| Popis: |
On March 1, 1962, just one day before General Ne Win seized power for the second time in Burma, Field Marshal Ayub Khan announced a new Constitution for Pakistan. By a strange coincidence in both Burma and Pakistan, civilian government had first given way to a military-doininated administration at approximately the same time, in October 1958. In each country, the military coup was in the nature of a political revolution, having developed out of the failure of party government rather than through any ideology of military supremacy. In Burma, General Ne Win relinquished the reins of government after eighteen months only to reassume power two years later. Democratic institutions in Pakistan have remained in suspension since 1958. During these years, however, President Ayub has continuously insisted on the interim nature of his military regime. The validity of democracy was never disputed nor was the illegality of military dictatorship seriously denied. On assuming power in October 1958, Ayub condemned the politicians of Pakistan as self-seekers who had "ravaged the country or tried to barter it away for personal gains,"1 and stated that the October revolution was aimed not against the institutions of democracy, but only against the manner in which these were functioning. However, he considered the prevalent forms of democracy too complex to be operated successfully by the simple and illiterate peoples of Pakistan, and too remote from ordinary life to attract their active participation. Consequently a new scheme to bring democracy to the doorstep of the ordinary man, commonly known as "basic democracy," was devised and introduced in 1959. Under this scheme, the two wings of the country were each divided into 40,000 constituencies with an average population of about 1,000. Ten such constituencies formed a village (union) council and became the basic unit or the lowest tier in the hierarchy of a multi-tiered administration. The elected representatives of the people at the lowest level, and their delegates at the higher levels, were joined by members nominated by the government. These bodies were given limited authority exercised under the paternalistic guidance of the government officials who were designated as a "controlling authority" possessing unlimited power to suspend resolutions, prohibit decisions, or enforce directives. The implication was that the power of these bodies would be increased as they acquired political experience. This structure is reminiscent of the local self-government system of British India initiated in the nineteenth century. One of the |
