![the writer is an economist and political commentator based in san francisco he has authored several books and papers on pakistan the writer is an economist and political commentator based in san francisco he has authored several books and papers on pakistan](https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/585639-DrAhmadFaruquiNew-1375462578/585639-DrAhmadFaruquiNew-1375462578.jpg)
This coup, coming just a year after the Arab Spring, raises a fundamental question that applies not just to Egypt but also to Pakistan. How do armies legitimise their coups?
There are striking parallels between coups in Egypt and Pakistan.
In countries with weak political institutions, the army is often the strongest and one of the most well-funded arms of the government. It arrogates to itself the right to judge what is and what is not in the national interest. Coups happen when the people accept the army’s supra-constitutional role to adjudicate political disputes.
With the re-election of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan made its first successful transition from one elected government to another. Yet, the threat of a coup hangs in the air. If domestic politics sour, all eyes will be turned onto the army chief.
But Egypt and Pakistan are the outliers to an international trend away from military rule. For decades, juntas held sway in most Latin American countries. And military rule was the norm in Indonesia and Turkey. However, all these countries eventually transitioned to democracy. How did this salubrious outcome materialise?
While each country’s transition had its own unique elements, a common element stands out; at some point, the military lost its legitimacy as the final arbiter of political disputes. The people stopped believing in a myth that their militaries had interjected into the national psyche — an enemy stood at the gates and posed a mortal threat to the nation’s survival.
The myth persists in Egypt and Pakistan. The people believe that the army is the only institution that can ward off this existential threat. The fact that neither army has won a war against the external threat — Israel in the case of Egypt and India in the case of Pakistan — has not helped to slay the myth.
President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, a soldier himself, made peace with Israel in 1979 after he became convinced of the futility of war. Two years earlier, he had flown into Jerusalem to address the Israeli parliament with a message of peace. President Jimmy Carter brought the leaders of Egypt and Israel together at Camp David a year later, but Egyptians never bought into the peace treaty. Sadat was gunned down while reviewing a military parade, giving the army yet another excuse to stay in power.
To this day, the Arab Street has not made peace with Israel, virtually guaranteeing that the army will stay in power. If the Egyptian crowds had been patient, they would have used the parliamentary process to change their leaders.
In Pakistan, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, now in his third term, is reaching out to India, as he did back in 1999. There is no doubt that Pakistan desperately needs to make peace with India. There is no other way to rein in the militant hordes that have turned on Pakistan itself.
However, better than anyone else, Nawaz Sharif knows that he is performing the high wire act. If he can bring the people along with him, he will succeed and democracy will find a permanent home in Pakistan.
The risk is worth taking.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 3rd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Excellent article. Having lived in Egypt I agree that Egyptians never bought into the Peace Treaty. It was just to milk money out of the US, which they have done successfully.
Blah blah blah, an average Egyptian does not care about pakistan. My dear lady friend hafsa told me. Why are Pakistanis so concerned about Palestine and Egypt. Khud da watan sawaro. Rab rakha
The debate about Democracy VS Military Dictatorship is a long one.
But, Egypt got to this step after a crucial step, which should ideally be the topic of this discussion.
Democracy was healthy or would have been on its gradual progression of becoming better had one thing not happened - Islamists coming to power through popular mandate.
When that happened the people who fought for Democracy and Freedom, the secular-liberal lot felt like somebody was puling the carpet from under their feet. They resorted to protests and the Military came to power.
The dilemma among the liberals in Egypt is quite paradoxical. They want Democracy, but that might also mean a return of the Islamic Govt.
That is why I say Democracy is for countries like India, US, UK,etc., not for countries like Pakistan and Egypt.
The Op Ed is full of historic facts. Out of Latin America, Turkey, Indonesia and others only Egypt and Pakistan have their rich and powerful armies who never won a war and yet have a stranglehold over the country. The behave like power drunk gods who have a divine right to rule and abuse the country. Everybody in the world knows that these huge armies are never going to fight but they still want to keep an imaginary enemy to justify their enormous perks. The armies have great control over most institutions particularly judiciary and use it to justify their acts of treason. These armies are abusing the country as an institution not as individuals that is why there is never a counter coup against a sitting military dictator no matter how bad he has been.
Below average article....... historically in correct and without any cohesion
There is no doubt that Pakistan desperately needs to make peace with India. There is no other way to rein in the militant hordes that have turned on Pakistan itself.
@ author,
how can India help Pakistan here?
"With the re-election of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan made its first successful transition from one elected government to another. "
Not accurate. This happened multiple times in 90s from BEnazir to Nawaz and back. What has happened for the first time is that a democratically elected government completed its full term and handed over reigns to another democratically elected government.
Article is filled with historical inaccuracies. Egyptians, secular-liberal welcomed treaty, as it brought back Sinai Peninsula- but Islamists were against the treaty as were most of Arab countries. An important factor that has been overlooked is the USA's patronage of military rulers, although for different reasons.
Some sweeping generalizations "Egyptians never bought into the peace treaty" factually incorrect, if anyone it was Muslim Brotherhood who rejected peace treaty, silent peaceful majority of Egyptians are quite relieved.
We won all wars........Allah is with us.........