Does the joint resolution mean anything?

The ruling PPP has surrendered the foreign and security policies to the GHQ, seemingly just to survive in power.

Much has been said about the ‘opportunity’ that has arisen in the recent days to make some strides in correcting the historical civil-military imbalance in Pakistan. One observer has also called it a rare civilian moment. At the same time, the realities of exercising power in the space set by unelected institutions have been limited and evidence of this is the tepid response so far of the ruling PPP-led coalition. The prime minister and his team are constantly defending the national interests (read the army and the ISI) and Islamabad is full of mysterious banners announcing that whosoever opposes the army or the ISI is a traitor.

Mian Nawaz Sharif has also spoken with much clarity on the need for military accountability. The 10-hour long special session of parliament on May 13, also condemned the US operation to kill Osama bin Laden and resolved that that an independent commission be set up to investigate intelligence failures.

These political manoeuvres smack of politicking at the expense of addressing the central issue: Whether Pakistan’s political elite have the wherewithal and capability to seize the moment and strengthen civilian governance? The answer, sadly, lies in the negative. The PPP and PML-N had agreed via the defunct Charter of Democracy (COD) to initiate several reforms, including that of ‘fixing’ the role of intelligence agencies and not to seek direct military interventions. The last three years have demonstrated how politicians have continued to invoke military involvement and seek frequent appointments with the army chief for consultations. Furthermore, the ruling PPP has also surrendered the foreign and security policies to the GHQ, seemingly just to survive in power.

The parliamentary resolution of May 13 ranks high on hollow sloganeering but falls short of undertaking the critical policy reviews: Why do we willingly harbour terrorists and sponsor militant groups? What is the ultimate objective of our Afghanistan policy? Will the India-centric nature of our security and defence policies ever change? Threatening the US that its drones will be shot down or stopping Nato supplies does not amount to a policy statement. Will members of parliament ever take stock of these matters and decide what sort of a relationship they want with the US?

If this parliament can agree on the 18^th Amendment and correct the constitutional anomalies, then surely it can also do other things. Let us not undermine the collective will of the people. For this to happen the politicians need to stop acting as ‘A’ or ‘B’ teams of the security establishment and agree on a common framework for asserting themselves. If they squander this civilian moment, there may not be one any time soon. Pakistan’s security establishment’s overarching power is also determined by this lack of initiative by the politicians. Blaming the army ad nauseam is easy but leads us nowhere.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 17^th, 2011.