46), has also noted certain other possible interpretations of
political development i.e. a sense of national self-respect and dignity, post-nationalism
perspective etc. Finally, without asserting any of these philosophical orientations or
theoretical frameworks, he refers to the themes identified by the Comparative Politics
Committee of the Social Science Research Council. These broadly shared themes include
equality, capacity, and differentiation. Even he does not declare these three dimensions to
fit easily together.

35
An encyclopedic review of all the different concepts of development has paved
the way for the researcher to devise a theoretical framework for the appropriate
operationalistion of the concept of political development in the present study. It
obviously requires finding a criterion or set of criteria to serve as a frame of reference to
determine the level of political development per se. It would be natural not only to expect
the criterion to be an idealized version of what prevailed or was supposed to prevail in the
society during the period under study, but also to be quantitatively measurable directly or
indirectly. Further, if the concept of political development is to be treated autonomous
than the criterion for it should at least be different from what are supposed to measure,
say, economic, social or cultural development. This limitation of a different and certainly
a pure political criterion is necessary to avoid indulging into the matrix of the
interrelationship between these different realms and whether development in any of them
presupposes any development in the others also. A standard political criterion to measure
political development for that matter is, therefore, the extent to which the members of any
society participate in the political exercise. Certain societies may be legally or actually
deprived of the right to participate in this process, while some others who have the right
to participate may not choose to do so. If the extent of the formal right of participation in
the political process is concerned with the total whole, then the actual exercise of the
right may be taken to determine the degree of political development. McClosky
(1965:254-255) has counted the five indexes of participation voting, political interest
and awareness, expressed party affiliation, sense of political competence with more
concentration on voting. Further, Verba, Ahmad, and Bhatt (1971:29) have noted that
participation is not a single undifferentiated entity. There are alternative modes of
36
participation that differ significantly in the ways in which they relate the citizens to their
government. Besides voting which is accepted almost without exception as the standard
political act, they have mentioned three other modes: Campaigning activity, co-
operative activity, and citizen-initiated contacts (Ibid: 29-32). By declaring the act of
voting as the standard political act they have made it convenient for the present
researcher to focus, only the act of voting. This will be the second limitation of the
present research. Thus, a purely political act of participation through its standard political
mode of election is selected as a criterion of political development per se.

Such interrelationship between participation and political development is not a
rare one but is already traced by many researchers like Banks and Textor (1963), Pye and
Verba (1965), Pye (1966), Kaminka (1966), Almond and Coleman (1966), Riggs (1968),
Huntington (1968), Inkeles (1969), (Dahl (1970), Brunner and Brewer (1971), Verba,
Ahmad and Bhutt (1972), and Arendt (1973) in a wide variety of ways. Huntington
however, has seen it in the tension between participation and what he calls political
institutionalisation as a clue to both political development and political decay.

Of all the aforementioned aspects, dimensions or definitions, Huntingtons (1968:
55), formulation seems more suitable for the nature and demands of the present study. He
(Ibid. 1968: 8-12), indeed, conceptualises the concept of political development in terms
of institutionalisation. The level of institutionalisation, he declares can be defined in any
37
political system by adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence of its
organisations and procedures. The more adaptable and an organisation or system is, the
more well institutionalised it is and the less adaptable or more rigid it is, the lower is its
level of institutionalisation. As an acquired organisational character, adaptability is a
function of environmental challenge and age. Age, in turn, can be measured in three ways
i.e. simply chronological age; generational age and the functional age. Complexity is the
second criterion of measuring the level of institutionalisation in a political system or any
organisation. The more complex an organisation is, the more exceedingly
institutionalised it is. Complexity involves generally both the multiplication of
organisational subunits and differentiation of their various types. Relatively primitive,
simple and traditional systems are usually plagued and shattered in the modernisation
process. The more complex systems, however, are more likely to adapt such new
demands. A third measure of institutionalisation is the extent of autonomy which a
political organisation may sustain independently. At its more concrete level autonomy
involves relations between social forces on one side, and between political organisations
on the other. In this sense political institutionalisation means the growth of political
organisations and procedures which are not merely the reflections of the interests of any
particular social group. Coherence in the structure and functions of any organisation is
the fourth criterion to measure the level of institutionalisation in it. Coherence and
institutionalisation are directly proportional to one another. The more coherent and
integrated an organisation is, the more well institutionalised it be. Huntington has gone
further and has tried to show the interrelationship between participation and
institutionalisation through an equation as:
38

Political Participation
= Political Instability
Political Institutionalisation


The equation relates political instability directly to political participation and
inversely to the political institutionalisation. It in other way shows that the less there is
political participation the less chance there will be for the political instability in a
country. Certainly, Huntington treats political participation as a ratio between political
participation and political institutionalisation, but with the axiomatic logic that if the
political participation exceeds the level of political institutionalisation, it will culminate
into instability. However, if the institutionalisation is more than political participation it
will result other wise. To see the same logic in another way let us assume that the term of
political instability is the opposite of political order or of political development as
Huntington himself has dealt with both, it would follow the pattern as:

Political Institutionalisation
Political Development =
Political Participation

Here political development is directly proportional to political institutionalisation
and inversely proportional to political participation. It means that if political
institutionalisation is occurring more than political participation in a society it will
reinforce political development, but if it is lagging behind it will exacerbate the process
of political development. So the notion of political participation does not go always
39
positive with political institutionalisation and the political development, rather goes
negative if superfluous, as considered by Huntington. He has seen the dynamic thrust as
coming from negative factor i.e. political participation, that whether it results in
political instability and decay or in political order and development depends upon the
capacity of political institutions of a society to contend with it through their adaptability,
complexity, autonomy and coherence. The Figure is showing the same correlation
through a diagram given in the figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Political Institutionalisation, political Participation and Political
Development
High

Order/ Political
Repression Development

Instability / Decay

Low High
Political Participation / demand

SOURCE: Huntington, Samuel P. (1968:79). Political Order in Changing Societies.
Tolerable Range

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n


40


The figure 1.1 shows that political development must be measured by political
institutionalization. Through this diagram Huntington asserts that political development is
not an inevitable path of progress however political decay is always a possibility. He
further argues that political organizations and procedures must have acquired value in the
perspective of the society, and a certain level of stability to endure momentous pressures.

Finally, Huntington considered the political parties as political institutions and has
declared that The principal institutional means for organising and expansion of political
participation are political parties and the party system (Ibid: 398). Focussing properly on
political parties and the party systems he opines that the parties regulate political
participation and the political systems have an effect on the pace at which participation
expands. The strength and the stability of a party or a party system depend upon both its
level of participation and its altitude of institutionalisation. A high level of participation
along with low levels of political party institutionalisation generates anomic politics with
violence. On the other hand a low level of participation is also likely to weaken political
parties in comparison with other political and social institutions. It is desirable for party
leaders to inflate political participation in the interest of their own party organisation. A
party having mass support is but stronger than a party with restricted support (Ibid: 401-
402).

41

Huntingtons this formulation of political development suits better to the present
study because it has taken political parties as an important institution of the political
system. The same is taken as hypothesis of the present study taken in the context of
Punjab. It is therefore hypothesised that the political parties could not institutionalise
themselves at a pace of expansion of political participation in Punjab which affected the
strength and stability of political parties and in turn culminated into the instability of the
political system. Such a state of anomic politics posed a colossal challenge to the political
development in Punjab.

Furthermore in his model of institutionalisation Huntington has given a criterion
for evaluating the role and contribution of the political parties in the political
development of any system. A number of scholars have explored in to the phenomenon
of political development mainly in Pakistan which is also applicable on the various trends
of political development in Punjab. A brief review of them all shows that they have
studied the problems in different perspectives as per the difference of their approaches to
view the problem. The works of these researchers can be categorised into four main
approaches i.e. Elitist Approach, Marxian Approach, Ideological Approach, and
Praetorian Approach.


42
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
A number of scholars have explored in to the politics of Pakistan, but very few have
focused on the politics of Punjab. A brief review of them all shows that they have studied
the problems in different perspectives as per the difference of their approach to view the
phenomenon. The works of these researchers can be categorised into four main
approaches i.e. Elitist Approach, Marxian Approach, Ideological Approach, and
Praetorian Approach.
1.5.1 ELITIST APPROACH
i. Robert La Porte
ii. Myron Weiner
iii. Stanley Wolpert

1.5.2 MARXIST APPROACH
i. Tariq Ali
ii. Mubashir Hassan
iii. Hamza Alvi
iv. Mubarak Ali


1.5.3 IDEOLOGICAL APPROACH
i. Leonard Binder
ii. Asif Hussain
43
1.5.4 PRAETORIAN APPROACH
i. Simon P. Huntington
ii. K. B. Saeed
iii. Keith Callard
iv. Rafiq Afzal
v. Lawrance Ziring
vi. Hasan Askari Rizvi
vii. Raunaq Jahan
viii. Aysha Jalal
ix. Muhammad Waseem
x. Ian Talbot

1.5.1 Elitist Approach
The scholars studying the political history of Pakistan in the elitist approach are of the
view that Pakistan inherited a very strong military and bureaucracy. Both of these
institutions had been playing a significant role in the policy making. As a part of the
colonial legacy they were having a superior and supervisory position in the newly born
state of Pakistan. They always favoured the status quo in their own better interest and
never let the political institutions like that of political parties get flourish. Consequently
they destroyed the political culture, political institutions and the whole political system,
indeed.

Robert LaPort, Jr, (1975), was the first one to use elitist approach in his Power
and Privilege: Influence and Decision-Making in Pakistan. Referring to the la Michels
44
Iron Law of Oligarchy, he opines that regardless of the democratic nature of the
organisation an elite class emerges to guide the masses. Elite groups in Pakistan,
however, are categorised by him into three main categories i.e. political elite, economic
elite, and social elite. The epitome of political elite in Pakistan is the top-level military
and the civilian bureaucrats, whose social base is traditional wealth and power. He again
attaches wealth and power with land in Punjab and Sindh and tribal leadership (and land)
in Balochistan and Northwest Frontier. Through the course of his study covering the
period from 1947 up to 1975 LaPort, Jr, (1975) opines that pre-Ayub period actually
paved the way for military rule along with the cohesion of civil bureaucracy. Military and
bureaucracy was the hub of political activity then and also in the times to come. He
concludes that the decision making processes in Pakistan tend to be highly centralised
and personalised in the chief executive. He assumes the Z. A. Bhutto regime initially
permitted a greater level of political expression along with a commitment to reshape the
power of certain elite groups. This change, however, was not accepted by the civil and
military bureaucracy who supported the status quo and they ultimately maintained it.

The second researcher to use the elitist approach was Mynor Weiner (1962;
1986). He concisely pointed out the major problem in the developing courtiers is that of
scarcity of resources. The nature of political system in any country is determined by the
fact that who controls, allocates and distributes these resources. The societies where
political institutions were established with the empowerment of the political elites could
overcome the military establishment and civil bureaucracies. Putting resources in the
hands of political institutions led such societies at the way to political development. In
45
the case of Pakistan he declared that in the first period from 1947 to 1951 all the
resources were transferred from colonial masters to the native elites including civil and
military bureaucracy. This was the period of transition. During the second period from
1951 to 1958 the civil and military bureaucracy established its hegemony on the political
system of Pakistan. This hegemony could not be broken by the political parties. That is
why the political institutions could not establish properly in Pakistan.

Finally using the same elitist approach, Wolpert (1998) studied the
situation from a different angle and accentuated that Muhammad Ali Jinnah had used the
vehicle of the All India Muslim League (AIML) to establish a country. The AIML was
established in 1906 primarily with the object to protect the interest of the Muslims of
India and to develop cordial relations between the British government and the Muslim
community. During the period from 1937 to 1947, Jinnah had successfully transformed
the party into a national movement. Though the party had penetrated down to the root
level of the society but Jinnah could neither pay much attention to the formal structure of
the party nor could he prepare second row of the party leadership who could replace him.
Eventually both the party as well as the newly born country fallen a victim to the
leadership crises. He further revealed four factors: i) Regional Diversity; ii) Relatively
Small Bureaucracy; iii) Fear of India and a Rapid Growth of Pakistan Military; and iv)
Adoption of 1935 Act and the Vice-regal System, which lead to establish a dominance
of civil and military bureaucracy over the political system of Pakistan.

46
1.5.2 Marxist Approach
Tariq Ali (1970) opines that the elite class has joined hands with the international power
brokers, especially with that of the USA and UK. US had a considerable influence on the
ruling class of Pakistan through out its containment policy. During the decade of fifties
ruling class in Pakistan was following the same police on the recommendations of
America. A significant influence of the British was also visible. Feudal class and the
political leaders were being steered by the British. On the other side civil and military
bureaucracy were following the instructions of the American Lobby. In such a state of
affairs objectives were met by weakening the party democracy and the democratic were
finally wrapped up by the Martial Law regime. Thus only the internal strife was not
responsible for political decay rather external forces played more significant role in
derailing the democratic and representative institutions in Pakistan. Following the same
approach Dr. Mubashir Hassan, Hamza Alvi, and Dr. Mubarak Ali has declared the
imperialistic character of the political institutions and the political leadership responsible
for decay of the political and representative institutions of the country. Ruling class
actually was divided in to three main groups i.e. the feudal, the capitalist and the elite
class. Proponents of this school of thought consider that all theses three classes were
established by the imperialist powers to meet their own targets during the colonial era.
These very three classes were at the helm of affairs in the post colonial period. They
however joined hands with the two axes of power named the civil and military
bureaucracy in the post independence period. Such a close collaboration of all the ruling
classes with the ruling forces did not let the democratic and representative institutions
flourish. Natural outcome of this political experience was a class conflict which also
bears negative implications of the political development of the society.
47
1.5.3 Ideological Approach

Both the proponents of the ideological approach, Leonard Binder (1961) and Asif
Hussain (1979) have pointed out some ideological controversies as principle problems in
the way to political development in the society. These principle problems include: i) state
of religion in the newly established ideological state of Pakistan; ii) role of religious
groups in the political system; iii) place of religious clergy in the structure of the state;
and iv) the influence of the religious leadership on the political development of the
country. While reviewing the pre-military hegemonic period from 1947 to 1958, Binder
(Ibid) declares three main groups of the modern secularists, the traditionalists, and the
fundamentalists as the trend setting forces in the political culture of Pakistan. Difference
of opinion between these varying groups posed severe challenges to the political
development of the society of pluralistic footings.

Hussain (Ibid) has declared that the landlord elites, political elites, religious elites,
industrial elites, the professional elites and the military elites were the main contenders of
power in the political system of Pakistan. Declaring Pakistan an ideological state he
argues that religious clergy had a deep rooted support in the traditional society of
Pakistan. He also affirms that the political development in the country should be on the
religious grounds not the feudal footings. To him the initial problem of Pakistan was
more of administrative nature that that of political. In that phase religious leadership
could have played a very important role. But they were not given due space in the
political structure of the state. Even then they contributed significantly especially in the
formulation of the constitution of the religious footings. He concludes that when the
popular forces of the society were not given their due representation in the political
system, the civil and military bureaucracy and the feudal classes got a chance to establish
their hegemony on the state structure. This in turn caused a big damage to the political
development in the society.


48
1.5.4 Praetorian Approach
The figure 1.1 shows that political development must be measured by political
institutionalization. Through this diagram Huntington Asserts that political development
is not an inevitable path of progress, however political decay is always a possibility. He
further argues that political organizations and procedures must have acquired value in the
perspective of the society, and a certain level of stability to endure momentous progress.
Khalid B. Saeed (1967) has studied the political system of Pakistan, right from its origin
up to 1965. Studying politics of Pakistan from 1947 to 1958, he has declared it the
politics of conflict. He traces the reasons of these conflicts in the constitutional autocracy,
military and bureaucracy alliance, the raison detre of Pakistan i.e. Islam, politics of
regionalism and the political parties. Apparently these conflicts were between the civil
and military bureaucracy and the political leaders but their causes were embedded deep in
the political culture of Pakistan. All the political parties and the political leaders of East
Pakistan had no clarity and uniformity on the point of provincial autonomy. Similarly, the
politicians of West Pakistan had no consensus on different political problems and were
segmented into different groups, protecting their own vested interests. Politicians of
Punjab and Sindh had the feudal conflicts also, which culminated in turn into the political
feuds. Such a state of affairs had its impacts on the society which left the political system
unable to maintain and strengthen its institutions and to face the challenges from military
and civil bureaucracy.

49
Keith Callard (1968) opines that Pakistani idealised democracy but did not know
how to materialise it. He declares the initial period of Pakistan as the period of change
and uncertainty. There had been certain fixed ideas and few institutions whose validity
had never been open to question. Political parties have waxed waned and suffered eclipse
in Pakistan. Religious leaders have laid their claim to complete authority and superiority
and have achieved almost none. The state on the other side, has largely been run by the
Civil Service, backed be the Military. Military and bureaucracy mainly from Punjab have
carried much in the state of Pakistan as they did before its creation. Political leaders and
political parties were, however, unable to set the system right.

Lawrence Ziring (2003) also labels the responsibility of the weaknesses of party
politics in Pakistan on the political leaders, factional politics and the structural
weaknesses of the political parties. The creation of a civil society, to him, continued to
elude the nation and the socio-political balance was still maintained by a steel frame of
civil-military administration. The parties on the other side were not yet the disciplined
expressions of societal aspirations. The Punjabis dominated the political life, the
administrative structure, the military establishment, the economy and the general decision
making process in the country. This basically was an extension of the colonialism legacy.
Then the externalities of the political experience in Pakistan are another negative factor in
the development of political equation. The vast majority of Pakistanis are a gullible
congeries of factions, clans and tribes. Manipulation of these all by the traditional, as well
50
as, contemporary power brokers remains the central focus of the political experience in
Pakistan and gives space for the interference of civil and military bureaucracy.

Rounaq Jahan (1972) has studied Pakistans failure in national integration. The
study mainly focuses the Ayub period that is 1958-1969. While addressing the problem
of national integration in Pakistan she argues that that East West imbalance and the
problem of sub-regionalism in West Pakistan hampered the process of national
integration in Pakistan. Then the political leaders could neither evolve nor strengthen the
existing political institutions in the formative phase of 1947 to 1958.In the absence of the
political institutions and organised political parties the civil-military bureaucracy
assumed de facto political power and dismissed the politicians as superfluous and as
impediments to modernisation. She has referred the view of C. B. Marshall (1959:253),
that West Pakistan is governmental, whereas East Pakistan is political. West Pakistan
especially Punjab has contributed more to the civil-military administration. Such
assimilation, however, was opposed by the Bengalis. Vernacular elite especially Bengalis
already deprived of their due representation were further restricted from military and
bureaucracy nonetheless the decision making. Nationalist politicians of West Pakistan
and bureaucracy empowered the nationalist elements which in turn damaged the process
of national integration of Pakistan.

51
Rafiq Afzal (1976) opines that a long experience of Muslim leadership with the
British parliamentary institutions principally determined the possible political framework
of Pakistan. The period from 1947 up to 1958 represents the first experiment with the
parliamentary form of democracy. The main causes for the military intervention were the
immature and baloney politics of the political leaders and unorganised structure of the
political parties in action. Punjabi-Bengali political tussle gave birth to factions and the
politics of forward block in Pakistan weakened the party politics and the political culture
of Pakistan.

Hasan Askari Rizvi analyses the early period of Pakistan and assumes that
Pakistan was lacking in the organised political parties and their leadership. Regional,
factional and prejudiced political forces were engaged in political bargaining. Such
violations of political norms undermined the political culture. Resultantly political
institutions could not be established. This whole state of affairs left the political parties
unable to compete with the Punjab based civil and military bureaucracy. Political elites
on the other side could not take up the situation properly rather they themselves became
stooges in the hands of apolitical forces.
Waseem (1989) studied the politics of Pakistan with the view that the authority
structure of the state as inherited from the British India provided a focal point for the
countrys politics. Though apparently the political community seemed to dominate the
political scene through ideological movements, ethnic violence, election campaigns and
legislative activity etc. but it was the structure of the state which was primarily
responsible for shaping the political events throughout the post independence period. In
52
this way primarily the Punjabi legal and constitutional authority occupied the central
stage while the political actors had a propensity either to seek support from it or
otherwise to restrict its legitimizing potential.
Jalal (1969) had conducted a comparative and historical study of the interplay
between politics and authoritarian states in the post-colonial South Asia. She elucidated
how a common British colonial legacy led to the essentially contrasting patterns of
political development military authoritarianism in Pakistan and Bangladesh and
democracy in India. The study unfolded that how in spite of having differences in forms,
central political authority in each state came to confront broadly comparable threats from
linguistic and regional dissidence, religious and communal strife, along with the caste as
well as class conflicts. After comparing and contrasting the political processes and state
structures the researcher had evaluated and redefined citizenship, nation-state,
sovereignty and democracy. Finally she has recommended a more decentralized
governmental structure better able to arbitrate between ethnic and regional separatist
movements. Another work by Jalal (1990) contains much detail on Punjabi politics
during the first decade of Pakistans independence. She links domestic and regional
factors with international imperatives in the cold war era to explain Pakistans defense
influenced state construction. She puts responsibility on the feudal domination of Punjabi
society on the political structure of Pakistans economy.

Talbot (1999) has developed a sense of the Pakistans history by examining the
interplay between colonial inheritances and contemporary socio-economic and strategic
environments. The same importance he has given to the analyses of politics at regional as
well as national levels. Reaction of the state towards demands for augmented political
participation and devolution of power has also been of vital importance. Similarly the
sensitivity of minorities about the Punjabisation of Pakistan is also not ignorable.
Finally, Talbot focuses the long-standing problems of weak institutionalization and
viceregalism which are rooted in the colonial legacy of the state.
53

1.6 METHODOLOGY
The authenticity of the present research rests on the scientific method, it follows. The
researcher has observed competing approaches to social science research based on
different philosophical assumptions about the purpose of science and the nature of social
reality. The three established alternative ideal-type competing approaches to social
science are Positivism, Interpretive Social Science, and Critical Social Science (Benton,
1977; Blaikie, 1993). Each approach is associated with different traditions in the social
theory and diverse research techniques. This linkage among the broad approaches to
social science, social theory, and research techniques is basically not stringent (Bredo and
Feinberg, 1982). These approaches are indeed similar to a research programme or the
scientific paradigm (Lloyd, 1986). A paradigm is an idea introduced by the philosopher
of science Thomas Kuhn (1970). It stands for the basic orientation to theory and research.
A scientific paradigm is a whole system of thinking. It includes basic assumptions, the
principle questions to be addressed, and the research techniques to be used (Eckberg and
Hill, 1979: 937-947; Masterman, 1970: 59-90). The positivist approach is used in the
present study to answer the basic questions of the present research. Richard Miller
(1987:4) observed that Positivism is the most common philosophical outlook on
science. Though positivism is broadly defined as an approach of the natural science,
positivist social science however is also widely prevalent.

54
Positivism is associated with many social theories. Its best linkage is nevertheless
to the framework of structural-functional theory. As the same framework of structural
functionalism is used by Huntington (1977), so the present research done in the
Huntingtons framework has applied the very same framework of structural
functionalism. Positivist researchers prefer precise quantitative data and often use
experiments and statistics. They seek rigorous exact measures and objective analyses by
testing hypotheses and carefully analysing numbers from the measures (Keat and Urry,
1975: 25). Following the same footprints the present research is relying mainly on the
quantitative type of data and is using election statistics for an objective analysis of the
participation of voters and the political parties in the political system of Punjab.
Furthermore positivism sees social science as an organised method for combining
deductive logic with precise empirical observations of individual behaviour in order to
discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general
patterns of human activity (Longino, 1990: 62-82). As per the nature of the present
research, the deductive logic of enquiry is used for an empirical observation of the
political behaviour of the society determining the universe of the study. The same
criterion is applied on the behaviour of the political parties under observation.