Against martial law

Politics in Pakistan has always been cyclical, with long periods of military rule punctuated by occasional democratic interruptions.  There is hope, if not confidence, that our current flirtation with democracy matures into a more long-standing relationship. It is praiseworthy, then, that the National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution on September 4 calling for the strengthening of democracy and a rejection of military intervention. While the passage of the resolution may have been purely symbolic but it does show that MNAs are fearful of being portrayed as front-men for the army. The country’s politicians have a lot to answer for as they have always been complicit in allowing and then prolonging military rule. Parties that have been left out in the cold after election defeats have preferred to cosy up to the generals rather than subject themselves to the whims of a fickle public. Again, this resolution alone will not necessarily prevent a repeat of that phenomenon, but it does show that elected representatives are fearful of publicly aligning with the military.

We should guard against putting too much faith in one parliamentary resolution. Military coups are not influenced by parliamentary voting; their inherent purpose is to overturn the public will and then over time to mould and shape it such that over time it begins to see the rule as a long-term necessity. And the military is far more PR savvy than our elected leaders. Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani took advantage of the political leadership’s sluggish response to the floods by visiting flood-affected areas himself at a time when the president was out of the country. The army has also been earning public plaudits for the relief work it is carrying out even though that work is part of their duty and financed by taxpayers’ money. People also tend to forget – possibly because what should be the normal power structure in a healthy democracy is inverted in Pakistan – that in doing relief and rescue work, it should be understood that the military is simply following the instructions of the elected civilian government. That, however, is not the case, as the generals still maintain power behind the scenes, especially with foreign policy, and in that in particular to Afghanistan, India, China and America (and one may be tempted to ask, what else is left?). For instance in the run-up to the ministerial dialogue with the US, several federal secretaries whose ministries were to be represented in the talks attended meetings and briefings at GHQ. Perhaps one could say that this is an acknowledgment of reality more than anything else.

That said, the civilian set-up has also proved incapable of getting its house in order. Every now and then, we see politicians writing in newspapers, or as it happens more these days, coming on television and basically inviting the military to step in. Why they do such things perhaps only they can answer but the fact remains that such actions make for a bad public perception and gives the impression to ordinary people that the politicians are in fact admitting to their governance failures. Furthermore, the current government made a ham of placing the ISI under the control of the interior ministry, given that its notification was rescinded within a day. Similarly, after the Mumbai attacks of 2008, the government agreed to send the ISI chief to India to discuss Pakistan’s possible involvement but that didn’t materialise. Clearly, a democratically-elected government should have the authority to make such decisions – even if they are unpopular – and in that context it is important that politicians resist the temptation to invite the military to take over.

In this background, one would have to say that the recent comment by the MQM chief asking “patriotic generals” to step in and clean up the Augean stables is not really very welcome given that it will only embolden other elements in the political spectrum to clamour for extra-constitutional change. And that will certainly not be in the nation’s or the people’s interest because military rule is really no different from inept and inefficient civilian rule.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 5^th, 2010.