In 2008, President Obama was campaigning on the promise of change. In a progressive group aligned with the Democratic Party, a discussion took place about the change. The consensus was that if Obama can bring about only two per cent of change in the US that would be as close to a revolution as one could get.

Six years later, there is not even one per cent of change in the US. The foreign policy is a continuation of the Bush era policies. On the home front, the healthcare reforms supported by the insurance lobby are struggling at all levels. The promise of change has disappeared from the mainstream media.

In India, the right of the centre party won a landslide majority and formed a government on the promise of change. Pakistan has taken the political hype of change to new heights. The tsunami was already reverberating the landscape for months. The sudden sounds of revolution from a quasi-political party dwarfed the tsunami. The booms of revolution got so loud that many counter-revolutionaries joined the revolution bandwagon.

Pakistan needs change. The commotions of revolutions and tsunamis saturating the airwaves force all to take a step back and look at the complexities of the tasks ahead. Changing and improving systems is a work of generations; it is always a work in progress. Change, no matter how small, requires constant efforts.

Pakistan and India inherited identical socio-economic and administration structure. The two countries emerged from the same British colonial setup. Political crises and Pakistan are now inseparable. The system remains fragile and lacks consistency. India, on the other hand, presents a picture of smooth political transition, though the governance remains chaotic. Politicians rule India after winning the elections. Bureaucracy rules Pakistan. Once in a while, politicians get a chance. They too just rule the country. The basic concept of democracy to serve the people doesn’t exist in their minds.

The founding fathers in India believed in the public representation or elections and established that. The founding fathers in Pakistan favoured representation too. They just could not cope with the new political realities. Leaders in Pakistan overwhelmed by a unique geographical structure hesitated to promote the public representative system. They relied on the civil bureaucracy to solve problems that moved the country towards the political chaos. Pakistan ended up in the hands of the civil and military bureaucracy.

In politics as well as in human lives, things move and changes happen in asynchronous order. Often the order is not visible or develops over a longer period. The fact India reached the stage of democratic transformation fast was not an accident. Pakistan’s inability to reach that level of representation was not on purpose either. The Congress reached a level of political maturity by aligning with the democratic elements, especially the business interests. The Indian National Congress developed as the Indian owned business grew. The Indian capital wanted an open and a free society for growth. The Congress had to deliver on that.

Muslim League in contrast was not a factor in Indian politics until Jinnah took over the party. The leadership of Jinnah attracted the enlightened and liberal Muslim middle class to join the League. He aligned the Muslim League with Muslim business interests in a short order. He had limited time available and made some quick compromises too. After independence, he encouraged capital owned by Muslims to migrate to Pakistan. That was a move in the right direction. He did not live long, and the process that he initiated did not survive. The business he invited later aligned with the bureaucracy for stability. The growing businesses in 1958 welcomed General Ayub’s martial law and prospered.

The truth is that just below the top, the next tier in India and Pakistan still has the mindset inherited from the colonial rule. The later generations of leaders lacked vision and never tried to make the system more democratic. They never planned to change the bureaucracy, improve law and order, and initiated zero change in the babu culture. India will continue to hold elections, but a real democracy requires more than just elections.

A democratic system understands that its job is to serve the people and not rule them.

Some changes are part of the world moving forward. Technology and new industrial products and the changes in influential industrial sectors impact many countries and cultures. A major war might also change perspectives. The oil embargo in 1973 had a far-reaching impact. Growing oil prices made many industrial countries change their worldview.

The new Indian prime minister talked about changes. He was referring to the incremental and qualitative government supported policy changes. India has been introducing similar changes since the Independence. After a protectionist industrial policy in 1947 and the famous "Hindu Growth Rate", Indian business joined the international capital in the early 1980s.

The changes in government policies influenced by Indian business dramatically increased the growth rate and a new and prosperous middle class emerged. The growing buying power of the Indian middle class attracted international conglomerates to set up assembly lines in India. After almost a quarter century of growth, Indian businesses saw the dropping growth rates and stagnation in the economy. They again supported a change in the government to create policies that would help the economy grow.

Based on the post-independence history, it is clear that India has gone through many changes. Not all changes in government policies are successful. Some fail and failed policies often bring the governments down.

Pakistan too has seen many changes. The Korean War saw increased demand of Pakistani products. The alliance with the Western countries also influenced the international business relations. The liberalisation of trade policies saw a great period of growth in 1960s.

In 1973, the nationalisation of banks and industries including the small agricultural service providers such as rice husking mills caused drop in industrial production. The businesses lost confidence, and the capital flew outside the country. The government’s dependence on loans and aids took a toll on development. The resulting brain drain saw an enormous number of talented professionals leave the country. A reactionary and inward looking middle class filled the vacuum.

Pakistan, while retaining the colonial mindset, has a host of other problems on the plate. The complex relations between the Army and political governments are well known now. The small provinces find it hard to deal with the Centre. The political parties continue election campaigns in non-election years. The worst growing pain is the flourishing of international terrorism in Pakistan.

There is no reasonable justification for brash noises of tsunami or revolutions. The marches and gathering crowds do not change much. The changes are part of policies promoted by the businesses or governments to help trade and industry or to expand social services. The stability in the political system is the key for changes in the social order. The process of peaceful evolution over chaotic revolution eliminates any mystery in change.

Democracy favours smooth evolution, sustained economic growth, and resolution of issues using institutions such as Parliament and the judicial system. Pakistani politicians would be better off following the process. Promoting chaos and instability leading to regression, anarchy, and possible growth of extremism is not the best way forward. The irrationality for revolutions and tsunami are all about rolling the wheels in reverse.

The current admin has been doing a reasonable job in keeping the political temperature down by working with different political parties at all levels. Sure, this will go a long way in promoting democratic values in the country.

Improving relations with the establishment are part of the democratic process. Confrontation leads to missteps on either side. A statesman approach will enhance the public confidence. Transparency in governance, speedy resolutions of public grievances, and the strengthening of the Parliament is the fastest route to stability.