Abstract
General Muhammad Ayub Khan’s rule
represents Pakistan’s first prolonged experience with military governance. Although
his regime is frequently associated with economic planning and infrastructural
development, it also inflicted serious and long-lasting damage on Pakistan’s
democratic institutions, constitutional order, political culture, and federal
cohesion. This research paper critically examines the adverse consequences of
Ayub Khan’s governance, including the erosion of democracy, institutional
decay, regional inequality—especially between East and West Pakistan—the
concentration of wealth among elites, suppression of civil liberties, and the
institutionalization of military dominance. The paper argues that many of
Pakistan’s persistent political and constitutional crises have their origins in
decisions taken during Ayub Khan’s era.
Keywords: Ayub Khan, Martial Law, Pakistan Democracy, East Pakistan,
Civil–Military Relations
1.
Introduction
Pakistan was founded with the vision
of constitutional governance and representative democracy. However, political
instability during the early post-independence years weakened civilian
institutions and created space for military intervention. In October 1958,
General Muhammad Ayub Khan imposed martial law, abrogated the constitution, and
dissolved elected bodies, marking Pakistan’s first direct military takeover.
This paper examines the damage
caused to Pakistan during Ayub Khan’s rule, focusing not only on immediate
political changes but also on their long-term structural consequences.
While some economic initiatives were undertaken, this study contends that
authoritarian governance undermined democratic development, national unity, and
institutional integrity.
2.
Imposition of Martial Law and the Breakdown of Constitutional Rule
The imposition of martial law in
1958 dismantled Pakistan’s constitutional framework. The abrogation of the 1956
Constitution eliminated parliamentary governance and replaced it with
centralized military authority. This act weakened the principle of
constitutional supremacy and established force as a legitimate means of
political change.¹
The long-term impact was severe.
Democratic continuity was disrupted, political legitimacy was eroded, and
future military interventions found justification in this initial precedent.
3.
The Basic Democracies System: Controlled Political Participation
Ayub Khan introduced the Basic
Democracies system in 1959, claiming it would promote grassroots democracy.
In practice, it functioned as a mechanism to control political participation
and legitimize authoritarian rule.²
The system:
- Prevented direct elections at the national level
- Marginalized political parties
- Concentrated power in the presidency
As a result, political development
was stunted, and democratic norms failed to mature.
4.
Centralization of Power and Institutional Weakness
Ayub Khan’s governance relied on
excessive centralization. Executive authority dominated the political system,
while parliament and the judiciary were subordinated.³
This concentration of power:
- Undermined institutional independence
- Reduced accountability
- Encouraged personalized rule
The weakening of institutions had
lasting consequences, making democratic recovery difficult even after the end
of military rule.
5.
Regional Inequality and the East Pakistan Crisis
One of the gravest failures of Ayub
Khan’s regime was its handling of East Pakistan. Despite its larger
population and economic contribution, East Pakistan remained politically
marginalized and economically neglected.⁴
5.1
Economic Disparities
Revenue generated from East
Pakistan—particularly through jute exports—was largely invested in West Pakistan.
Industrial development and infrastructure spending overwhelmingly favored West
Pakistani regions.⁵
5.2
Political Alienation
Bengalis were underrepresented in
the military and civil bureaucracy, and their political demands were
systematically ignored. This inequality fostered resentment and alienation,
ultimately contributing to the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971.
6.
Economic Growth and the Concentration of Wealth
Ayub Khan’s regime promoted
industrialization, but its benefits were confined to a narrow elite. By the
late 1960s, economic power was concentrated among a small number of families
who controlled major sectors of the economy.⁶
This unequal growth:
- Deepened class divisions
- Increased social unrest
- Undermined economic justice
Economic development without equity
weakened national cohesion.
7.
Suppression of Political Opposition and Civil Liberties
Political dissent during Ayub Khan’s
rule was systematically suppressed. Laws were enacted to restrict political
activity, censor the press, and control labor unions and student
organizations.⁷
The suppression of civil liberties:
- Eliminated peaceful channels for opposition
- Encouraged political radicalization
- Reduced government accountability
This environment damaged Pakistan’s
democratic culture and intellectual freedom.
8.
The 1965 War and Leadership Failure
Ayub Khan’s strategic decisions
during the 1965 Indo-Pak War exposed weaknesses in political judgment
and military planning. The conflict ended without decisive gains, and the
subsequent Tashkent Declaration generated widespread public
dissatisfaction.⁸
The perception of diplomatic failure
severely damaged Ayub Khan’s credibility and intensified political opposition
against his regime.
9.
Institutionalization of Military Dominance
Ayub Khan blurred the distinction
between civilian and military spheres. Military officers were appointed to key
administrative positions, and the armed forces gained influence in economic and
political decision-making.⁹
This institutionalization of
military dominance permanently altered Pakistan’s power structure, weakening
civilian supremacy and democratic governance.
10.
Public Resistance and the Collapse of the Regime
By 1968–69, widespread protests
erupted across Pakistan. Students, workers, and political groups mobilized
against inflation, inequality, and authoritarian rule.¹⁰
These mass movements exposed the
failure of Ayub Khan’s governance model and forced his resignation in 1969.
11.
Long-Term Consequences for Pakistan
The legacy of Ayub Khan’s rule
includes:
- Fragile democratic traditions
- Persistent regional grievances
- Economic inequality
- Recurrent military intervention in politics
These structural problems continue
to challenge Pakistan’s political stability.
12.
Conclusion
General Ayub Khan’s era was a
defining moment in Pakistan’s history. While limited economic planning and
infrastructural development occurred, these achievements came at the cost of
democracy, federal harmony, and constitutional integrity.
This study concludes that the damage
inflicted during Ayub Khan’s rule outweighed its short-term gains.
Pakistan’s experience demonstrates that sustainable development requires
democratic continuity, inclusive governance, and civilian supremacy—principles
undermined during this period.
Footnotes
1.
K Callard, Pakistan: A Political
Study (George Allen & Unwin, 1957) 112–118.
2.
Ayesha Jalal, Democracy and
Authoritarianism in South Asia: A Comparative and Historical Perspective
(Cambridge University Press, 1995) 38–44.
3.
Hamza Alavi, ‘The Military and
Politics in Pakistan’ (1973) 8(28) Economic and Political Weekly 1411–1415.
4.
Ian Talbot, Pakistan: A Modern
History (Hurst & Company 2009) 143–151.
5.
Shahid Javed Burki, Pakistan: A
Nation in the Making (Oxford University Press, 1980) 89–96.
6.
S Akbar Zaidi, Issues in
Pakistan’s Economy (Oxford University Press, 2005) 67–72.
7.
Ishtiaq Ahmed, State, Nation and
Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia (Pinter 1998) 121–128.
8.
Hasan Askari Rizvi, Military,
State and Society in Pakistan (Sang-e-Meel Publications 2000) 198–205.
9.
ibid 206–210.
10.
Lawrence Ziring, Pakistan in the
Twentieth Century: A Political History (Oxford University Press, 1997) 214–220.
.