Analysis: In our self interest

For last 6 months or so mainstream media has been preoccupied with talks with TTP and Musharraf’s trial.


M Ziauddin April 13, 2014
For last 6 months or so mainstream media has been preoccupied with talks with TTP and Musharraf’s trial. PHOTO: FILE



For the last six months or so a major part of our mainstream independent media has overly, but to a large extent very rightly, been preoccupied with two topics of foremost national importance: Talks with the Taliban and Musharraf’s trial.


And for understandable reasons, while making informed and more often than not, not-so-well informed guesses in our reports, comments and analyses, most of us find it almost impossible to avert discussing the role and the interest of the armed forces in the related developments.

It is, of course, but natural for most of us not to resist the temptation of being guided by our history, especially the history of our civil-military relationship or to be more precise the Nawaz-army relations in the immediate past while forming our opinions or when trying to read between the lines while reporting the two topics as well as covering and interpreting relevant statements, speeches and press notes.

So, it is again almost impossible for most of us not to see red in the relationship while discussing the two topics; as it is the army which has been calling all the shots in major policy matters all these 66 years and also that the institution has perceived to have never allowed the superior judiciary to hold any of its past chiefs accountable for taking liberties with the Constitution.

In undemocratic societies – societies that are rooted in tribal or feudal customs – power is not conceded, but snatched. This has been our custom as well until about the 2008 general elections. Subsequently, for the first time ever we saw the superior judiciary breaking out of shackles of the executive. And one could clearly see a willingness on the part of the omnipotent army institution to learn to live within its constitutional limits. Meanwhile, an already liberated media became even more vibrant. The result was the first ever peaceful democratic transition in Islamabad.

But then you cannot switch on or switch off political pre-dominance of the army overnight. Withdrawal from such a dominant position is a long drawn process even if the successor civilian dispensation possesses the capacity to formulate major national policies and has the ability to govern efficiently.

This is called the transition process – as the successor civilians learn the ropes of governance the politically predominant institution that used to issue orders learns to take orders, sometime from seemingly civilian novices.

Such a situation is bound to result in disagreements, discord and misunderstandings. Take for instance the issue of talks with the Taliban. The talks cannot bear fruit without meaningful strategic input by the army in the agenda for negotiations and how to go about handling post-negotiations aftermath. There is a vast potential in the process to give rise to even acrimonious debates. Similarly, there would be many in the institution who would certainly feel bad about their former chief facing judicial indictment.

This is where I think the media comes in. Being an essential cog in the democratic machine, it is in our essential institutional self-interests that the ongoing democratic transition is not halted or harmed. So, without giving up our watchdog role could we not try not to sharpen the differences between the civilian dispensation and the army in our news reports, our opinion pieces, our analyses, our comments and more importantly our talk-shows?

I know, we being essentially a market-driven entity today and each of us competing to be the highest rated news and views vehicle, it would be almost impossible for us or for our media owners to accept willingly to be left behind in this race to be the first with the most sensational disclosures.

But then, I am not sure if the army had really wanted to save Musharraf from indictment, it would have allowed the matter to linger on for such a long time – to a point where the Special Court had to issue warrant of arrest for a person perceived to have been given sanctuary in the AFIC by the institution itself.

And if the army was against giving another chance to peace negotiations, it would not have waited the advent of the Nawaz government but launched an all-out operation against the Taliban when the US was accusing it of playing a double game.


Published in The Express Tribune, April 13th, 2014.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ