For example, Ayub Khan introduced 'Basic Democracies,' Yahya, after abrogating the Constitution of 1962, the Legal Framework Order, Zia and Musharraf both distorted the Constitution of '73 by adding a number of amendments. Their legacy continued in spite of the restoration of democracy.

As both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were the product of martial law we find its tendencies in their political careers. Frequent martial law has also changed the political culture of society. The political parties are now dominated by dynastic rule leaving no space for the talented in the middle class to play any role.

There is little tolerance for opposition and violence becomes a routine way to handle rival groups. Whenever democracy returns after martial law, it carries the latter's despotic traditions.

At a certain stage, a military regime needs some legitimacy. To fulfil this requirement, it seeks help from some politicians and forms its own political party. Ayub Khan organised the Convention Muslim League while Musharraf relied on Muslim League-Q. Zia sought the support of religious parties but did not form his own party, opting instead for party-less elections.

It is customary for military regimes to use religion to win the support of the people. Ayub Khan, to counter the fundamentalist religious parties, supported the idea of Progressive Islam, and set up the Institute of Islamic Studies under the leadership of Dr Fazlur Rahman and encouraged Ghulam Ahmad Parvez to refute the propaganda of Islamic extremists. Zia, on the other hand, fully supported the orthodox ulema and religious parties and launched the process of Islamisation of society.

Musharraf raised the slogan of 'Enlightened moderation' and patronised the concept of progressive Islam. All these attempts to reform society were made without the participation of the people. While Zia's Islamisation left a lasting impact, the policy of promoting 'progressive' Islam ended without leaving any significant mark.

As a military dictator assumes absolute power, a culture of flattery flourishes and becomes the only way to succeed. As there is no tolerance for opposition, dissidents are tortured, imprisoned or exiled. Military regimes are afraid of political activists and use intelligence agencies for the surveillance of their opponents. Students, who are politically conscious, are not allowed to form unions in educational institutions or take part in politics. The same happens in the case of workers, whose trade unions are banned in the name of national interest.

Once political activities are banned, a political party either withdraws from active politics or goes underground. In both cases it loses contact with the people. Subsequently, people become depoliticised and take no interest in the country's affairs which makes political life stagnant. After the restoration of democracy, the old leadership re-emerges with outdated political ideas giving no chance to the new generation to play its role.

One of the victims of martial law is culture. Instead of playing an independent role, many artists, musicians, and men of letters serve the interests of the regime. In the case of Pakistan we see how artists constructed the monuments of Chaghi in order to celebrate the nuclear bomb explosion.

City avenues are decorated with tanks, guns, and fighter aeroplanes. Poets compose poems in praise of dictators and write songs to spark a sense of nationalism. Columnists write columns in appreciation of the dictator. In such an atmosphere there is no significant new contribution to art, film or literature and society becomes intellectually barren.

When dictators wish to win the favour of intellectuals, they set up institutions through which they can control them. Ayub Khan's government established the Writers' Guild, Zia used the Academy of Letters and Ahl-i-qlam conferences to win over writers. The system of bestowing literary awards is also an effective tool to control the literati. It has been successfully used in Pakistan to reward those who favoured the military regime.

Historiography, too, becomes a target of martial law. Whenever the military seizes power, it immediately condemns the past government. In the case of Pakistan, all martial lawregimes reconstructed history from their own perspective. The martial law administrator emerged as a saviour who delivered the nation from chaos and corruption. Those historical events which did not suit the regime were either abridged or deleted.

Repeated distortion of history makes it boring and un-interesting. There is a need to rewrite history from the people's point of view and bring to light the crimes of dictators. Pakistani society is waiting for a group of historians who undertake the challenging task of presenting the correct picture.