If there was an establishment of another kind with an entirely different mindset, would that lead to a more stable and democratic political system in Pakistan? If the establishment had not distrusted politicians, it would not have felt obliged to impose its preferred political leaderships over the people over and above the ‘genuine’ representatives of a locality, a province or the nation as a whole. Ayub Khan created a new political leadership under the banner of the Convention League that crumbled in the 1970 elections. Ziaul Haq sought to make political capital out of the downfall of the PPP government that divided the nation into pro- and anti-Bhutto camps for a quarter of a century.
The establishment has generally not hesitated in sponsoring parties and leaders, especially in the context of elections. This happened not only under military rulers, but also under civilian dispensations. Thus, the establishment has allowed itself to be controversial in terms of its alleged role in playing politics through proxies. On that account, the recent sit-ins in Islamabad pointed to the testing times for the establishment that was dragged into controversy for allegedly supporting Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri.
Can the establishment have a different perspective, where there are no obvious favourites such as in mature democracies or in India next door? In that case, the links between society by way of its preferences, and the state in terms of its decision-making apparatus, would have been more straightforward and less complicated. But, the general perception for both the Zardari and Nawaz Sharif governments has been that the top brass found them wanting in several respects. This was a recipe for political turmoil.
The least such a situation can do is weaken the government. The most obvious obligation of the security apparatus of any state is to strengthen the government in terms of power, prestige, authority and diplomatic clout with the outside world. Two parallel foci of power operating in the country can only pull the warring factions and groups further apart from each other. In the present context, the agenda of cutting the Nawaz Sharif government to size is tantamount to weakening the writ of the state.
Imagine that Ayub had not changed the parliamentary system into a presidential system against which the whole nation rebelled. Imagine that both Zia and Pervez Musharraf had not sought to undermine parliamentary sovereignty through Article 58(2)(b) and introduced a semi-presidential system. While public representatives twice restored parliamentarism through the 1997 Thirteenth Amendment and the 2010 Eighteenth Amendment, presidentialism still haunts elements in the establishment.
What if the establishment had not opted for Islamisation so strongly from the 1980s onwards? First, the country would not have plunged into sectarian divisions that have served as barriers to national integration. Second, there would not have been the drumming down of the bondage to the state as a territorial, administrative and linguistic entity by those who used the enhanced divine commitment of people as a powerful force to subvert the Constitution.
Third, shying away from a close identification with the Taliban and other jihadi groups would have saved Pakistan from an unenviable profile as a potentially terrorist state in the international community. The country could have been spared this horrible image given the global agenda of anti-terrorism. There have been numerous occasions when somebody apprehended for planning or performing a terrorist activity in a Western country has been traced back to a visit to Pakistan for training. The nation certainly deserved better.
Is the agenda for peace with India doomed forever? It is amazing to see the ability of China and India not to surrender their respective policy positions on their dispute and yet move forward by way of massive bilateral trade. The civilian supremacy over armed forces in both China and India has produced a kind of rapprochement between Beijing and Delhi. If there was civilian supremacy in Pakistan, our security vision would have been in step with regional and global politics.
A cumulative effect of the growing divide between the establishment and society at large is that various sections of the latter are considered less patriotic than others. If you belong to a religious minority — Hindu, Christian or Ahmadi — or to an ethnic minority, such as the Baloch, your credentials as a true Pakistani are far from enviable. If you are a pro-democracy liberal, you are a security threat. If you are an independent journalist, you must prove your muscle in the media war with India. Any exercise in a dispassionate analysis about the official policy raises eyebrows.
Is the establishment anti-intellectual? In a way, all establishments shun that knowledge which is untutored and improperly pipelined. Only in Pakistan, the eerie world of opinion-making has been subjected to ‘guidance’ to an unenviable extent. The school textbooks, the media networks and the institutions of higher learning bear a clear stamp of a thinking that has descended from outside the recognised centres for production of knowledge. Co-option of the intelligentsia remains a cornerstone of intellectual policy.
If the establishment had instilled a sense of confidence in the nation instead of a sense of insecurity, we would have been far less given to conspiratorial nonsense today. If the establishment had given the nation a sense of belonging to the global civilisation instead of a sense of living at its margins, we wouldn’t have been fighting ghosts in the dark all the time. We cannot remain a paranoid state for all times to come. Not surprisingly, the most powerful nations of the world are led by civilian leaderships.
Can the establishment rethink the role of the political class as a stabilising force, democracy as the only game in town, parallel centres of power as disastrous, harbouring terrorists as suicidal, politics of proxies as a recipe for instability, casting aspersions on citizens’ patriotism as undesirable, as well as follow, rather than lead peoples’ aspirations?
Published in The Express Tribune, October 14th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Waqas Tariq: In 1947 the Muslim units went to Pakistan and what India inherited were mostly non Muslim units though some units that were mixed always had Muslims . Now gradually most of the new units being raised are mixed .
@Waqas Tariq: India had a chief of Navy that was Muslim. It has had several Lt. Generals in teh army that are Muslim. Our last COAS was Sikh, our last Airforce chief was Christian. the COAS of India in 1971 was a Parsi. India does not view its defense forces from he prism of religion. Merit alone rules.
A very sensible and truthful article. Pakistan is lacking such wisdom in its establishment and policies. Even a worst democracy is better than a dictatorship
Good at Hindsight as always . But we are poor to look into contemporary and future issues. Every one is a pseudo intellectual while discussing the past. Alas , Nations can't live with past alone.
@ Professor By Mohammad Waseem
you say: " If the establishment had not distrusted politicians..."
Sir we tend to give politicians justifiably enormous benefit of the doubt but have we once paused to think what is ti that the politicians have done to create that distrust and chasm?
We haven't.
Remember the famous idiom, it takes two to tango.
An apt analysis by the author who has successfully analysed in a nutshell what all ails Pakistan. The assessment on establishment is the bitter truth which all Pakistanis have to swallow without making any complaint or face unpleasant consequences. The establishment is undoubtedly is the most stable organisation followed by judiciary and had former played a positive role in strengthening the democracy, Pakistan should have matched its economy with India. The destructive policies followed by respective establishment right from the beginning lead to division of the country by committing genocide in BD, spread of sectarianism and terrorism by faulty policies of late Zia and Musharraf, destabalising and ousting of several civilan governments, poor economic conditions due to mindless spending on defence and nuclear arsenal and bad relations with neighbours due to export of terror across the borders. The establishment can still play a positive role and take Pakistan out of trouble to new heights by abandoning its self-destructive policies both at home and neighbours.
The fruits of democracy have eluded Pakistan because the political party that formed the government was never allowed to function by unconstitutional centers of Power exerting themselves from the shadows.
There are ways of rectifying the situation. The first step is to understand that the Military is a part of the government and subservient to it. It cannot be allowed to decide what its budget should be, nor where the allocated resources should be deployed, that being the prerogative of the government. Secondly, to overcome the duality over terrorism and where loyalties of the Military lie it is absolutely essential that Military accounts have to be audited like elsewhere in the world. Thirdly, making arrests should be in the domain of the Police not any Army, either way those arrested have to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours, nullifying the scope of civilians disappearing. Lastly, like in the civilized world those in the Services cannot meet and interact with Media, Politicians, Bureaucrats and visiting Foreign Dignitaries, except at government sponsored functions.
Equally important is to introduce reforms in the Judiciary which seems to be an ideologically oriented one with heavy baggage, always playing an illegal role in the subversion of democracy. No other Judiciary has managed to rubber stamp the overthrow of an elected government, nor has any sent an elected PM to the gallows on trumped up charges. No wonder citizens have shown contempt for Law, thanks to it. The Judiciary has also not developed a backbone and refused to send anti nationals and criminals in uniform to jail, compounding the contempt of citizens for process of fair play and law. To overcome these difficulties and get the best talent for the post of Judges in High Court and Supreme Court all appointments should be made by a Collegium of 5 members comprising 1] Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 2] The Prime Minister 3] The Law Minister 4] Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and 5] Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
All the above are baby steps that will cement the process of Democracy, which alone can guarantee that Power is in the hands of citizens and not those who have Guns to terrorize them.
Today Pakistan stands at cross roads of leadership crisis, we do not have a civilian leader who can fit in the category of a statesman and can pull it out of the political quagmire. The current political leadership is all tainted with corruption and misdoings and that's why the so called establishment will ever be powerful and intrusive
Clarity of the mind is what comes through in this thoughtful piece. You should have gone further: what do you recommend for the establishment to rethink its role?
In order to have civilian supremacy, you need actual civilians. Not the current feudals and kleptocrats.
There is no political class. Only a ruling class. Politics in this country is a front. Once you start to understand this, all will be well.
A thoughtful and insightful article sir.
The question arises what are the parameters to judge someone`s level of patriotism? India is a diversified nation in terms of linguistics and religion but they have a strong political system. However, if we look at the indian establishment you would be astonished to see the low percentage of Muslim representation in Indian armed forces. So this state of mind exists in Indian establishment too.
A thoughtful and insightful article sir.
The question arises what are the parameters to judge someone`s level of patriotism? India is a diversified nation in terms of linguistics and religion but the have a strong political system. But if we look at the establishment you would be astonished to see the low percentage of Muslim representation in Indian armed forces. So this state of mind exists in Indian establishment too.
Great Article......i guess no youuthia will comment on it as they are creations of the deep state!!
In other words, we would be a normal country. Not only that, we would be an intact country (East Pakistan would still be with us)
Only a massive, decisive defeat like 1971 can weaken the Army's strangle hold. With nuclear insurance in hand, out break of full scale war is unlikely. Voluntary subordination to civilian authority by a wise, intellectual army chief (unlikely combination of characteristics) may change the course of the future.
Professor Wseem,
A great poignant article that exposes the real causes for Pakistan's problems.
I would just like to add one more point. It is that any state founded on a religious ideology is bound to be regressive.
The author has touched upon a subject that is fundamental to Pakistan's root and identity ... of late there are sporadic attempt to stir this hornets nest in Pakistan, which very few people dare to do consistently ... spreading hatred and intolerance through systematic indoctrination, starting with school text books, is a question all Pakistanis must answer ... for Pakistan to survive its current downslide and emerge as a viable nation ...