De-hyphenating Civ-Mil equation

Balancing Civ-Mil is what we assume in Pakistan is the key to our governance and policy issues. Popular thought would have you believe that were it to be resolved we could be a far better place. Nothing obfuscates the reality more than the hype and chimera of democratic tradition and civilian supremacy in which name we root our political system. Inherently, this is contradictory and a half-truth. Our political parties and their internal mechanisms are the farthest from any democratic tradition. The leaders are self-appointed and mostly dynastic. Polls are a sham, if ever held. Leadership is inherited and irreplaceable in popular perception. For example, the PML-N can only win as a party if it is led by Mian Nawaz Sharif. Imran Khan must contest elections on all seats to prove that he or his party are a formidable political force.

The web of politics thus inevitably builds around the person of such infallible men. How they perform when in the Parliament or in the government is rarely questioned since democracy is symbolised in their person and it is heretical to question democracy. Laws, processes and statutes are lain by the wayside if ever their person is questioned. Virtual autocracies are hardly ever the bastions to practise or deliver democracy. What we get instead is neither of the people nor for the people. The democratic sham is facilitated by the unknowing partners in the process, the people when they choose the same autocratic leaders through the electoral process. That is where democracy begins and ends in essence.

It is amazing how the opposition and the government, both, regurgitate the rant of control by the military of its policies and functions and its absence of freedom in those matters; else, they claim it would have only been milk and honey. That it is milk and honey for their person is another matter. The state and the people though are left at the mercy of international borrowing which only moves both the state and the people closer to destitution and default. If there is one test of why any governing structure continues to remain in power when it is so helpless and impotent in the face of military’s institutional control returns a blank. Never has any government called for renewed mandate for it to exercise its sovereign control over policy and matters of governance when in power. They all begin the diatribe when out of power whether that be through a constitutional action or a court order. While and when in power the claims are of matchless synchrony.

It is not that the military is not to blame. When it is patron to power it shall exercise its influence sometime in good faith and sometime in institutional interest. But why let an external agency into the realm if its role is defined differently? The counter question of equal relevance is: why would an agency involve itself outside its demarcated role? I have mostly resorted to the logic of corporate memory given that the military has ruled for over three decades in our over seven decades existence and in critical times of long duration when significant initiatives in foreign policy were entered in to. But at the root has always sat the incompetence of the civilian dispensations which permitted it the space to indulge. It came via mostly fratricidal shenanigans or simply in failing to keep order — 1971 and 1977 come to mind.

I also count Pakistan’s unfortunate loss of its founding leadership in the very first year of its existence which began a cycle of musical chairs for power never letting the political system take root. Compare that to India where Nehru ruled for seventeen years at a stretch till another leader was chosen at his death. Democracy found its roots and turned into a resilient reliable system of governance which has held India through all difficult and not-so-difficult times. The first martial law in Pakistan came about when it took rather long to form a constitution and implement it in letter. It was easier to arrogate power through palace intrigues than fight elections against competing political entities. Bureaucrats ruled the roost as politicians remained incomprehensibly lame duck.

What of now? The political dispensations have ruled the country for a consecutive stretch of fifteen years since 2008 following regular elections under the constitution. During these fifteen years the military has variously been blamed for acting from the shadows and in helping politicians forge governments. If not explicitly, the allegation is implicitly accepted by it when it says, ‘it is “now” neutral’. I can say on reasonable authority that if not all, the PTI government found significant support by the military following elections to form a government. Right or wrong is not in question here; it is simply a statement of fact. I can also postulate on firmer ground that having failed the experiment of hoping for better results in governance and in moving the country forward the military decided to distance itself from politics when the PTI government was found equally inept in matters of governance. In the public eye this distancing translated as the two falling out. There could have been other reasons too for the single page to shear. But if that gave spurs to the opposition which could now attempt to win back some allies of the sitting PTI government there was no army blocking its way.

The ruling conglomerate, PDM, had no qualms in finding a back-door entry into power. Whether they should have, instead of going for immediate elections, will always remain moot. In hindsight it would have made immense sense. That they chose to clutch on to power instead and hope they will be absolved of unsparing criticism was a wrong read of the state of play. Governance — political, social and economic — continues to remain pathetic. It will cost them a fortune in political terms. Recovering the loss will be daunting if not impossible. IK in his current spell seems unstoppable. Even in Punjab. ‘And the military is just not stopping him’, is now the preferred refrain. Its mainstream leadership — both traditional and anvil — is in London, wary of how the politics has shaped up under its own order. Their underlings thus complain against the military for not stopping IK and letting them the freedom as they please. IK on the other hand wants the ‘plunderers and thieves’ — his words — out and the way paved for his resumption of the throne. He too complains: the army is not doing enough for it to happen.

The army will need a resolve of steel to let these warring politicos slug it out at their peril or learn to coexist. It also must know it gets the flak even when it is in the shadows. In each case politics should remain a dirty word for it as it always was growing up in the military service. Even when one is a general. Thereon it shall be for the politicos to restore the dignity as well as credibility to their chosen profession. Let each do his bit. This country is a common asset.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 4^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.