In his book, Musharraf states that he could work with the Pakistan People’s Party, if not for Benazir being around. Amongst many criticisms, he picks on on the fact that Benazir Bhutto has been designated PPP leader for life. Musharraf compares this type of designation to African dictatorships led by a leader for life.
Now, almost all Pakistani political parties, once they choose a leader, tend to stick with that leader until they resign from politics, regardless of how the political tide flows and ebbs.
By contrast, in successful and stable democracies, you’ll find that the party leadership changes very often. Be it US political parties, or British, Autralian, French, German… any type of major failure or disgrace by party leadership is punished by the party voting to change leaders.
In Pakistan, on the other hand, even the dismissal of governments for corruption has never led to the leadership resigning to make room for less tainted individuals to take charge.
Is the failure of parties like the PPP, PML, JI, JUI, and almost all other Pakistani parties to change their leadership regularly reflected in the failure of Pakistani democracy?
When the country votes on changing its leaders every 4 years, why do political parties not regularly change their leaders as they do in successful democracies? As long as our parties are run on the cult of a leader, cult of a family, are we doomed to choose between corrupt, ineffective democracies and the risk of military dictatorship (which can turn out either good or bad, but is nearly impossible to change once in place by any means).