The western media never misses a chance, these days, to have a go at the relationship, as they see it (which is much as we see it), between the mighty army which, de facto rules Pakistan and the venal weak politicians who de jure, are in the driving seat. Reports and articles, during the past few months, have even gone to the extent of using the word ‘loathe’ to describe the feelings of the army chief towards the president of the republic.
But the prime minister still manages to ruffle khaki feathers and was warned in no uncertain terms, when he criticised General Ashfaq Kayani earlier this month and then fired a retired lieutenant-general, that “potentially grievous consequences” could be the result, though no outright clue was given as to the exact nature of the ‘consequences’.
On January 14, the New York Times, in a report on the military-civil relations, told its readers how when the army chief had attended a meeting with the prime minister as part of the Defence Coordination Committee some days earlier: “In an apparent attempt to defuse tensions, Mr Gilani paid tribute to the military in comments at the outset of the meeting, emphasising his support for the country’s ‘brave armed forces and security personnel’.
“Still, his positive demeanour failed to mask evident problems. During Mr Gilani’s opening remarks — which, uncommon for a committee meeting, were broadcast on national television — General Kayani stared at the table”.
Since then, the western press has been deflected from the acrimony and the ‘loathing’ that blights the military-civil love affair by developments in the other great institution; the judiciary, and its particular peculiar relationship with this civilian government. There is no mystery attached to the disharmony between the two great pillars of state, the judiciary and the government, as the latter has made no bones about its attitude towards the present Supreme Court.
Why does it happen, that the military and civil, must forever be at daggers drawn, with the bureaucracy and the judiciary opting to side with whichever it finds the most powerful? Why, for the past 64-plus years has the army held the civilians in contempt? From where derives the superiority complex? Why the perpetual inability to abide by what should be what, when it comes to hierarchy in officialdom?
From the outset, of the birth of the country (to a certain extent even in Jinnah’s days) the army has not found in government, politicians it can respect to the extent of obeying. This would indicate that Pakistan only produces substandard politicians incapable of holding their own. Or, is it that the state has always only existed to provide subsistence to the military establishment?
And the bureaucracy — stands completely defanged, a process undertaken by both military and civil governments and its inability to stand up to either the military or the politicians is legendary. It is but, a willing tool used by both when either has been in power. The bureaucracy should have had the gumption, in times of the absence of democratic institutions, to ‘civilianise’ the military regimes. It has done the opposite. It has crept and crawled before its military masters — equal to it in rank — and has done the same when the civilians have come in. It has never been a civil service — rather, a government service.
Military regimes, after a while in power, have always latched on to and picked out particularly pliant politicians (usually the dregs, the exception being Zia’s Junejo), to whom not having a ‘kursi’ is anathema. They set up governments in an attempt to prove their democratic credentials and have always failed. This has happened from Ayub Khan down to the latest of our military adventurers — but we must ask ourselves how, in any way other than having come in through the democratic process — this democratic government has shone?
Published in The Express Tribune, January 21st, 2012.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Author It appears you wanted to say more but the ink in your pen ran out! or should I say, you should have said more!
they probably met to get their act together and work on how to beg more dollars out of US....
The military knows that Pakistan is in desperate shape and also knows that it has no solutions for the problem facing Pakistan --- better to sit in the peanut gallery rather than be held directly responsible for righting the ship.
Be it a democratic system or a military system of government both are managed by human resources. The human material available in the system is of such inferior quality that the end result is dismal at best.
Perhaps the absence of history of indigenous governing institutions and the accrued societal loyalty to them may be the reason. Birth of PAK was too quick without establishing the infrastructure of governance and overnight shift of loyalty from one land to the other is hard to come by. Yet, it was cemented by patch work of interests and took a many long years even to agree on first constitution. The flight of the stake holders of PAK, and shunning them from public life after the death of Jinnah did not leave behind a college of established wisdom for the new generation of political thinking to follow. And of course, the military class of that time thought that they were better educated to fill the void and all went down hill from there.
Democracy and formation of particular style of government for collective benefit is a trial and error exercise for each society and it takes a while to find its pivot point. Unfortunately, the time span of PAK history is too short but I see step in the right direction. The current drama in establishing and arguing who is the constitutionally established supreme institution in itself is a healthy progress compared to what it was five years ago.
Ideal government with no shortage of electricity, gas, inflation, corruption and rule of law is still a long way. Light is at the end of the tunnel but it is a long tunnel.