Pakistan’s history with military rule begins with Ayub’s coup of 1958. While several coups have happened since, it has become progressively more difficult for the military to rule directly. As Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani noted in Spy Chronicles, generals are shy of seizing the reins of power even in banana republics in the current political milieu (Egypt being a notable exception). It is fashionable now for the militaries to operate deftly, from behind the scenes. It requires careful orchestration not unlike that of a puppet show. That “Game of Thrones” is now unfolding in Pakistan. There are widespread reports that the military is interfering in the forthcoming elections from behind the curtain. Major newspapers and TV channels have had to deal with actions for which the politest expressions are “jaw boning” and “arm twisting.” For some time, they prevented the delivery of one of the nation’s leading newspapers in cantonments and forced a major TV network off the air. Efforts are underway to tilt the election outcome towards a coalition government, possibly headed by a cricket player who went on to make his name as a philanthropist. A coalition government with a glamorous figurehead would be ideal from the military standpoint since it will be beholden to GHQ and compliant with its decrees. Such a spineless government would not have the gumption to wish to negotiate peace with India or to question defence spending. And under no conditions would it challenge the military’s unbridled interference of the economy. Durrani, who headed the ISI at one point, notes that the military through the ISI has sought to influence electoral results in the past but often with limited success. Its biggest blunder was in the 1970 elections when General Yahya’s regime sought to bring about a hung-parliament, allowing him to continue as the executive president. With a stroke of his pen, Ayub abolished the Whitehall system of parliamentary democracy which Pakistan had inherited from the British. It was being successfully used in the British Commonwealth and most notably in India. In many ways, we are witnessing the return to a concept that originated with Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Ayub’s contribution to political science was Basic Democracy (or, in plain English, dumbed-down democracy). It institutionalised indirect elections for the presidency. First the people would elect the basic democrats, and then they would elect the president. Altogether, there would be 80,000 of them. There would be no prime minister. With a stroke of his pen, Ayub abolished the Whitehall system of parliamentary democracy which Pakistan had inherited from the British. It was being successfully used in the British Commonwealth and most notably in India. Using the “post hoc, ergo proctor hoc” argument, Ayub blamed the mess that had preceded his arrival on parliamentary democracy. Despite having no training in political science, he boldly asserted that parliamentary democracy was not suited to “the genius of our people.”That was an unusual statement to make and it contradicted the choices that had been made by the founders, Jinnah and Liaquat. In his posthumously published diaries, the field marshal made an entry in 1962 about the report of the Constitution Commission of Pakistan in 1961. Ayub wrote, “Politically, our people are immature. However, there are signs that after a couple of generations are reared in an atmosphere of freedom and suitable education on which we have launched, a national outlook will emerge. Until then we have to be continually on our guard, and may even have to do things to save [the] people against themselves.” Just at the peak of his “Decade of Development” celebrations, he was hounded out of office with a populace that had lost faith in him. Ayub confessed that the only thing on which Pakistanis were united was “the fear of Hindu domination.” Clearly a broken man, Ayub confessed that he had failed to “establish the democratic tradition of peaceful and orderly transfer of power.” Stating that “there is no institution except the armed forces which can save the country from chaos and ruin,” he handed over power to the army. The lifespan of a generation is 20 years. Using Ayub’s time table of democratic readiness, Pakistan should have been ready for “genuine democracy” by 2002, since that was two generations removed from 1962. But this is 2018. Sixteen years have come and gone since 2002 and there is no sign of genuine democracy in the land. At various times, Generals Yahya, Zia and Musharraf ruled the realm. None left voluntarily. Since Musharraf’s ignominious departure in 2008, civilian governments have completed two five-year terms. But the powers of the prime minister have been greatly circumscribed. Former Senator Farhatullah Babar said bluntly, “A creeping coup has taken place against the authority of the civilian government. The coup has taken place very quietly before the election. It is different from the martial law of the past, with two resulting outcomes: the civilian government exists, but has no authority; press freedom exists, but journalists have no freedom. All media has been controlled, whether it is social media, print media or electronic media. It is all happening very quietly. The restrictions from the security establishment are the greatest…The media is being attacked on all fronts.” The furtive, behind-the-scenes game of the generals threatens to take apart the democratic vision espoused by the country’s founding fathers. There is no evidence that Iqbal, Jinnah, or Liaquat ever imagined that Pakistan would be anything other than a parliamentary democracy with a secular polity. Not for a moment would they have countenanced military intervention in the body politic, direct or indirect. Pakistan is a unique country in many ways, culturally, geographically, and historically. But it is exceptionally unique when it comes to the political landscape. A significant share of the general population has been led to believe that democracy is alien to Pakistan. Some roll off a ream of statistics to prove that Pakistan has fared better on economic and human development criteria under military rule than under civilian rule. To borrow a term of Noam Chomsky’s, the military has “manufactured consent” to support its viewpoint about how Pakistan should be governed. And why should that surprise anyone? Stephen Cohen of Brookings noted a long time ago that the largest political party in Pakistan was the army. And Stanley Wolpert of UCLA aptly commented that the army was like a wolfhound that turned on its master when it felt threatened. What name should one give to this “new beginning” in Pakistani politics? It has variously been called creeping coup, soft coup, armoured democracy, and hybrid democracy. Basic Democracy 2.0 would appear to be a better term. While the generals give their speeches under Jinnah’s portrait, they live and govern under Ayub’s shadow. The author has written Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan.” Ahmadfaruqui@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, June 22nd 2018.