America and Pakistani democracy

If the public support for Imran Khan's anti-Americanism is real, his victory in polls may be against US interests.


Aakar Patel February 16, 2013
The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk

Just after 9/11, a colonel from the Israeli Defence Forces briefed some Indians in Tel Aviv.

Speaking about the neighbours, he said anti-Israeli sentiment was higher in the population than in the military leaderships. Dictators were more alert to self-interest and less driven by passion. It was the people that were the real threat.

Did he mean that democracy in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, Abdullah’s Jordan and Saddam Hussain’s Iraq was against Israeli interests? Yes, the colonel said quite brazenly,

The same question can be asked in Pakistan this election year. Will democracy be against American interests?

The Pakistani population is against the war in the tribal areas. A Gallup poll, a few days ago, showed that an astonishing 92 per cent of Pakistanis had a negative view of the United States leadership, fuelled by drone strikes. Astonishing, given how many Pakistanis have family relations in that country.

Of the three national parties contesting elections in a few months, only Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf believes violence in Pakistan will end if the army vacates the tribal areas and America is forced to end drone attacks. In this, he has the support of the Urdu press and its columnists, who present a consensus against Pakistani participation in America’s war. Imran is also thought to have the support of the establishment, which is seen as reluctant to fight the Taliban. If the anti-Americanism of Pakistanis is applicable to its soldiers, Imran’s view is that of the ordinary jawans and perhaps, also the field officers. But that is not what is meant when the word establishment is used. It is the army chief and his generals who determine threats and act against them.

Are they reluctant to fight the war they are in?

It is difficult to swallow the idea that it is President Asif Ali Zardari who’s forcing Pakistan’s generals to fight and lose dozens of men each month against their will. This is what we have to accept if we concede that the army is backing Imran for a change in policy.

The facts show that General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the majority of his generals are convinced that the problem is internal. It is they, not so much President Zardari and the government, which are worried about the Taliban threat and are acting against it. It is likely the jawans — who don’t have access to the data and the thinking of the generals — don’t feel this way and aren’t enthusiastic about fighting. This explains the oblique manner in which the campaign has been explained by the army. It doesn’t own the war entirely because large parts of it are unconvinced, rightly or wrongly, about the logic of fighting an enemy that claims the Pakistan Army is being used by America as a mercenary force.

But it has stuck through it and, truth be told, acted maturely in recent skirmishing with old enemy India, because its focus is elsewhere.

If this is true, the generals would not want an anti-American Imran to win. Certainly, they would not be backing him. They would rather the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) win or the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) remain in power because these parties don’t really cross the army.

This has come from experience. Both the PPP and the PML are happy to leave large parts of strategy with the army and this has always been the case. It is General (retd) Pervez Musharraf who precipitated the crisis against Nawaz Sharif through Kargil. Then taking offence and, like Cornelius Sulla, brought the soldiers into the capital over what was a personal matter.

On the other hand, it was Sharif who initially extended General (retd) Musharraf’s tenure. President Zardari extended General Kayani’s tenure and Yousaf Raza Gilani said it was, in fact, the government that wanted to keep him for another three years. This isn’t the sort of behaviour that would get the army chief plotting to have the ruling party replaced.

The indications are that Imran isn’t the army’s man. This means the support he has for his anti-Americanism is real. And if — unlikely as I think the prospect is — this is turned into votes, democracy in Pakistan this year might show itself to be against America’s interests.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 17th, 2013.

COMMENTS (29)

Rex Minor | 11 years ago | Reply

@sabi: Good thinking, but not quite right. the military doctrine from the outset has been that if the civlian Govt. is unable to maintain law and order in the country and require the use of the military force to rule, then they have not the right to rule. The miitary brass must take over and declare the martial law. Because of the American war on terror in Afghanistan and in the border region the exceptio was made by the military allowing Bhutto/Zardari civilian coup keeping Kyani as the head of the miitary for the interim period. The statements of IK and those of the retired military brass will provide the clue. Bhutto/Zardari Govt. is the one time transition in the country.

Rex Minor

MSS | 11 years ago | Reply

The Isreali Colonel was right and Gen Kayani, if the author's contention is correct, is right too. If the public opinion is that Pak army should not attack the Taliban with full force then it is bad news. I always said and say it again, the nations are not under any serious threats from the extremists (because there are so few of them), but from the moderates. It is the moderates who are most likely to change their opinions and develop a mindset similar to the taliban. They, the moderates form a CRITICAL mass of a society. When they begin to sympathise with the extremists, the nation is in trouble. The whole milk becomes yoghurt, viscosity increases but fluidity decreases. When the critical mass is reached as in matters nuclear, the implosion is likely to happen. Imran Khan has sympathy for the Taliban and that could be a problem for Pakistan. PML(N) are not too distant from IK in this regard. Purely from this angle, Pakistan's best bet is PPP minus a few. Best option is a National Unity Government where all three major parties have participation.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ