Has the Pakistan Peoples Party Truly Learned the Lessons of Democracy?

 

Has the Pakistan Peoples Party Truly Learned the Lessons of Democracy?

 Mubasher Mir

 

 

The date 5 July 1977 occupies a unique and painful place in Pakistan's political history. On this day, the elected government of Prime Minister  was overthrown in a military coup led by . The event marked the beginning of more than a decade of military rule, political repression, constitutional manipulation, and deep polarization that continues to shape Pakistan's political landscape.

 

For the  (PPP), 5 July has always been observed as a "Black Day." Every year, party leaders condemn military intervention, celebrate the sacrifices of their workers, and reaffirm their commitment to democracy. Yet on 5 July 2026, exactly forty-nine years after the coup—and approaching half a century—the question deserves to be asked without prejudice:

 

Has the PPP truly learned the lessons of democracy? More importantly, what has the party actually contributed to strengthening democratic culture in Pakistan?

 

Democracy is not merely about opposing military rule. It is equally about respecting institutions, strengthening constitutionalism, ensuring transparency, tolerating dissent, and building political traditions that survive individual leaders. Judged by these standards, the PPP's democratic journey presents a complex mixture of remarkable achievements and undeniable shortcomings.

 

The overthrow of the Bhutto government in 1977 undoubtedly remains one of Pakistan's greatest constitutional tragedies. Whether one agrees with every policy of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or not, removing an elected government through force interrupted constitutional evolution. Political disputes that should have been resolved through dialogue and elections instead gave way to authoritarian rule. Thousands of political workers suffered imprisonment, torture, and persecution. The execution of Bhutto in 1979 transformed him into one of the most influential political figures in Pakistan's history and cemented the PPP's identity as a party of resistance.

 

No serious student of Pakistani politics can deny the sacrifices made by PPP workers during the years of dictatorship. Many endured imprisonment, exile, and discrimination while demanding the restoration of civilian rule. These sacrifices remain an important part of Pakistan's democratic struggle.

 

However, history should not become a permanent shield against criticism.

 

After democracy returned, the PPP itself repeatedly occupied the corridors of power. It produced prime ministers, chief ministers, governors, federal ministers, and presidents. Most significantly, the party completed a full parliamentary term between 2008 and 2013, marking the first democratic transfer of power from one elected civilian government to another in Pakistan's history. This was a landmark achievement that deserves recognition.

 

The passage of the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment was another historic accomplishment. By restoring parliamentary supremacy, reversing several distortions introduced during military governments, and enhancing provincial autonomy, the amendment strengthened the federal structure envisioned in the Constitution. The PPP rightly takes pride in building consensus among political parties for this reform.

 

Likewise, the party deserves credit for supporting constitutional continuity instead of pursuing extra-constitutional adventures during several national crises. Unlike many political actors in Pakistan's turbulent history, the PPP has generally opposed direct military intervention in politics.

 

Yet democracy cannot survive on constitutional amendments alone.

 

The real measure of democratic commitment lies in governance.

 

Here the PPP's record becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

 

For nearly two decades, Sindh has remained under almost uninterrupted PPP rule. This prolonged political dominance provided the party with a unique opportunity to demonstrate what democratic governance could achieve. Instead, many observers argue that governance failures have weakened public confidence in democratic institutions.

 

Karachi, Pakistan's economic engine, continues to struggle with chronic water shortages, deteriorating infrastructure, urban flooding, transport deficiencies, waste management failures, and administrative confusion. Rural Sindh faces persistent challenges in education, healthcare, agricultural productivity, and employment opportunities.

 

Critics argue that these problems cannot forever be blamed on previous governments, military dictatorships, or opposition parties. When a political party governs a province for nearly twenty years, governance outcomes inevitably become its own responsibility.

 

Perhaps the most significant democratic lesson concerns internal party democracy.

 

Ironically, many political parties that demand democracy at the national level often practice little democracy within their own organizations. The PPP remains heavily influenced by dynastic leadership. Since its founding, leadership has remained concentrated within the Bhutto-Zardari family. While party workers proudly defend this tradition as political continuity, critics question whether leadership positions are genuinely open to talented individuals outside the family.

 

A truly democratic political party should encourage competitive internal elections, institutional decision-making, transparent candidate selection, and leadership based on merit rather than lineage.

 

Another challenge concerns accountability.

 

Throughout Pakistan's history, almost every major political party has accused accountability institutions of political engineering whenever investigations targeted their leaders. While politically motivated accountability is indeed a legitimate concern, democracy also requires public officials to embrace transparency rather than merely reject allegations as conspiracies.

 

The PPP has frequently criticized accountability processes but has struggled to convince many citizens that it possesses an equally strong commitment to institutional accountability regardless of political affiliation.

 

Political tolerance presents another mixed picture.

 

The PPP has often advocated dialogue, parliamentary consensus, and constitutional solutions. Yet at different moments, confrontational politics, personal attacks, and polarization have also characterized its political conduct. Democracy requires accepting political opponents as legitimate competitors rather than permanent enemies.

 

The events of recent years demonstrate that Pakistan's political system remains trapped in cycles of confrontation. Governments seek maximum power while opposition parties often pursue maximum disruption. Institutions become arenas of political conflict instead of neutral constitutional guardians.

 

The PPP has occasionally acted as a bridge between competing political forces, particularly in parliamentary negotiations. However, critics argue that the party has also benefited from political instability whenever it created opportunities for power-sharing arrangements.

 

Another important democratic principle concerns local government.

 

Strong democracies are built from the grassroots upward. Effective municipal governments empower citizens, improve service delivery, and reduce excessive concentration of power in provincial capitals. Yet local government systems in Sindh have repeatedly faced criticism for inadequate financial autonomy and administrative authority. Political control often remains centralized despite constitutional commitments to decentralization.

 

Freedom of expression represents another important democratic benchmark.

 

The PPP frequently defends press freedom when operating in opposition. Nevertheless, journalists and civil society organizations have occasionally expressed concerns regarding pressure on media, political influence, and restrictions affecting critical voices during periods of PPP governance. A democratic party must consistently defend freedom of expression regardless of whether criticism targets friends or opponents.

 

Economic governance also shapes democratic credibility.

 

Democracy cannot flourish where unemployment, inflation, inequality, and declining public services dominate daily life. Citizens evaluate democratic governments primarily through practical outcomes rather than historical narratives. Roads, hospitals, schools, policing, justice, electricity, clean drinking water, and economic opportunity matter more to ordinary citizens than ideological slogans.

 

The PPP's social welfare initiatives, particularly income support programmes, have benefited millions of vulnerable households and provided an important safety net. Yet long-term economic transformation requires sustainable investment in education, industrial development, technology, governance reform, and institutional capacity.

 

Looking ahead, the greatest lesson of 5 July 1977 may not simply be that military intervention is undesirable. That lesson has already been learned by most Pakistanis.

 

The deeper lesson is that weak democratic performance creates conditions in which democracy itself becomes vulnerable.

 

When political parties fail to deliver governance, tolerate corruption, centralize authority, weaken institutions, discourage internal democracy, and prioritize personalities over policies, public confidence gradually erodes. Such erosion ultimately weakens democratic resilience.

 

As Pakistan approaches fifty years since the coup, every political party—not only the PPP—must engage in serious introspection.

 

Has politics become more issue-based?

 

Have political parties become internally democratic?

 

Have elected governments strengthened institutions rather than individuals?

 

Have constitutional promises translated into better governance?

 

Have citizens become the real beneficiaries of democratic rule?

 

These questions deserve honest answers.

 

For the PPP, the anniversary of 5 July should become more than a symbolic protest against a historical injustice. It should serve as an annual moment of self-accountability.

 

Remembering the suffering of the past carries moral significance. But democracy ultimately survives not because parties remember yesterday's sacrifices, but because today's governments respect constitutional limits, strengthen institutions, tolerate criticism, uphold accountability, and improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

 

History honours those who defend democracy.

 

But future generations will honour those who make democracy work.

 

As Pakistan moves toward the fiftieth anniversary of one of its darkest political turning points, perhaps the greatest tribute to the victims of authoritarianism would not be speeches, rallies, or slogans.

 

It would be the construction of a democratic culture where no individual, no institution, and no political party stands above the Constitution—and where the measure of political success is not how long a party remains in power, but how faithfully it serves the people while respecting democratic principles.