Imran Khan’s peaceful protest march has raised more questions than provided answers. The stated main purpose of the peace procession was to raise voice against US drone attacks. Very few would disagree that the use of drones undermines national sovereignty, is a violation of international law, lowers the image of the state in the eyes of its people, at times kills innocent people, instills a lurking fear in the population and aggravates anti-American sentiment. On the surface, these appear to be justifiable reasons even if one were to ignore their tactical advantage for opposing drone strikes. But the question of drones is far too complex as it is linked with several interconnected issues that need to be addressed along with it.

It should not be lost on Imran and all other critics of drones as what has in the first place given rise to the use of drones. The fact is that the Pakistani state has lost its writ over most parts of Fata and despite several military operations and the continued presence of the army and paramilitary forces in the region, it has not succeeded in regaining effective control. Not only is the Taliban’s power base getting entrenched in North and South Waziristan, where drones are mostly being deployed, but their ideology has also taken hold and is spreading widely. There could be no better demonstration of this hard reality than the peace procession being denied permission to go beyond Tank. The drones are, at least, containing the militants and it is for this reason that the military and the political leadership have been acquiescing to its use. In a drone-free environment, the Taliban power base would expand even more rapidly.

What we are seeing is that the tribal belt, which always had an autonomous character, is getting even further cut off from mainstream Pakistan and coming under the dominant influence of the Taliban.

Why is it that Imran and other right wing parties remain silent about the atrocities being committed by the terrorists? The Taliban are challenging the state, its Constitution and the very ideals that we cherish as followers of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s vision. How many among them are raising their voices for the brutal attack on young Malala Yousufzai who stood valiantly, risking her life for the values that every Pakistani should be proud of? The Taliban are targeting schools, remain deadly opposed to girls’ education and consider women as chattels. By imposing their myopic medieval ideology through brute force, they are destroying the future of coming generations. To expect that the Taliban will abandon their goals of capturing power and spreading their ideology if only the US would abandon its policy of using drones would be stretching naivety to its limits. Moreover, they are using the tribal belt as a sanctuary to engage in all types of criminal activity within Pakistan and have developed a nexus with the Afghan Taliban, allowing our territory to be used for launching attacks on Nato and Afghan forces. This has been a major source of friction between the US and Pakistan and, given the former a valid reason to unilaterally target militant hideouts in Fata. The Taliban apologists would argue that it is the US occupation of Afghanistan that has given rise to this situation and once their forces withdraw, the Afghan militants, including the Haqqani network, would go back to Afghanistan. Firstly, it is highly doubtful that they would leave, but even if they did, the space they vacate will be quickly filled by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

The other reality is that the TTP’s activities have a serious impact on the overall security situation in Pakistan. This has had grave implications for the economy. Besides, there remains a constant threat that the Taliban could strike at our military installations, giving rise to fears that they could even target nuclear installations.

Some may argue that the Taliban are hitting at our military installations because we are fighting them in Fata. This is inverse logic because a country cannot allow its territory to be taken over by non-state actors. And how is it that the same people who are crying hoarse against drones do not have a word of condemnation for the Taliban when they usurp state authority, violate our sovereignty, kill innocent people, attempt a murderous attack on young Malala and strike at security installations?

Regrettably, the price of silence and political expediency could well prove to be the prelude to the first stage of Pakistan’s surrender to the Taliban and other jihadi forces, if our leaders do not listen to the wake-up call.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 1^st, 2012.

During the last few months, Israel has stepped up its threats of a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. With the US Congress on its side and elections only a few weeks away, it finds it politically expedient to build pressure on Washington to lay down before Iran certain ‘red lines’, which would invite a military response. It is indeed ironic that Israel, which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), is threatening an NPT signatory state for supposedly not complying with the treaty. Understandably, the US has rejected the Israeli demand, as it would prefer to retain strategic options rather than tie itself down to a military course, which neither the establishment nor the US public has the stomach for. Moreover, according to US intelligence estimates, Iran is “not on the verge of having a nuclear weapon” and has “not made a decision to pursue one”. However, US President Barack Obama has stated categorically that the US will not accept Iran building a nuclear weapon. It is also apparent that until the presidential elections the US would not like any distraction and mainly rely on squeezing Iran through economic sanctions and political isolation.

Other major Western powers, including the UK and Germany, are also cautioning Israel against any unilateral action. Germany’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Guido Westerwelle, emphasised during his recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Germany is opposed to a unilateral Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and that an Israeli military operation at this time could dissolve the international coalition against Iran …”. There is also internal opposition within Israel for any military strike, so one can already discern a certain backing off.

On the other hand, Iran seems determined to exercise its right under Article Four of the NPT and is going ahead with its civilian nuclear programme. The US, Israel and the West seem convinced that Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme under the guise of the civilian umbrella. Furthermore, by denying the IAEA access to certain military facilities, Tehran has created doubts about its intentions.

The key issue is Iran’s build-up of stocks of uranium enriched to 20 per cent. Half has been converted for fuel for reactors but the remaining half keeps on accumulating and is causing concern. This level of enrichment may not be sufficient for making a nuclear weapon but provides it the capability if it chose to do so in the future.

Iran will, of course, use the present stalemate to step up its fissile material production at the underground facility at Fordow and could be tempted to getting too near to developing the bomb. Iran has warned that it would fiercely retaliate by blocking the Straits of Hormuz if its nuclear installations are attacked. The US has taken contingency measures to keep the sea lanes open and brought in its naval fleet in the vicinity of these waters. All three countries are, in fact, engaged in brinkmanship that has the potential of erupting into a serious global crisis with implications for Pakistan.

The current Israeli government is out and out nationalist and sees an atomic armed Iran as a threat to its existence. If Iran becomes a full-fledged nuclear power, Israel’s nuclear monopoly would be lost and its strategic power devalued. Iran will become the torchbearer of the Palestinian cause. Conversely, Iran considers Israel to be its potent enemy, which in collusion with the US wants to undermine the regime. Iran’s orthodox regime is also fiercely nationalistic and unyielding. In essence, it is becoming a test of wills between two fiercely nationalist and conservative regimes.

Pakistan supports Iran’s quest for civil nuclear energy but would like it to comply with its NPT obligations. In case Iran breaks out of the NPT and it leads to a conflict, it will give rise to heightened anti-US sentiment and place Islamabad in a difficult situation. This will also unnerve the Saudis and incentivise the Turks to seriously consider having a nuclear programme of their own. Pakistan will be caught between taking sides with the Arab world and supporting Iran. Pakistan should be prepared to face this contingency.

And for the next US administration, it could well be the most serious foreign policy challenge.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 4^th, 2012.

With elections only a few months away, Imran Khan took the right initiative by launching his party’s economic programme. In a follow-up session the same evening, he spoke to a selected group about foreign policy issues and touched briefly on his thinking on how to combat militancy. To hear substantive issues being discussed from the leadership of an upcoming party was heartening. Our politics and leadership has degenerated to an extent that there is seldom any discussion on serious issues leaving us almost totally unprepared for the great challenges we will face in the coming years.

All we are doing is living from one crisis through another, whereas, our leaders should seriously address the multiple challenges the country is facing and compete in the elections on the basis of well-crafted election manifestos. One is aware that promises made during elections are only honoured in breech. But that is not what I am referring to, as the luxury of such delinquency is not available to Pakistan anymore. With militancy and extremism posing an existential threat and the economy in dire straits and heavily dependent on foreign assistance, political parties have to take governance issues seriously. The days of patriarchal and patron-based politics will only add to the gloom that has been the characteristic of our ethos for several years and assumed alarming proportions in recent times. However, if the upcoming elections can generate a purposeful debate and take us away from the frivolous that has been the hallmark of most of the ‘talk shows’ and inter-party duels, it would give people hope and the country, direction. Over the years, as a people and country, we have failed to address the huge problems that have faced us and allowed them to fester to a point beyond the scope of any one political party or individual to put right. While every political party can have its own manifesto, there are certain issues on which there has to be a consensus across the political spectrum. The major challenges are well-known — education, economy, energy, militancy, pervasive violence, etc.

First and foremost, we must give the highest priority to education, which has been grossly neglected by successive governments. This has resulted in more than 60 per cent of the population being totally unprepared to earn a decent living, consequently being amenable to easy exploitation by feudal and tribal hierarchies. The question arises as to why a political class, which is half-educated — and many among them have false degrees — will promote education. It has not done it in the past and to expect them to change would be naïve. The answer lies in developing awareness among the masses; if they want their children to go to school, they should vote for those who stand for education. To combat militancy and extremism would require ideological and political clarity. The warped narrative of radical elements, especially the jihadi and Taliban groups, has been dominating the national discourse. No political party has been able to counter it and mobilise society to provide a more tolerant alternative. The argument that Punjab dominates Pakistan and that it along with the military will never let radical or the separatist forces elsewhere fracture the country apart may not hold valid anymore because the same extremist forces at work elsewhere are also active in Punjab. The emergence of the Punjabi Taliban and the mushroom growth of 28 radical militant groups bears testimony to it. Even the security forces are vulnerable to its effects, as we saw so clearly with the assassination of the governor of Punjab and the recent court martial of a serving brigadier and other officers at the GHQ, for an attempted coup.

It was thus reassuring that General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani made it unmistakably clear during his Independence Day speech at the military academy that the real threat was internal. In a normal democratic country, this statement should have come from civilian leadership. So far, most of the parties are ambiguous as to how they will fight militancy. Here, too, Imran Khan has spelled out his thinking and would like to negotiate with the militants. But will that work if it has not in the past? These are the questions that need to be discussed and debated during the coming months. No one expects the country to be turned around soon but what the people do expect is that a sincere and serious attempt will be made by the incoming leadership to tackle these challenges. However, this can only happen if the people are more circumspect in choosing their leaders during the coming elections.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 13^th, 2012.

There is a fear, bordering at times on paranoia, in certain sections of our society that the US has plans to denuclearise Pakistan. These apprehensions are repeatedly reflected in seminars, television ‘talk shows’ and other forums and add to the prevailing distrust between the two countries. Even repeated American assurances have failed to put these fears to rest.

Mutual distrust between the US and Pakistan on nuclear issues has a historical, political and strategic connotation. The United States has been opposed to Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons from the very beginning and has even pursued coercive policies in this regard. It has imposed sanctions, cut off financial and military aid, and exercised diplomatic pressure and only looked the other way when its immediate strategic interests took priority. It ignored Pakistan developing nuclear capability during the 1980s, when it was a key partner in supporting the insurgency in Afghanistan against the erstwhile Soviet Union, but as soon as the insurgency was over, the US came down hard by invoking the Pressler and Symington Amendments. Grudgingly, as a quid pro quo to Pakistan acting as a front-line state in the war against terror, the US once again lifted the sanctions and reconciled to the reality of a nuclear Pakistan.

Initially, Washington was as much opposed to India’s nuclear build-up, but over the years, its policy dramatically changed as the strategic interests of the two countries converged. The Indo-US nuclear deal and strategic partnership turned out to be another source of mistrust between the US and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the revelation of the AQ Khan odyssey created new tensions between the US and Pakistan, further aggravating the distrust between them. Pakistan’s cooperation, however, in providing access to the IAEA and to the US to investigate AQ Khan’s proliferation network and the SPD’s (Strategic Plans Division) subsequent serious effort of strengthening the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets largely contributed to restoring, both the US and the international community’s confidence. Senior officials of the US have since publicly acknowledged that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and material are safe and secure.

But the with the growing power of the insurgents — the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups — and the government’s inability to counter them effectively has once again given rise to fears in Washington and Western capitals about the dangers of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or fissile material falling in their hands. From their perspective, prospects of nuclear terrorism, though remote, cannot be ruled out. Pakistan’s response has been that these are exaggerated fears, dictated by ulterior motives. The US fears, in turn, give rise to Islamabad (read the SPD) probably taking precautionary measures and further tightening the security of nuclear assets not only against militants but against any potential US move to denuclearise it. If this involves any physical movement within Pakistan, it is most likely captured by US satellites, causing anxiety and feeding each others’ insecurities.

More to the point, Pakistan’s nuclear capability is essentially to countervail India’s nuclear power. It poses no threat to the US or any other country. In any case, with such overwhelming US superiority in nuclear weapons and means of delivery, it would be hubris for Pakistan (or any country) to contemplate such aggressive scenarios. Domestically, Pakistan’s nuclear programme has the full support of the military establishment, political and religious parties and scientific community and is perceived as a central pillar of the country’s security. There is also a certain romance and emotionalism associated with the nuclear capability and successive governments in Pakistan have made psychological investment in the programme that supposedly serves to cement national unity and pride. For all these reasons, Pakistan’s leadership has done everything possible to keep nuclear assets safe and secure. With all the sacrifices and investment to acquire a nuclear status, Pakistan will not let them fall in the hands of the militants.

At the same time, it serves no US interest to take up Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Even if it were to try this, it would be a highly risky and dangerous undertaking with no chance of success. Moreover, we need to remind ourselves that knowledge is indestructible and no one can take it away.

The conspiracy theories need to be discarded.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 15^th, 2012.  

Of late, there has been a surge in cross-border attacks from Afghanistan. Elements of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Maulana Fazlullah’s militia that fled during military operations in Fata and Swat, having found refuge in adjoining provinces of Kunar and Nuristan in Afghanistan, are launching these attacks. On the other side, the US and Afghan governments driven as though by an obsession, have been accusing Pakistani military for harbouring Afghan Taliban and other resistance fighters, especially the infamous Haqqani network in North Waziristan. In fact, a situation has emerged whereby, the TTP is using eastern Afghanistan as a sanctuary and Afghan militants are comfortably entrenched in North Waziristan and other parts of the tribal belt. Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are thus leveraging each other’s position and weakening their beleaguered states. Ironic as it may seem, there was a time when the Pakistan Army leadership considered Afghanistan as its backyard and strategic enclave. Although repudiating the earlier policy, the military leadership and lately our ambassador in Washington made a statement claiming that “Pakistan’s policy of strategic depth had changed and so has its attitude towards India”.

Clearly, there is a lesson to be drawn from this adverse development. If Afghanistan and Pakistan want to regain control and establish the writ of the state in border areas, they have to cooperate closely. With the type of porous border that we have and reluctance on the part of the Afghan government to control border crossing, close cooperation in border management is the only answer, as neither Pakistan nor the US or Afghanistan can unilaterally address and resolve the problem.

But sharp differences in policy and approach are serious hindrances to achieving this goal. Essentially, Washington is pursuing a military solution to stability that aims at full spectrum dominance that facilitates an orderly withdrawal of its forces. But there are two levels at which fighting is going on in Afghanistan. One between the Taliban and the ISAF and the other between the Afghans contesting for turf and territory. So unless there is a negotiated settlement, the kinetic policy of the US in Afghanistan would result in either a civil war or a stalemate (no war-no peace). At the same time, as the US withdraws and lowers its profile in Afghanistan, the burden in dealing with the insurgency could shift to Pakistan. For this reason, it is important for Pakistan to retain the support of Washington and the international community in sharing this burden as an ally rather than a foe.

In order to protect itself from the adverse fallout, Islamabad has justifiably taken a longer view of Afghanistan and would like a genuine power-sharing consensus to develop among all domestic stakeholders and the warring factions in which the Taliban are included, but not as the single dominant player.

Over the years, with high level of casualties, a new generation of field commanders of Taliban are now in the saddle with which Pakistani intelligence does not enjoy the same type of relations that existed in the past. So there are limits to the extent Pakistan can influence the Taliban to engage in a negotiated settlement.

There is war weariness on the side of the Taliban as much as it is on the side of the ANF that may induce the parties to negotiate. This may be wishful thinking, but it would be interesting to see how the strategic partnership agreement between the US and Afghanistan impacts the Taliban’s attitude over negotiations. Will it prevent the Taliban from negotiating, or realising that the US is there to stay and have effective presence for the next 10 to 12 years, or act as an incentive for them to talk?

It also has to be recognised by the Afghan and Pakistani leaderships that border management and military force alone is not the solution to dealing with insurgency. There has to be a coordinated effort of economic, political and social development and significant improvement in governance on both sides by the individual countries, unilaterally and in concert with each other and where possible, with the assistance of the international community.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 3^rd, 2012.

An astute Western observer described Pakistan like a boat floating in a sea without a rudder that only goes round and round. Regrettably, this description is not far from reality as one wonders how so many countries that were at the same level of development or even behind Pakistan in the 1950s and 1960s are now far ahead. The question that arises is what is keeping Pakistan in perpetual crisis and holding it from actualising its true potential?  It is not that our leaders are unaware of the problems the country faces or their solutions. Instead, it is clearly their policy to retain the status quo that is acting as the greatest impediment to progress. What we are witnessing is that personal and narrow institutional interests are the motivation for not yielding to change.

If we look at the power structure that rules the country — politicians, military leaders, bureaucrats, feudal and business elite all have their vested interests in retaining the status quo. Notwithstanding a tactical shift, the army leadership continues to maintain India as a primary threat. This strategic posture allows it to retain a special position in allocation of national resources and in critical decision-making in foreign and defence issues. It ignores the fact that the nuclear factor largely precludes the possibility of Indian aggression. Moreover, New Delhi is currently focused on sustaining high economic growth and conflict with Pakistan would undermine its development and destabilise the region.

The reality is that Pakistan is facing an existential threat from the home-grown Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and the jihadi outfits and this is where the national focus should be. On the contrary, more than half the country is not even prepared to accept it as our fight. The army is also unwilling to shed its dominance over civilian institutions, giving an impression that it suits the military if the civilian government is weak and incompetent. In this way, it can retain its economic and political dominance. Our civilian leadership is even more deeply entrenched in retaining the status quo. The political parties have become dynastic and for them, power is a means of personal aggrandisement and an avenue for milking state resources. Why should they be interested in reforming the tax structure or eliminating corruption? Similar logic could be advanced for the business and feudal class, as they would like to perpetuate themselves and the current system.

The whole thing boils down to what will incentivise them to change?

We have already fought three wars with India, lost half of our country, are currently facing a dangerous insurgencies in Fata and Balochistan that do not seem to have an end. These earth-shaking events have failed to move our elite. Does it then have to be a violent revolution or can we draw lessons from the experience of other successful countries like South Korea, Malaysia and Turkey and chart a new, positive course for ourselves.

No institution has been more important for Pakistan’s integrity and progress than its military. And no change in policy direction can succeed without the support of the armed forces. It is equally true that for any change to occur, the army has to change itself. It would be in the long-term interest of the military to be focused on its profession and stay away from politics. It will further raise its image domestically and internationally. The army leadership should also realise that good relations with India and other neighbours will strengthen and not weaken the defence of Pakistan. The importance of good neighbourliness has already dawned on the civilian leadership across the political spectrum, but the army has yet to harmonise its thinking to be in step. Improving relations with India, however, does not imply that all of India’s policies are benign and that it is not building up a huge military machine.

The civilian leadership has to change even in more fundamental ways. It has reduced democracy to elections where the leadership seems least concerned about performance. On the other hand, people expect governance to be impartial and more accessible. The central question is whether our leaders have a long-term collective vision beyond individual or group self-interests. As of now, the political system is corrupt and the leadership has lost its credibility. But if the forthcoming elections are well fought over and competitive, right thinking leadership is likely to emerge. The future of Pakistan revolves around throwing up better leadership, which can override the pressures of populism and address the major problems facing the country. Democracy that derives legitimacy from the people must be able to project the long distance vision and hopefully bring about changes that Pakistan so desperately needs.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 25^th, 2012.

The decision by Hilary Clinton to state that Washington was sorry for the loss of lives of the 24 Pakistani soldiers at Salala provided a fig leaf to Pakistani decision-makers to open the Ground Lines of Communication even without asking for any increase in transit fees. This also resulted in the US agreeing to release the Coalition Support Fund of over a billion dollars, thereby easing the tension somewhat and taking the two countries back to the position where their relations stood before the Salala incident. While serious disagreements on major policy issues still exist, both countries realise the importance of ensuring a cooperative relationship.

There is a widespread belief in Pakistan that the US is only interested in a transactional relationship that will last until its interest in Afghanistan remains. A more fundamental issue is whether Washington has benign or Machiavellian objectives in the region. There are many, even among the intellectual community, who think that the US is interested in deliberately destabilising Pakistan (and Afghanistan) to advance its broader strategic goals. More importantly, the widespread belief that the US plans to denuclearise Pakistan drives the security community paranoid.

Another major factor that generates insecurities within Pakistan is the Indo-US strategic partnership and the deep converging interests of the two countries in Afghanistan and the region. With the US allowing greater space to India in Afghanistan, the Pakistani establishment conjures up the worst-case scenario of a potential double encirclement by India. The India factor looms large in Pakistan’s strategic calculus.

On the US side, the distrust is equally disturbing. It accuses Pakistan of duplicity — running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. For Admiral Michael Mullen to testify before the US Senate — a few days prior to his retirement — that the Haqqani network is the veritable arm of the ISI, only reflects the deep schisms and policy differences that exist.

Mutual interests, therefore, lie in removing the differences and apprehensions through candid and rational dialogue.

First, Pakistan is already facing huge challenges of instability due to rising militancy, mushrooming of radical forces, poor economic growth, corruption, institutional in-fighting and the worsening law and order situation. Surely, this is not a foreign (or US) inspired phenomenon. It is very much homegrown and the cumulative result of years of policy and governance failings. In any case, what does the US stand to gain by destabilising Pakistan? On the contrary, its interest lies in stabilising the region to ensure that there is no repeat of 9/11. Moreover, Washington’s economic and strategic interests — exploitation of natural resources and enhancing influence in a geostrategic area — are best served when there is stability. As regards the nuclear factor, Washington must have contingency plans for a worst-case scenario of Pakistani nukes falling in the hands of terrorists. This is very different from assuming that the US is intrinsically after Pakistan’s nuclear capability and is planning to nullify it.

On the other hand, the US allegation that Pakistan supports and provides protection to the Haqqani network and other militant groups has no valid basis. The reality is that the Pakistan military justifiably feels that any operation in North Waziristan can only be successful if there is a joint operation from both sides of the border. Furthermore, the GHQ is justified in emphasising that at a time when the US is withdrawing the bulk of its forces from Afghanistan, it is prudent to focus on negotiations rather than on opening new fronts. It is also not correct to give disproportionate importance to the Haqqanis. Moreover, in Pakistan, the right wing and religious parties who are opposed to the US presence in Afghanistan value the resistance offered by the Taliban and their associates to the US occupation, which neither the government nor the military can overlook.

Pakistan justifiably feels that Afghanistan and the US fail to own up to their failings in managing the border. How many militants of the Haqqani group have been killed or captured crossing the 200-km distance between the Pakistan-Afghan border to Kabul? Will the problems of Afghanistan go away once the Haqqani group is eliminated? The reality is that there is flow of militancy from both sides of the border and a cooperative approach would be more helpful than blaming Pakistan.

Pakistan has been a victim of terrorism and Washington overlooks this. The US indifference to Pakistan’s territorial integrity is also deeply resented. In the past, drones enjoyed tacit approval of the Pakistani military and civilian leadership but are now no more politically acceptable. Their use should only be permissible if it is a joint intelligence and military operation.

In the final analysis, Pakistan and the US can minimise their policy differences if only they show greater understanding of each others’ points of view and reconcile their policies that generate mutually beneficial interests. The present tangible improvement in relations provides that opportunity.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17^th, 2012.

Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan are undergoing a historic political transformation and their destinies are being shaped by the rise of democracy. While the three countries are at different stages of development, be it economically, socially or politically, they are all dealing with three interrelated great political dynamics: striking the right balance in civil-military relations, defining the role of Islam in a democratic dispensation and exercising civilian leadership to govern effectively. The success of their experiment in dealing with these major challenges will largely determine their future.

Turkey has a long history of authoritarian governments going back to Ottoman times. However, it experienced a radical secular revolution under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which facilitated the creation of strong democratic institutions over the long-term despite numerous military coups. The Justice and Development party (AKP) of Turkey, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s dynamic leadership through consistent good performance has asserted its supremacy and control over military institutions. It was able to change the Constitution against fierce opposition from the military. Turkey, once considered the sick nation of Europe, is the envy of many European countries today for its high economic growth, political stability and relations with the international community. Despite the fact that the AKP is an Islamist party, it has maintained a secular constitution while imbibing Muslim values.

Turkey’s high economic growth owes also to Ataturk who laid the foundations of universal education and academic excellence. Consequently, 98 per cent of the population is literate in which women are equal counterparts. On the contrary, in Pakistan there has hardly been any investment in education. On the flip side, the pro-Islamist Turkish government tends to be no less authoritarian. Detractors of the government feel that the pendulum has swung too far with military leaders and journalists being jailed on flimsy pretexts.

Egypt, once ruled by Turks, has known almost nothing but military rule since King Farouk I was deposed. The 29-year-long rule under Hosni Mubarak and earlier, under Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel Nasser never allowed the emergence of a genuine political force. The killing of president Anwar Sadat in 1981 by Islamist officers bred distrust between religious parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the military and provided the latter an opportunity to suppress religious parties. The MB, however, survived and spread its tentacles under the garb of social and cultural services. The newly-elected MB president, Mohamed Morsi, is only now defining the military-civilian relationship; the question is whether the president will win confidence across the board, especially of minorities or take Egypt toward a theocratic state.

There is no comparable institutional secular grounding in Egypt, as was the case with Turkey. It is the Egyptian military which, through undemocratic means like dissolving the parliament, suspending the Constitution, stripping powers of the president and setting up the military council is trying to balance the growing power of the MB.

In all three countries, armies are likely to grow more religious and conservative, reflecting the societies around them. It has to be seen what ramifications for democracy in all three it would have in the long-term. While its military is deeply entrenched in every walk of life and bringing Egypt back to a normal state may take years, the process has begun and the MB is expected to stand up to them. Contrary to what Time Magazine said in its latest edition, there is some optimism that Egypt’s revolution will pull through; people are saying ‘we know how to find Tahrir square’, meaning that if things go wrong, they’ll be back protesting to set things right.

Pakistan is bereft of capable civil leadership but its military is reluctant to assume political leadership due to the changed internal and external situation and the track record of military rule. The role of Islam in politics also remains unclear and radical Islam remains the greatest threat to state security. Nonetheless, in comparison to Egypt’s authoritarian past, Pakistan had a much more open society. However, poor governance, corruption and uneasy civil-military relations continue to retard progress.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 10^th, 2012.

Recent events in Pakistan are likely to have a profound impact on its future. The case of Arsalan Chaudhry has brought to fore that nothing remains hidden for long under the broad and sharp gaze of the media.

As institutional and individual skeletons are being dragged out of the closet, the few idols and iconic structures that we still had faith in are crumbling one by one. The chief justice, who remains the last bastion of justice, is facing embarrassment due to his son’s misdeeds. The DHA–Bahria contract has turned out to be a scam of mammoth proportions. And erstwhile prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, after remaining in the eye of the storm, was disqualified on the Supreme Court’s orders, which indeed was an earth-shaking event. These are not isolated cases but part of a broader, deeper malaise that afflicts the nation.

As our crisis worsens, no institution can pretend to be sacrosanct and above board unless it really is. And no individual or institution — the judiciary, military, politicians, business tycoons or the media — can claim immunity against accountability anymore. The forces released by the information technology revolution and a highly interconnected world have broken the barriers that once ensured some degree of impunity. Moreover, the concept that some institutions are more equal than others, or more worthy of respect, is also progressively being demolished.

These are not ordinary changes in the Pakistani environment, where too many still take it for granted that anyone can be bought out with money or power. Moreover, these developments are good for Pakistan in the long-term because our greatest weakness has been the duplicity in our behaviour — not applying the same standards to oneself that we demand from others. Just as market forces bring about corrections to economies in distress, so our institutions and society as a whole are finding self-correcting mechanisms to check failing institutions and individuals. We are now witnessing institutions — autonomously or in concert — apply checks and balances on one another: the moment one institution becomes too powerful it is likely to be checkmated. In the process, these institutions and their leaders, too, often play politics and advance their own narrow interests.

The challenge we face as a country is clear: how do we keep Pakistan in a fairly stable condition as old power structures collapse and institutions falter? It seems only too likely that the current turbulence could lead to widespread anarchy. Why? Two reasons stand out: our societal transformation is taking place in a leadership vacuum (and those who oppose change have a high stake in maintaining the status quo). Second, no institution has sufficient credibility and moral authority to guide us and show the way forward.

If Pakistan has to break from its past, then it should work for the victory of those forces that truly want to uphold the rule of law and create a society based on merit. The growing pressure for the accountability of institutions from the media — and from every walk of life in this country — should lead to collective introspection and compel the nation to redefine itself. Although rebuilding and redefining institutions is not easy, it is urgently needed. The clock is ticking louder than ever: our economy faces a meltdown, our current political leadership is incapable of taking hard decisions and a failure to act is simply not an option for a nuclear power.

How do we sanitise and transform the state when there is no leadership on the horizon of anything like the stature of a Nelson Mandela? Our dilemma is made worse when the present leadership’s only interest is personal profit that has given rise to a serious crisis of legitimacy. In the past, we took the simplistic approach of inviting the army in when events got out of control. But people are not prepared to accept a replay of that role anymore. Experience has shown that involvement of the military creates more problems than it solves in the long-term. The overreaching role of the judiciary is equally resented (most people would rather have judges provide justice to ordinary people than to play an outsized role in high profile political cases).

Perhaps, the best course to stabilise the situation would be for the government to announce a date for early elections. In the interim, it seems time has come for a caretaker civilian government of technocrats and men of integrity that enjoy the confidence of major political parties and can steer and hold the country through these very challenging times.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 27^th, 2012.

Pakistan has been portrayed as a “failed state”, “failing state” and “a hard country” by foreign authors. It is also acknowledged that our people are highly resilient. This debate is likely to continue but irrespective of its validity, Pakistan is facing serious internal and external challenges. And what is more disturbing is that there seems hardly any serious attempt to respond to a faltering economy, the grave energy crisis, expanding extremism and militancy and fast-deteriorating relations with the US. Moreover, there is scant prospect of any internal transformation in sight.

Several factors have led to this downward slide. The problem is not merely of atmospherics but is the result of a combination of factors that are grounded in the country’s grim reality today. Some of the major policy and governance failures that have brought us to this pass could be linked to these factors: the inevitable consequence of a lack of investment in education and health; General Ziaul Haq’s disastrous legacy of using Islam to legitimise his rule, the consequences of which we continue to suffer. And, finally, our involvement in the war on terror after 9/11. The result has been domination of a warped national narrative by some fringe radical religious parties and a total absence of alternative ideologies by liberal and moderate forces. Our corrupt political leadership and civil society have both failed to mobilise society and provide a more humane vision of the state.

There has been a weakening of civil institutions by the military to retain grip on power as well as politicisation of state institutions by the civilian leadership to advance its narrow vested interests.

Central to this whole process is Pakistan’s inability to meet the challenge of modernisation in a globalised world. There are two ways of meeting that challenge: to compete and develop or to retreat and regress. Unfortunately, it is the second that we seem to have chosen.

Had Pakistan invested in education, our youth would be far more literate. Perhaps, the revolution we see elsewhere in the Muslim world might well have been led from here. The gloom we witness today is largely justified because our political leadership is too corrupt and too preoccupied with keeping itself in power to appropriate state resources and not invest effectively in a better future. They cannot provide inspirational leadership.

One of the most troubling aspects of today’s despair is that it is leaving us unprepared for the great challenges we will face in the coming years. Our population growth is unsustainable and if we continue to grow as we are, it is difficult to see how this country can sustain itself, let alone provide a better future for its citizens.

Crucial to understanding Pakistan’s troubled governance is the fact that the country has never had an institutionalised decision-making process for foreign policy and economic issues. Hence, there has been competition between civilian and military leaders for control of the national agenda; the confusion of authority has often led to poor decisions with damaging consequences for the country in the longer term. Exacerbating these problems is the ever-growing politicisation of the bureaucracy. This leads to decline in the capacity of the bureaucracy to provide objective and dispassionate advice to decision-makers and greatly undermines any meritocracy.

However, all is not lost: our judiciary, despite some inherent weakness, is acting to reassert the rule of law in many ways, which is fundamental to a just society. The media is robust and even parliament has come out with landmark constitutional amendments. And the military continues to retain high standards of professionalism despite great odds and overstretch.

The great challenge confronting Pakistani leaders is that they have to take some very uncomfortable decisions to steer the country away from these multiple crises. We, therefore, cannot afford the current civil-military divide and judiciary-executive tussle.

The question remains: will the next elections bring in a new set of leadership that will rise to the challenge and undertake bold reforms and take hard decisions? We have to wait and see.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 10^th, 2012.