A TV channel for the army?

Frustration with homegrown culture industry, media, growing clout of terror related actors drips from each syllable.

Is Pakistan’s historical experience cyclical or spiral? If it is dialectical, is it progressive or retrogressive? These are important questions that deserve an answer in isolation from world history. It appears to me that it is primarily dialectical but not in a positive way. We Pakistanis respond more readily and warmly to bad ideas. Hence, at least in the realm of thought, a bad idea becomes worse and convinces us to climb trees despite our evident biological differences from an average everyday monkey. For that, and that alone can explain the repeated disruption of the democratic process and our refusal to rule out dictatorship as a viable option.

But this retrogressive spiral doesn’t end there. The emergence of non-state actors and our failure to introduce land reforms in time have ensured that the state does not have monopoly over violence. The demons that emerge out of this mess do not merely inflict pain but also make sure we remain slaves to a unique brand of paranoia that isolates us from global wisdom. Economically and creatively, we deliver poorly and consequently, our nation suffers from a characteristic lack of what Joseph Nye calls soft power. This realisation further adds pressure to our proverbial pressure cooker.

A recent debate, symptomatic of this worry, was ignited by a paper written by a serving general that appeared in the army’s prestigious Green Book and widely reported in our press. The major general argues that the army must acquire a TV channel. While on the face of it, the suggestion seems preposterous for a nascent democracy, it is imperative not to dismiss it outright for it offers a unique insight into the concerns that trouble our armed forces today. In an age when perceptions are mightier than reality, this is of critical import as insensitivity towards these concerns contributed immensely in the derailment of democracy in the past.

It goes without saying that owing to the 12-year war and the almighty overstretch suffered by the army during Pervez Musharraf’s rule, the fighting forces are in pain. And where there is pain, there is paranoia too. The paranoia was further exacerbated by the country’s failure to own the campaign against terrorism and consequently, honour the memory of the fallen. Add to it the fact that when a dictator rules the country and the army for almost a decade, loyalty to his person becomes a factor as important as professionalism and patriotism for survival in the officer corps of the institution. His unceremonious departure gives birth to unnerving conspiracy theories with a potential to transform the very character of the force. The ensuing poor governance, the public confrontations between media groups, with one group casting on the other’s patriotism and the fact that during the dictator’s stint in power, officers were taught to loath Nawaz Sharif’s governance style has not helped the situation even a bit.

As a result, you can witness the growing concern that the country is descending into anarchy and only one institution can save the day. The under discussion paper is important for what it doesn’t say almost as much for what it states. The case is ostensibly built around India’s purported invasion of our airwaves and culture. But obviously, the frustration with our homegrown culture industry, media and the growing clout of the terror related non-state-actors drips from each syllable.

This raises the question about the difference between perception and reality. Is the situation on the ground really that dire? The answer is no. The failure to defend and the lack of ownership on the part of the media and the population have more to do with the quality of state and society than any foreign invasion. Democracy brings ownership. It’s a long, frustrating and arduous process but it delivers in the end. Without this, the attitude of the people towards the state will remain rigid and the nature of the state hard. With it, will come voluntary ownership and loyalty. Also, our state cannot ask us to use what it has not given to us. If it wants us to be its force multiplier, it will have to invest more in the currencies of soft power, like institutions, art, literature, culture, economy and equity.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 21^st, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.