The world moves on, but the Islamic Republic that is Pakistan seems to find it an insurmountable task to move itself out of its set torpor. The free media, after weeks and weeks obsessing over the drone issue — quite uselessly as willy-nilly the drones are going to be around for some time — swiftly took up another, but by no means unusual, obsession, the change in army command. Banner headlines and much discussion, editorial and otherwise, greeted the last minute naming by the country’s prime minister of the new man, and the same a day later for the actual heavily ceremonial and publicly aired physical changeover. The international media also got into the act, firmly indicating where the real power lay in the republic. A dominant shadow indeed, which has little to do with things democratic. But as they say, old habits die hard.
Much praise has been lavished upon the outgoing chief, his pros occupying far more space than the cons, though in the still un-final analysis, no one has been able to come up with anything he did that was beyond the call of duty, beyond what he was paid to do, or trained to do. Little emphasis was put on what he did which he should not have done. But then, in the chaotic and perennially dysfunctional state that is Pakistan, with wrong rather than right being the norm, any individual who does not stray too far off the beaten track is almost sanctified.
The new chief, unknown to most, has received his share of praise for being unknown, but via sections of the media, we have been regaled with stories of his childhood and, in pop-star style, interviews with his relatives. Well, in all this, let’s say great for the army chief — the dominant shadow is not Pakistan’s military, it is its army. The air force and naval chiefs come and go in due time, as they should, with barely a mention, a brief news item somewhere or the other records their ins and outs — poor chaps. How many of us can even name them?
And in this present incomplete democratic set-up, for that matter how many of us can name the now president. For sure, the average citizen, urban and rural, will at the drop of a hat trot out the name of the army chief of the day, but most of them now will have no clue as to who sits in the presidential palace. For five years, roles were reversed. The presidency was the source of political (for what it is worth) power and no one was really interested in who sat in the prime ministerial mansion. Consistency, outside the army, is not a strong point. Political power can be seamlessly switched with no botheration, which can hardly be a democratic norm.
Civilian or military governments have little to do with democracy, which admittedly comes in varied shapes and forms. It becomes more and more obvious by the year that the democratic form adopted by Pakistan is not working out. That said, for the foreseeable future, even if by chance we fall upon a stronger civilian government, this will not denote a stronger democracy. Whoever, whatever, be the army chief of the day, a civilian government will, it seems, defer to the army when it comes to security or international issues. A sad truth, but that’s how it goes when there is one institution that has been allowed, since the country came into being, to hold unto itself undisputed power.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 7th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Karla: The truth is that Pakistan army has not undegone any reforms to become a Ntional army, but instead has gradualy been boxed into the role of a police man for domestic duties. Such a role denegrades the professional status of the Army. This must stop now and the political leadership should rely solely on peoples support for their domestic and foreign policies.
Rex Minor
I find the point the writer wants to make pointless. One earns respect, it is not forcefully snatched. That the media gave coverage to the event is nothing to criticize. The whole democracy issue is blanketing our senses to even view the army in a positive mode. The truth is, Pakistan army is an important institution of the Pakistani society and the place it enjoys is a direct result of the functions it performs. Comparing the civilian government with the army is just too naive. it is not the individuals in the army that are reverred, but the very institution. there is a difference.
An excellent article by Amina Jillani, very well laid out and rightly pointing out to the vacuum in the democratic order when media is giving prominance to the Prime Minister preoccution with the change of guard in the army hierarchy. I personaly differ with the conclusions. A democracy is not merely a beaurocratic set up for the elected political leadership to move in and out of the office at the end of the specified period, as is practiced in other institutions of the country including civil services, judiciary and the military. The leader of the Government who is elected by the majority must LEAD THE NATION per its mandate in order to legitimise his hold on the power.. The power in a democracy rests with the people and not with its institutions including the army. My observation is that it is Imran Khan, the man from the opposition who has been leading the Nation while the Government of Mr Nawaz Sharif is paralised in leading while busy in the beaurocratic jargon providing undue publicity to the military retirements and new apointments.
Rex Minor
@nrmr44: And a corner plot -actually many to top off this big list you shared.
Even if a competent civilian shows up as PM, I am sure the Army would have the means and will to discredit him in order to retain power. When the Egyptian army wanted to discredit Mursi, one of the many things it did was to disrupt fuel supplies. This created an ill feeling for Mursi among the public, thus 'softening the target' for the Army to take over. And of course the day after the coup the fuel supply problem magically disappeared.
Nice topic. Authority is never given, it is taken and then exercised to demonstrate it ( very important ). To reverse the situation described by you, the politician would have to demonstrate that he enjoys the confidence of the people and lets be honest, with his ability that's a tall order for him to accomplish.