Years ago, during a lecture to the GHQ officers by a professor of Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, about democracy, the convincing argument for me was the seeming ‘inclusivity’ of democracy as a system, where everyone including a minority had a stake and a voice. Later while pursuing higher education in an American university, I learnt that in the absence of viable checks and balances like education, judiciary and civil society; democracy can degenerate into the ‘oligarchy of interest groups’.
In our case, with multifarious ethnic groups, democracy – the numbers’ game – invariably means the dominance of one group over others, if not fine-tuned. Moreover, even the public and popular mandate can be manipulated by money, as witnessed recently. Historically, whenever matters were left to the politicians alone, the country went through turmoil. Ultimately, the Armed Forces were drawn to salvage stability and political order. Crises can spin out of control without Military’s positive interlocution given the no-holds-barred political polarization that Pakistan regularly experiences. Military, ironically remains the sole arbiter to facilitate pro-Pakistan outcomes during such situations.
As a coherent organisation with proven credentials, military establishment (Miltablishment) grooms its cadre with clear nationalist/pro-Pakistan and Islamist orientations. This mainly inward-looking cohort is fallible for monetary inducements and/or the ‘right price’, however, its sequenced internal checks/balances shield its vast rank and file from corruption. And an effective accountability process, sternly and swiftly deals with all including senior ranks found involved.
And as a known unknown, all political forces seek military crutches, to either climb the ladders of success and/or prevail and sustain there. Military on its part has gone as far as conducting courses on national security and media in NDU (National Defence University), Islamabad for grooming of political class, in comprehending the intricacies of governing Pakistan.
So, for the cited reasons, like it or not, ours would remain a case of ‘guided democracy’ irrespective of the neutrality and the ‘absolutely not’ pronouncements of this or that functionary. Alongside Miltablishment, its sizeable and very vocal retired cadre has emerged as an influential lobby in the present crisis. This would remain so in future, forcing a rethink towards acceptance of military’s role as an equal stakeholder, under constitutional cover. For the military, being ‘neutral’ is not an option, never was and never will be. The kind of public pressure generated for positive interference in this age of social media will force military to exert. However, such interlocution should not be tainted with actual and/or perceived encumbrances like ‘extension’ and whimsical decision-making, considered dangerously divisive, detrimental to national interest, damaging for military reputation and muddying personal legacy. Staying apolitical as individual preference is never an organisational view by default. Not knowing this is not knowing our political culture.
PTI, during the present standoff, has successfully and correctly cultivated a perception that the opposition forces – with almost nothing in common – have ganged up against Imran Khan at the behest of foreign forces to oust him from power ‘to grab power’. And this brazen mad rush to power is for no ideological reasons; and is facilitated by foreign funding and apparent ‘neutrality’ of Miltablishment. And to provide this facade some constitutionality, large bribes were paid to the defecting MPs. And that Imran is on the wrong side of the US/West due to his pro-Islamist credential, nationalist outlook, and independent foreign policy and his spine to defy the powerful. Interestingly, these attributes alongside Imran’s Mr Clean image and ability to pull crowds is a winning combination for any Third World politician domestically. However, the same attributes can land him/her in hot waters with global movers and shakers...if he or she is not pliant.
Pakistan’s political elite, barring some exceptions, has ‘money and influence’ as their overriding consideration in doing politics, where ‘vote-grab’ has been perfected to an art. Money spent in electioneering is recovered with huge profits, with influence in toe, as icing on the cake. Hence, the turns by PPP and PML-N to run Pakistan, with Imran being an experimental aberration.
In public perception, the recent episodes of vulture-trading in the Parliament by the public representatives substantiates the argument that public representatives ‘alone’ cannot be trusted with sensitive matters of national importance because of their vulnerability to money, influence and/or power. Monetary inducements, although peanut in dollar terms, are substantial in rupees for folks, who mainly enter politics on party strength, and opportunistically look for quick buck and power. This unfortunate reality, therefore, calls for some overwatching, guiding mechanism to prevent corruption in politics. And for that, military has to come out of shadows, acquiring a constitutional role through pro-Pakistan/pro-stability forces; or else Pakistan would ‘trudge along’ in circles.
The argument of ‘Presidential System’ to empower one man, under the circumstances, is also risky, given the now exposed arms-twisting by the foreign power(s). It is easier to manipulate a single person/small group rather than a multifarious combination of stakeholders. In the latter case, it is messier, not so discrete and may entail a cost to the interfering force(s). Broad-based ‘guided democracy’ with the Armed Forces being a constitutional stakeholder cannot be easily manipulated by external forces.
Like political forces before him, Imran is also a benefactor of the Miltablishment’s effort to find a capable, patriotic and viable alternative to run Pakistan. This sadly has not happened despite whole-hog support rendered to him/PTI at critical junctures by the Miltablishment. He had remained consumed in small and petty battles, mostly of his own making.
However, his cited attributes plus youth endearment in a demographically young Pakistan make him an attractive option, again to bet upon. But, in so doing he has to be staffed with an experienced and capable team and not filibustering school kids. The national consensus that ‘Pakistan is not for sale’ gives him enough political capital to start with. Otherwise, Pakistan risks becoming some contemporary Middle Eastern states, with people and governments on opposing sides. In this case, Pakistan is fully under Western control through proxies/sold-out elite and money, where defiance causes regime change.
The fact that PTI today is the only national party with good representation in all federating units augers well for Pakistan.
In lessons learnt, if Imran/PTI is able to look beyond NCM; field a winning team; control the language of its political discourse; demonstrate good relations with Gen Bajwa’s successor/others; shun arrogance; and focus completely on governance and delivery, rather than rhetorical battles of no consequence... tabdeeli is ‘probably’ possible.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 7th, 2022.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ