Daily Times

Civilian institutions have not been developed over the years to handle national security issues as per public sentiments and the Army must share part of blame for this

The strongly worded tweet issued by the ISPR on April 29 has been withdrawn by the Army through a press release on May 10.

For the first time as an institution, Army has taken a decision which will have far-reaching positive implications in the times to come.

Firstly and most importantly, this gives an impression of civilian supremacy and is a clear reflection of military’s respect for democracy in Pakistan. The latter points to a situation that will be no less than a dream come true for any literate Pakistani – Well done General Bajwa.

Secondly, the method adopted by the Army to show its reservations (through Twitter) was against institutional norms, warranting an immediate review. During peace time, armies can’t be a stake holder in setting public opinion or shaping public sentiments. It’s the domain of politicians. In the civilised world, no armies have their independent voice.

Thirdly, the tweet had given an impression that insofar as national security issues were concerned politicians were perhaps less loyal to the country compared to the Army – indirectly undermining democracy.

The decision to withdraw the tweet has been taken at the right time since Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is at his weakest in the last four years – in the backdrop of Panama Leaks. This is a time when the prime minister is being asked by opposition parties and civil society to resign on moral grounds. The timing of the decision speaks volumes for Army’s respect for the Constitution and democracy. By accepting its mistake, the Army has shown its commitment to the democratic system, and not to the person of the prime minister. Secondly, this has sent out a positive message around the world with regard to the increasing strength of democratic institutions in Pakistan.

The question now is: whether this so-called U-turn is an outcome of a well thought out review process within the institution or is a result of firm stance by the civil government or is a decision under severe pressure on top leadership of the Army. There could be three possible scenarios: the ISPR tweet could be a knee jerk reaction to the notification issued by the Prime Minister’s Office. The withdrawal of the tweet could have followed a well-thought out review process. There would be nothing to worry about in such a scenario. Humans and institutions are liable to making mistakes. Soldiers are never trained to be good diplomats.

A second scenario could be that the issuance of tweet may just be a knee jerk reaction, an enthusiastic act or sentimental behavior, or an outcome of majority opinion. But its withdrawal was an outcome of severe pressure on top leadership (Chief of Army Staff) – this would be nothing unusual. Army has been used to such situations. This seed was cultivated by General (retd) Pervaiz Musharaf when he went against the majority opinion over Lal Majid, Chief Justice issue or the Kashmir policy. This trend was further nourished during six years of ‘corporate command’ by General (retd) Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani- even important policy issues presented in the Corps Commanders’ conference would bear a small line below the title saying ‘draft approved by COAS’, leaving little room for any change or difference of opinion.

The third and most dangerous scenario would be where issuance of the tweet was an outcome of a well-thought out and deliberated process within the institution involving top hierarchy (Corps Commanders), and its withdrawal was more of a circumstantial compulsion rather than a favourite choice arising from institutional conviction. Such situation would warrant an institutional soul searching and concrete corrective measures from within. It would also put a question mark on the system of institutional grooming and of promotions and may warrant an accountability process.

On the face of it, the withdrawal of the tweet has tainted the image of the Army in the eyes of a common man because general public looks at the Army as a sole guarantor of national security. These public sentiments are an outcome of the role played by the Army at national level so far. But this public opinion needs to be changed. We have to trust politicians who in turn need to rise beyond self-interest in such matters. The fact remains that civilian institutions have not been developed over the years to handle national security issues as per public sentiments and Army must share part of blame for this. But the government also needs to learn its part of the lesson, play its part and stand with the institution. The elected representatives need to understand the delicacy of issues related to national security and ensure in future that such a situation does not arise.