Since the early years, authoritarian forces in Pakistan have been waging a form of “hybrid warfare” to prevent grassroots democracy from taking hold. Their methods include the judicial validation of military coups, the weakening of parliament and setting up pliant civilian governments through political engineering. The military has solidified its power since the time General Ayub Khan first derailed democracy in 1958. ‘Elected’ governments have served as fig leaves. Their real purpose is for the military to exercise control over the country. The question is whether the present pseudo-democratic setup serves the country best or is a struggle for genuine democracy the way forward? First, perhaps the most compelling argument for real democracy is the reality that Pakistan has failed to evolve as a nation. The primary challenges to nation-building remain intact. The different variants of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ military authoritarianism have been tried but have proved unsuccessful in providing the much desired internal cohesion. The narrow focus on territorial integrity and national security has impeded the creation of a stable community of people or bring about social change. Second, democratic institutions are needed to repair the internal fault lines in the country. These fault lines have exacerbated by authoritarian methods tried thus far. DG ISPR Major General Ghafoor sounds more like a political scientist than a professional soldier. He recently pontificated that internal fault lines exploited by the enemy are responsible for the country’s past and current problems. As an example, Ghafoor mentioned the ‘loss’ of East Pakistan. I beg to differ with the good general. It is difficult for generals to understand that a state can’t force unity at gunpoint. This fact applied in East Pakistan. It applies in Baluchistan and to ethnic groups like the PTM. Political problems can’t be resolved by authoritarian solutions. Internal coercion arguably has harmed the country more than any external enemy As a student in Dhaka, I witnessed the last years of a united Pakistan from a unique vantage point. My view is that the coterie of generals who ruled Pakistan at that time, blinded by hubris, were primarily responsible for the disintegration of Pakistan. Inventing canards blaming Bengali nationalism, Indian interference and Z.A. Bhutto for the sad events of 1971 are not supported by facts. I digress to congratulate our friends in Bangladesh on their Victory day next week. Regrettably, a truncated Pakistan didn’t learn from the East Pakistan experience. The same institutional hubris that led to the breakup of the country carried over. It sucked Pakistan into the abyss in Afghanistan, the Kargil debacle and the Global War on Terror (GWOT) with disastrous consequences. It is difficult for generals to understand that a state can’t force unity at gunpoint. This fact applied in East Pakistan. It applies in Baluchistan and to ethnic groups like the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM). Political problems can’t be resolved by authoritarian solutions. Internal coercion arguably has harmed the country more than any external enemy. Ghafoor listed the weak economy, endemic corruption, lack of governance, flaws in judicial and education systems, and religious extremism as pressing problems. The military has to accept its share of responsibility for these problems as it impeded democratic institutions when it mattered. It is blatantly disingenuous to blame corrupt politicians and external enemies only. Third, a case can be made that the military’s political centrality and power have affected its effectiveness. Military defeats from Khem Karan to Kargil are few examples. Despite the defeats, the military still enjoys over-lordship over the country. Pakistan’s generals have never resigned or been held accountable. It should be a crucial mission, therefore, to separate the military from politics and to ensure that it focuses instead on national defense. Finally, officers and ranks of the military are trained to feel that they are better than the society they serve. For an armed force which professes to serve democracy, this attitude is not healthy. Military personnel must view themselves as the representatives of society they are sworn to defend. We know that the military won’t easily give up its stranglehold on the state. Pakistan’s generals are well accustomed to power. They now possess the methods of intervention and influence that doesn’t require resorting to a coup or direct rule. The military elite has convinced the populace that only it can protect the national interest above the bickering and narrow self-interest of corrupt politicians. The civilian leadership has grown used to living under the military’s jackboots. Politicians help to increase the military’s unwarranted influence in matters of the state by giving in to its every wish and command. They only harm democracy by pursuing this self-defeating strategy. In spite of significant challenges, democratic reformers in Pakistan must remain united. The country needs to rid the political system of military influence to ensure a better future. But popular support for the democratic system will depend on its ability to deliver on its promises. Democracy must be seen to provide justice, economic and social development. A qualitative change can make a difference in the lives of the people. Discarding praetorian tendencies over time will lead to the growth of a stable political system and a state at peace with itself. It is worth the effort and sacrifice. The writer is a freelance contributor. He can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, December 15th 2018.