discussing the reasons for this conclusion, we should like to make it clear (hat we are not looking into this matter with a view to holding an inquisition against the former President or his predecessor, or the ministers who held office during the years preceding the Revolution, but that our endeavor, on the other hand, is only to consider those facts which afford us some guidance in making recommendations for providing for Pakistan a form of government which is firm and stable and at the same time democratic. We shall, therefore, refer only to some of the incidents in the political history of this country during the period under review.
12. As for lack of proper elections which is slated by some as one of the causes, if by 'proper is meant 'direct', the first Constituent Assembly was indirectly elected as it was intended mainly for the purpose of framing the constitution. It continued in office till it was dissolved in October 1954, and its successor Assembly was also elected indirectly but that election was after the elections in the provinces, and from the complexion of the new Assembly it was clear that a new element had come in. However, elections held, on universal franchise, in the provinces did not bring in a better type of representative. It cannot be said that all the provincial elections were not properly held. The election of 1954 in East Pakistan was undoubtedly properly conducted but its result was that the position of parties in East Pakistan grew worse, as, instead of one Muslim majority party, there were many smaller groups, and a stage was reached when the Ilindu minority block could hold the balance. In West Pakistan also, group rivalry had started in the majority party which was, however, sufficiently strong, till the integration, to form the government. As for the defects in the late constitution, which has also been mentioned as one of the causes of the failure, we do not see any that could have effectively prevented its being worked successfully. What is referred to here is perhaps the fact that the question, whether the electorate should be joint or separate, was left over in the late constitution for decision by the parliament in consultation with the provincial legislature; but this was obviously due to the Assembly being unable to make up its mind, and we do not think that the object was to delay elections. However, as indicated already, even if general elections had been held, we do not think the right type of leadership would have emerged.
13. Regarding interference by the Heads of the State, reference is, obviously to the former President and his predecessor. It cannot be said that they did not interfere. or that they were not responsible for the confusion we have had in the political field, or that they were free from personal, or provincial, considerations. But history shows that power passed effectively from the Head of the State to the people's representatives only when the latter became disciplined and stood together to oppose autocracy. Till that stage was reached, the Head of the State could always interfere with impunity. Our not accepting the interference by the IIcads of the State as one of the real causes of the failure of the parliamentary form of government does not amount to their exoneration. As we have already observed, we are not holding an inquisition against them or against the politicians. What we should like to point out is that interference by these Ileads of the State would not have been possible if there had been discipline and solidarity in the parties in power. This would be clear from the discussion that follows with regard to some of the instances of interference to which our attention has been drawn.
