A piece of Liberal democracy cake is not working in Pakistan

 A piece of Liberal democracy cake is not working in Pakistan 

A major source of concern is the reason why desirable social changes are not occurring in nations like Pakistan. It's easy to blame the state and its institutions, but a lack of ideas is a more reasonable explanation. Can liberal internationalism's global order and one of its essential democracies account for our lack of social change? Is it true that the leftist idea was unsuccessful in Pakistan as well as in the West? What factors have contributed to their failure and why religion and nationalism have taken precedence over the fundamental leftist concept of class struggle?

Karl Marx, the great leftist revolutionist, and champion of class struggle would recognize, if he were alive today, that his message has been lost and that movements for class struggle have been replaced by ones that are nationalist, populist, and protectionist. The incorrect assumption that the bourgeois, or middle class that owned capital, would continue to be a small minority was the foundation of Marx's theory of class struggle, as it was the foundation of many other scholars' theories. That didn't happen, and as Europe's middle class grew, most advanced European societies stopped talking about the class distinction.

The state's capacity to provide social security to its citizens increased dramatically as the industrial and economic revolutions improved the state's economic prospects. The West's expanding middle class demanded a wide range of state services. Western nations, many East Asian nations, and some Asian nations have adopted that model, which has led to dynamic democratic social welfare states. However, this has presented a challenge for the West, as Francis Fukuyama writes; The Western social democratic model is at an end and is looking for something new—a novel idea promising something better—to take its place. Pakistan, like other countries in the Third World, is forced to follow a global order and have a political system that it doesn't properly structure. Due to differences in talent and character, groups, societies, and nation-states were historically unequal; However, in a world with advanced technology, this inequality has increased numerous times. Technology is being used to highlight the extremes of poor governance, lack of education, poverty, and other social miseries that further divide us and cause us to realize how unequal we are to the rest of the world, rather than improving the lives of the masses in countries like Pakistan.

While the West's social democratic model has come to an end, ours is still in its infancy. How can liberal internationalism, which began in a society where social democracy was at its zenith, be replicated in a part of the world where it hasn't yet established itself? Pakistan may not be ready to follow it, so it can only be a system designed by the West to control the rest of the world by establishing a set of regional and international arrangements to create global political stability. If, as many assert, Marxism laid the groundwork for progress and evolution, and if this great German philosopher was able to inspire the working class in the West to rise and question all the injustices imposed on them through their wages, lifestyle, and oppression, which made Marxism a populist leftist movement, why hasn't a similar leftist movement emerged in Pakistan? Is it because the left is prevented from establishing such political movements by liberal internationalism?

When the capitalist world established a sizable middle class, the West's communist utopia and the class struggle ended. In societies with a "class gap" between the wealthy and the poor as large as Pakistan's, liberal internationalism or democracy, with its declared goals of liberty and equality, cannot function or produce the desired results. The wealthy maintain their hold on power and continue to exploit the poor class, which is struggling. Consequently, rather than establishing a middle class, which is the core of any society, democracy establishes an uncompromising and exploitative upper class as well as a poor and poor middle class that lacks access to the social structures that could enhance their lives.

Pakistan cannot afford to follow the political model of the West, which is based on a contented middle class. Kleptocracies like Pakistan do little to increase the middle class, which is such an important social base; Instead, they consume it and reduce its size. The answer to the crucial question is the decline of the middle class: Why, for instance, is liberal democracy failing in Pakistan? The establishment of social and economic structures was the only reason liberal democracy was successful in the West. Through these socioeconomic structures, Pakistani leaders continue to deprive society, keeping them in power.

Simply put, if people continue to have a government they do not want or if an unpopular government wants to impose itself on the people by not calling elections or even holding rigged elections, how can you claim that your social and political structure supports liberal democracy? One aspect of elections is this: Education, religion, families, employment, and culture are some of the others. Liberal democracy in Pakistan is not the art of willed (leaders bowing to the people's will and mandate), but rather the art of the possible (the possibility of using unfair means to stay in power).