Once again the tolling of bells resonates the past in a more sweeping but bizarrely sophisticated manner. Since the inception of this state, the people’s right to self-rule had been ravaged in the guise of self-appointed saviours that denied due dignity and prosperity to the hapless people struggling to live on this unfortunate piece of land. For seven decades their destiny is hung in uncertainty, disempowerment, ruthlessly imposed silence and denial to decide their fate. Statecraft has been reduced to the level of strategic gimmicks and paid servants assume the status of statesmen. The recent institutional doctrine known as the Bajwa Doctrine, which except professional matters is encompassing major aspects of politics and polity. In the past such topics used to be covered in the post martial law press conferences that would be entailed by promising the ushering of genuine democracy. The COAS pledged to support and protect democracy but did not explain from where the threats to democracy emanated and from whom it needed protection. I am at a loss and need the help of political scientists to educate me that where on earth in a democratic system the army chief publicly discussed the entire range of political and economic issues, constitutional amendments passed by the elected parliament and foreign policy. Is this in conformity of adhering to the constitution? Right from General Ayub, the military is bent on to engineer a democracy for us where the sovereign powers never fall in the spheres of the elected institutions. The experiments cost half of the country and put the remaining half in a rut to go nowhere. How the ongoing engineering can be different from the past, no matter how it is presented in a new cover is a question agitating in many minds. In the 21st century, no state can run over another state to annex its territory through invasions or force without facing challenges from other states Democracy is not a commodity to be engineered in laboratory but is the outcome of natural process of evolution to reach fruition. Therefore, the sapling of democracy needs to be protected from the baton and gavel not people who plant it by investing their blood and sweat. As far as the health of economy is concerned, economy does not function in isolation but the paradigm of the state determines its health and nature. The security state paradigm is predatory by nature because the bulk of the resources go to the unproductive sector of defence. Thus, save very few instances the majority of the modern states conduct themselves in a geo-economic paradigm and therefore, their foreign and security policies are shaped by promotion and protection of economic interests. In the 21st century, no state can run over another state to annex its territory through invasions or create a sphere of influence by force without challenge by other states. Presently, states are more vulnerable to internal challenges, and of course a weak economy aggravates it further. But a security state paradigm, a strong economy and welfare are oxymoron. The broader contour of Nawaz Sharif 2013 general election campaign was based on a call for shifting from geo-strategic to geo-economic state paradigm. He earnestly kicked it off by trying to initiate serious and meaningful dialogue with the neighbouring states, and was well received by other sides. The Istanbul meeting of Nawaz Sharif with Ahmed Karzai, then Afghanistan president, in February and subsequent participation by Nawaz in Narendra Modi’s oath taking ceremony as prime minister of India in June 2014, was a cornerstone of his new policy that cast the die for him back home. In June Model Town happened, which was followed by PTI’s dharna, the APS in Peshawar, Zarb-e-Azab that culminated in Panama and Iqama that resulted in crippling the elected government. For the sake of illustration comparing and contrast can help. Our case is not much different from Turkey’s. The armies of both the countries claimed to be the guardians of ideologies of secularism and Islamism. Both the armies’ persistent quest was a greater role in the political system and whenever they felt a threat to their dominating role it led to direct takeover through military coups. However, in Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan found the opportunity to turn around Turkey economically which was reduced by the militarised political system to a status of ‘sick man’ of Europe. The street opposition and encountering foiling the July 2016 military coup was the outcome of realisation that institutional interests were packaged as state interests that brought the political and economic system to stagnation and decay. By relegating the army to its constitutional role under civilian supremacy made the state stronger not weaker. No mythical and choreographed ideological and security threats proved true in the absence of dominating political role of army. But in Pakistan that opportunity was nipped in the bud. In the scheme of renewed engineering, the 18th Constitutional Amendment is the real elephant in the room. However, the only workable guarantee and glue of unity lies in the principle of ‘unity in diversity’. Pakistan is a multi-cultural and ethnic state and can survive and function under constitutional federalism with autonomous federating units. If Sheikh Mujib’s six points were seriously negotiated, resulting in a plausible provincial autonomy encompassing political, economic and cultural rights, Jinnah’s Pakistan would be intact by now. It was not the autonomy but its denial that dismembered the state. Notwithstanding hurdles deliberately created in the implementation of the 18th Amendment, the mere passing of the amendment became a ray of hope for the federating units. The amendment materialised at no less cost. It was a time when Islamabad, the capital, rattled with bomb blasts off and on but the parliament withstood in determination. Many suspect that the growing militarisation of the state, in the garb of war on terror, for the last one decade, particularly reached its height in the last four years in the form of apex committees and police power of paramilitary forces, was a response to scuttle the implementation of the18th Amendment in letter and spirit. However, its complete roll back through judiciary would be a political and constitutional disaster. The astonishing similarity between the tone and tenor of the Chief Justice and the COAS foretells many things. It seems this time the Chief Justice wrote his own PCO out of zeal for being the saviour. If my lord wants to be remembered in the annals of history as a saviour unlike his predecessors, then the submission is, please help the people of this country in removing the tank fixed on the backbone of democracy. Otherwise, it is self-deception to expect genuine democracy, good governance and viable productive economy! The writer is a political analyst hailing from Swat. Tweets @MirSwat Published in Daily Times, March 27th 2018.