The institutions of state and society are not entirely self-contained entities performing mutually exclusive functions. They are actually linked and their functions are interlocking, to some extent. Parliament makes laws but the Supreme Court may void them if they are found to be contrary to the constitution. Parliament may adopt a constitutional amendment to redefine the court’s composition and jurisdiction. The reasoning that the unworthy conduct of individuals should not be a ground for condemning the institution to which they belong would also bear reconsideration. It is generally agreed that each of the state’s institutions should remain within its own designated space and should not encroach upon the territory of another.
In a recent address to his officers, General Kayani, the army chief, implied that certain unnamed agencies, including the media and possibly the judiciary, were intruding upon the army’s territory. It may be noted in this connection that the National Accountability Bureau is currently questioning several lieutenant generals concerning their alleged misuse of public funds while they were in civilian posts. It was argued in certain quarters that it was within the army’s province to investigate their conduct and court martial them if necessary. Others argued that since they were not serving officers when they committed the alleged violations they should be tried in civil courts. Critical comments on the internal workings of the army also surfaced. General Kayani’s address left the implication that the institutions of the state were being placed in opposition to one another, such as the army and the Supreme Court.
If the managers of an institution become indifferent to wrongdoing by its members, the organisation as a whole will fall into disrepute. There are surely good workers within its ranks, but the bureaucracy in Pakistan is regarded as corrupt and incompetent because far too many public officials are wanting in dedication to duty. The same holds for public education and several other professions.
There are crafts in which it is the normal function of a practitioner to keep an eye on the practice of his colleagues and rivals. Such is the craft of politics. Even civil and decent politicians will project not only their commitment to the public interest but also the deficiencies of their opponents in this regard. There may be exceptions to this general inclination but they are uncommon. One of them in our current politics deserves to be noted. That is Mian Nawaz Sharif, head of his faction of the Pakistan Muslim League. He is not the politician that he was in the 1990s. He seems to have reflected and learned a good deal during his eight or so years of exile in Jeddah and London. He now speaks like a gentleman of the old school, so to speak, and like a statesman. In his utterances, he is moderate, poised, deliberate, and balanced. He complains that Imran Khan has been hitting him below the belt but says he will not respond to him in the same way. After the next election, he will make alliances and coalitions with politicians and parties whose versions of the public interest are compatible with his own. He says that in his reckoning it is Pakistan, not Nawaz Sharif that matters.
Something needs to be said about one of the most powerful institutions, that is, the Pakistan army, which has directly ruled this country for half of its period of existence. It continues to play a key role in its governance. The army chief and the head of the ISI direct the nation’s policies towards India, Afghanistan, the United States and other major powers. It is also responsible for combating domestic threats to Pakistan’s security and well being. Certain retired and serving officers have been guilty of wrongdoing. One school of thought, including General Kayani, maintains that their conduct should not influence our assessment of the organisation as a whole. This calls for further consideration.
The army has been held in high esteem. After the killing of Osama bin Laden and terrorist attacks on some of its stations, its prestige fell to some degree. But it is still regarded as a valued national resource. It is assumed to be a highly competent fighting force. It should be noted however that its invincibility remains to be demonstrated on the field of battle. Its first two wars with India, 1947-48 and 1965, ended in stalemates. It suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Indian army in Bangladesh. On December 16, 1971, General Niazi surrendered to the Indian commander who took him and some 90,000 Pakistani civilians and military men as prisoners of war to concentration camps in India where they remained for the next two years. Since that time, the Pakistan army has not waged a full-scale war with an external enemy. A young man who enlisted in its ranks in 1972 and retired 25 years later has not had the occasion to fire a single shot at a foreign foe. Nor can the army claim noteworthy success in eradicating the enemies of the state such as the Taliban and al Qaeda. The institution over which General Kayani presides leaves something to be desired in terms of its efficacy. It is still valued presumably for want of an alternative, but it is not entitled to some kind of sanctity that places it beyond reproach.
Institutions should remain within the bounds of propriety in their interaction with one another. Where do the people at large stand in all of this, those in whose name and for whose sake all agencies of the state function? In a decent political order, their well being is the politician’s business. It is to serve them that individuals professedly enter politics, contest elections, and occupy places in the halls of power. It comes to us as good news that the generality of people in Pakistan are becoming politically much more aware and sophisticated than they used to be, let us say, 20 years ago. We may now expect that they will not only direct politicians concerning their needs and aspirations but will also hold them accountable and dismiss them at the next election if they have not done well.
The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at [email protected]