Daily Times

After having failed to dislodge the Pakistan Muslim league-Nawaz (PML-N) government through the longest ever sit-in at Islamabad — which many believed was a well-orchestrated conspiracy backed and financed by internal and external elements inimical to democracy — Imran Khan is poised to stage yet another sit-in on 2nd November, ostensibly till the time the prime minister either resigns or presents himself for accountability. In view of the confrontational politics that he has persistently indulged in and his unrelenting tirade against the person of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, many suspect that this could be the last ditch effort on part of the cricketer-turned-politician to become an army-installed prime minister after having failed to win that coveted position through ballot. There is another view that maybe he does not enjoy the blessings of the powers that be but is trying to create conditions that could invite intervention by the khakis.

The view about Khan being the henchman of the security establishment tasked to prevent democracy and democratic institutions has persistently been reinforced by none other than Khan himself. During the early days of the sit-in, perched on the container, almost every day he emphatically declared that the ‘umpire’ was about to raise his finger, meaning thereby that the government would soon be dismissed. Addressing a public rally during his election campaign in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 17th July 2016, Khan said, “Democracy in Pakistan is threatened by Nawaz Sharif, and the people will celebrate and distribute sweets if the army takes over.”

That remark was construed as an invitation to the army to make its move, and drew extensive flak in the Pakistani as well as international media. But Khan never bothered to withdraw or qualify his statement. A view was expressed that this statement coming on the heels of the banners and posters that appeared in 13 cities across the country urging General Raheel Sharif to stay and impose martial law was not just a coincidence, though the establishment made an attempt to delink itself from the poster-sticking drama.

Not only Khan but his close ally and the lone ranger Sheikh Rashid has also been repeatedly hinting at the possibility of impending downfall of the government, relishing the undue media attention. That has provided enough ammunition to the electronic media outlets to excessively read between the lines and ring alarm bells for the democratic dispensation. A sustained campaign has also been going on to project a larger than life image of General Raheel Sharif. A discernible attempt has also been made to rub in the notion that it was the army that had initiated the operation Zarb-e-Azb, and was relentlessly striving to eliminate the scourge of terrorism, without corresponding cooperation from the civilian government. Here a section of the media has played a very negative role.

Army is a state institution subordinate to government. The chief of army staff is not above the prime minister. The fact of the matter is that the decision to launch an operation in North Waziristan was taken by the government in consultation with all the stakeholders, including the security establishment, with authorisation to the latter to take the plunge. The government also provided financial and administrative support to the army to accomplish the task. What the army under General Sharif has done is undoubtedly appreciable and deserves unqualified gratitude of the nation. My contention, however, is that any other general under orders from the government could have done the same as there was no choice other than winning the war against terrorism to ward off an existentialist threat to the country. Due credit also needs to be given to the PML-N government for having shown the spine to take on terrorists decisively. The government can also rightly claim credit for the targeted operation in Karachi being carried out by the Rangers. Those who are trying to denigrate the civilian government and its achievements need to look at things from a realistic perspective.

It is because of the foregoing developments and the current political cacophony that many people also see a clear pattern emerging that they believe is reminiscent of earlier occasions when the army deposed elected governments. I personally tend to differ with this contention, and my considered view is that the establishment neither supported Khan during the previous sit-in nor is inclined to encourage him in doing what he is doing now, though it has been speaking its mind on the non-implementation of NAP and other issues causing embarrassment for the elected government. At least for now and in view of the prevailing security environment there is no chance of it to push aside the elected government. Those who know General Sharif strongly believe that the army at least will not commit such an indiscretion while he is around.

It is hard to look askance at the patriotism of military commanders and their legitimate concerns about the prevailing situation, but to scuttle the impression in regard to establishment having some designs, it is imperative for them to be a little more discreet in making public their sentiments on sensitive issues like fight against terrorism, or anything that tends to denigrate government’s commitment to national causes. They should not be saying things that create the impression about government and military commanders pulling in different directions. In view of internal challenges and the security threat from India, both government and military ought to be seen on the same page in regard to warding off those challenges. If there is any difference of opinion on the implementation of certain initiatives its expression should be confined to the meetings that are held to discuss and evaluate the situation, and to review progress of policy initiatives.

People abhor the prospect of a military takeover or military commanders trying to overlord the elected government in any form. There is a national consensus on strengthening the democratic process and democratic institutions in conformity with the vision of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The future of this country and achievement of goals of independence are inextricably linked to continuation of democracy and reforms in the system of governance, which ensure ascendency of the people in the true sense.

In a democratic dispensation the only forum for effecting reforms in the system of governance and adoption of legislative measures to tackle the rampant corruption is parliament. Imran Khan is better advised to revisit his strategy to rock the boat of democracy through undemocratic means. It is neither going to serve national interests nor his political ambitions. By staying away from parliament and expressing a lack of trust in state institutions he is not contributing to strengthening of democracy that is a national imperative. He is sullying his democratic credentials by indulging in politics of disruption and chaos.

The writer is a retired diplomat, a freelance columnist and a member of the visiting faculty of the Riphah Institute of Media Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad. He can be reached at ashpak10@gmail.com