‘The struggle for democracy has been marked by bitter strife and tribulations.’ Examine the statement, illustrating the cases of Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar. (2015, 20 Marks)
Robert A. Dahl’s idea of polyarchy needs more than elections. Citizens must be free to form, express and have their preferences weighed equally. Many post-colonial states adopted elections without those guarantees, reducing democracy to electoralism. In Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar that gap has been fought over in streets, courts and battlefields.
Pakistan: elections under a tutelary army
- Direct military rule came in 1958, 1969, 1977 and 1999. The army’s refusal to hand power to the 1970 winners brought the break-up of 1971. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged after a coup (1979), Benazir Bhutto assassinated (2007), and no prime minister has completed a full term.
- Christophe Jaffrelot, in The Pakistan Paradox (2015), traces this to three unresolved tensions: a centralising state against ethnic regions, civilian politicians against the military, and the contested role of Islam in governance.
- Coups have given way to judicial disqualification and constitutional engineering. The 2024 election was held with the largest party’s leader in jail and its symbol withdrawn. The 26th Amendment (2024) curbed the higher judiciary, and the 27th Amendment (13 November 2025) created a Chief of Defence Forces post for Field Marshal Asim Munir. Army primacy is now constitutional: a hybrid regime in every index.
Nepal: mobilisation outrunning institutions
- Never colonised, Nepal ended Rana rule in 1951, but King Mahendra dismissed the first elected government in 1960. Partyless Panchayat rule lasted until the Jana Andolan of 1990. The Maoist “People’s War” (1996–2006) cost some 17,000 lives.
- The second People’s Movement (2006) ended royal rule, the monarchy was abolished in 2008, and the 2015 constitution created a federal republic amid Madhesi protest. Janajati and Dalit groups still demand fuller inclusion.
- Instability followed: two dissolutions of parliament were reversed by the Supreme Court in 2020–21, and royalists rioted in March 2025. In September 2025 a ban on 26 social-media platforms ignited a Gen Z uprising. Parliament was burned, dozens died and K. P. Sharma Oli resigned on 9 September, yet the struggle ended at the ballot box. In the 5 March 2026 election the Rastriya Swatantra Party won 182 of 275 seats, and Balendra Shah became prime minister.
Myanmar: a reversal legalised
- Ne Win’s coup (1962) began five decades of military rule. The 1988 uprising was crushed, the NLD’s 1990 victory was annulled, and the 2007 Saffron Revolution was suppressed.
- The 2008 constitution reserved a quarter of legislative seats for the army, bounding the opening after 2011. Under the elected government, the army’s Rohingya expulsions of 2017 showed how intolerant the polity remained.
- The coup of 1 February 2021 followed the NLD’s second landslide, on fraud claims observers rejected, and sparked an armed resistance. The junta then held a phased election (December 2025–January 2026) with the NLD dissolved. On 3 April 2026 the new parliament elected Min Aung Hlaing president: the coup became a constitution.
Examining the statement
The statement holds. In each case strife came from a veto actor that elections could not dislodge: an army in Pakistan and Myanmar, a crown and then a closed party elite in Nepal. Ayesha Jalal (Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia, 1995) shows formal democracy coexisting with entrenched authoritarian institutions across the region, while Samuel P. Huntington’s warning about participation outrunning institutions fits Nepal. Yet “tribulations” is only half the story. Each struggle won gains: Pakistan’s civilian transfers of 2013 and 2018, Nepal’s republic and its 2026 renewal, and Myanmar’s 2015 vote. The bitterness measures the strength of the demand, not its absence.
Conclusion
Strife has marked democracy’s path because entrenched power concedes only under pressure. Nepal shows the struggle can be won. Pakistan and Myanmar show that elections without civilian control produce electoral authoritarianism, not democracy.