olitics revolve around conflict. The conflict can be both destructive as well as constitutive of the socio-political order. Not all conflict results in a breakdown of a political system, rather political conflict should be taken as a product of the state-building project itself. The political forces should focus on building conflict resolution mechanisms and, thereby, strengthen democracy and the state. “Pakistan inherited a strong institutional design inasmuch as British imperialism was the most developed imperialism of the Twentieth Century,” says Mohammad Waseem in his book, Political Conflict in Pakistan. However, this strong institutional design of the state has increasingly pushed the political class to the margins, weakening their capacity to negotiate for conflict resolution.

The creation of Pakistan was a negotiated political settlement among three parties: the British Raj, the Congress and the All India Muslim League. Both, the independence and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal resulted from a compromise on various conflicting political interests. Despite a few setbacks, political actors in Pakistan have exhibited a remarkable ability to negotiate and build consensus on political issues and come up with management and resolution of political conflicts throughout its history.

Political negotiations and dialogue have resolved governance, power-sharing problems, constitutional crises and Centre-province relations. Political conflicts had started right after the country’s independence. It took nearly nine years to finalise and adopt the first constitution in 1956. This involved major challenges in power sharing between East and West Pakistan, a debate over federalism and provincial autonomy as well as the role of Islam in the [running of the] state. It included balancing the stakes and interests of ethnic groups such as Mohajirs, Bengalis, Sindhis, Baloch and Punjabis. However, the constitution was a formula on which all contending parties agreed. Husain Shaheed Suhrawardy played a significant role in reaching this consensus.

The Centre-province and East-West tensions worsened during the Ayub regime, which was characterised by regional and class disparities. The majority-wing Bengalis felt that they were being ruled like a colony. Ayub Khan called an All Parties Conference in 1969 to negotiate with the Combined Opposition Parties. However, the opposition did not agree with the government and the negotiations broke down. Most of the COP demands, including the adoption of a new constitution, parliamentary form of government and universal adulthood suffrage, later became part of the 1973 constitution.

The Six Points proposed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in February 1966, during a conference of opposition parties in Lahore, demanded provincial autonomy for East Pakistan within a federal structure intended to address the political and economic disparities led to intense negotiations. However, the parties failed to reach a consensus. Eventually, this resulted in the secession of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.

The formulation of the 1973 constitution required intensive and extensive political dialogue. The resulting consensus was a significant achievement. All the major political parties, despite ideological differences and divergent political interests, agreed on the document that has survived and is still celebrated as a marvel of parliamentary performance. It is important to note that most of the subsequent amendments to the constitution were also negotiated political settlements.

The negotiations between ZA Bhutto and the Pakistan National Alliance in 1977 were intense and marked by deep political tensions and mistrust. The PNA alleged that the elections had been massively rigged and rejected the results. It also boycotted the scheduled provincial assembly elections and demanded resignation of Prime Minister Bhutto by launching a mass protest movement. It demanded that elections be held under an impartial caretaker setup. The PNA also alleged that the Bhutto regime had resorted to corruption, coercion, violence and fraud to secure its victory.

The Bhutto regime responded to the challenge with a stick and carrot policy, notes Anwar H Syed in his book, The Discourse and Politics of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The negotiations, spanning through the summer of 1977, were tedious and highly contentious. Bhutto offered concessions like fresh elections and partial acceptance of PNA’s demands. While the talks initially showed promise, mistrust among the parties could not be overcome. Many in the PNA doubted Bhutto’s sincerity, believing the government may use the negotiations to buy more time and then move to crush the opposition.

The two sides held the twelfth negotiating session on the evening of July 1 and reached an agreement on nearly all issues. However, on July 4, the newspapers carried reports that the government and the PNA had reached an impasse. At a press conference at 11:30pm, Bhutto announced his intention to accept the latest terms of the PNA saying, “the PNA negotiating team had brought in ten new points; they did so apologetically, saying they were helpless. Perhaps they were; but I am not helpless. And so, I shall sign the accord tomorrow.” But Zia-ul Haq had struck with martial law before Bhutto could have redeemed his promise.

Before the Geneva Accord, Prime Minister Junejo called an All Parties Conference. He was given a mandate by this conference to proceed to sign the accord. The Movement for the Restoration of Democracy’s negotiations with the Zia regime on issues of governance, elections and the restoration of the 1973 constitution and civilian rule, met with gradual and partial success. With the restoration of the civilian rule, other major achievements reached through dialogue were the passage of the 13th Amendment and the removal of the 58-2(b) clause, which had been used repeatedly to oust elected governments.

The Charter of Democracy and the passage of the 18^th Amendment are considered as major milestones and success stories of instances where political parties reached a broader consensus on issues such as parliamentary supremacy, fair and free elections, provincial autonomy and sustained dialogue among political forces of the country. However, the intrusion of a hybrid regime vitiated the gains of democratic dialogue and injected fresh political polarisation.

Today, on both sides of the political divide, there are stakeholders in democracy and rule of law. Pakistan is in a state of crises where there is a need for the ruling alliance, the establishment and the opposition to negotiate a new charter of democracy as well as a charter of economy and forge a broad consensus on all long-standing issues.

The writer heads the History Department at University of Sargodha. He has worked as a research fellow at Royal Holloway College, University of London. He can be reached at abrar.zahoor@hotmail.com His X handle: @AbrarZahoor1