Winston Churchill called democracy the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. The past few months have turned democracy, constitutional courts, amendments, and separation of powers into buzzwords. What do they really mean, though? To fully comprehend democracy in the context of Pakistan, we must journey back through our history and analyze the key events that left their mark.

The political and constitutional order of Pakistan has always been rocky, as a tussle between the military, civilian government, and judiciary. More than once, this delicate balance has been disrupted by military coups and periods of martial law, leading to a breakdown of democracy and a lack of continuity in governance. A question that has a lot of significance and should be rightfully added to our national curriculums is how the fiasco began and who was responsible for its continuity. Unfortunately, a lot of young, educated Pakistanis don’t know that the 1953 riots of Lahore set a chain reaction. These erupted after the flagbearers of Ahrar ul Islam stirred up a movement to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim, while demanding the dismissal of former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Sir Zafrullah Khan. The leaders of the anti-Ahmadiyya movement also called for dismissal of other members of Ahmadiyya community holding government posts, alluding that their faith somehow handicapped them from functioning professionally.

In his influential work, “The Destruction of Democracy,” Allen McGrath recalls that on January 21, 1953, the leaders of the movement gave an ultimatum to the then Prime Minister Nazimuddin; however, Khawaja Nazimuddin sought to address the problems through negotiations, which ultimately became an exercise in futility. Subsequently, on 7 March 1953, the Prime Minister ordered the arrest of anti-Ahmadiyya leaders, which led to mushrooming tensions between the government and the protestors, especially in Lahore. It was this dumpster fire that gave birth to the First Martial Law in Lahore. The military swept in and took control of the city, restoring the city to normalcy within the next seventy days. However, this ‘normalcy’ came at a cost and the restoration of order was only for the civilians of Lahore because the political landscape of Pakistan was forever changed as the way for full-fledged military rule was half paved.

On 17th April 1953, the then Governor General Ghulam Muhammad dismissed Khawaja Nazimuddin from the premiership, citing interesting reasons like a national food shortage, the need for more vigorous action on the economic front, need for law and order and general inadequacy of the Cabinet. This dismissal was not merely a change of leadership; it represented a deeper systemic failure. Muhammad Ali Bogra, rumored to be the imported prime minister, was tasked with filling the vacant shoes. Ironically, six of the nine members of the Nazimuddin Cabinet were also among the chosen ones in the Cabinet of PM Bogra. Amused by the public response, the US ambassador reflected on the dismissal of Nazimuddin “one of the most popular coups in history.” Nevertheless, a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution still in place, which perhaps was the final barrier against the military dictatorship. The functionality of this Assembly could be gauged by the metric that there were open debates and dissent on every clause to be included in the Constitution. Such proceedings emerge in stark contrast to the proposed 26th Amendment, which was attempted to be passed in the darkness of night without even a single debate. The Bogra government was in power, and the amended report of the proposed Constitution was voted in favor with a proportion of 20:7. The formal Constitutional document was sent to the publishers on October 15, and the birthday of Muhammad Ali Jinnah was chosen as the day to implement the new constitution. Everything was in place, but history veered off course.

Right before the draft, which had the dead labor of six years behind it, could be placed in the House for approval, Governor General Ghulam Mohammad stormed the halls of power and overthrew the government. According to a report in Time magazine, the Governor General summoned the Prime Minister, giving an ultimatum. “You will remain Prime Minister, but you will reform your Cabinet. Major General Mirza will be your Minister of the Interior. General Ayub Khan will become Defense Minister as well as commander in chief . . .” Desperately, Bogra said. “Suppose I refuse?” Ghulam was inexorable and cold, ”Refusal is out of the question. You seem to forget I am head of state.” This disaster led us to the famous Tamizuddin case, which resulted in the third disaster in the form of the doctrine of necessity; however, our focus is on the first two disasters, which created irreparable rifts in the structure of the whole democratic system of Pakistan.

Today, when we discuss democratic disasters and constitutional torts, we forget the two incidents that set our nascent state off course and laid the foundation for future turmoil. The aftermath of these events continues to shape the political landscape of Pakistan to this day. The upheavals of 1953 and the subsequent challenges serve as stark reminders of the fragility of our democratic institutions and the perpetual struggle for power between civil and military authorities. As we stand at a crossroads, it becomes imperative to revisit these pivotal moments not merely as historical footnotes, but as vital lessons etched in our national consciousness.