Daily Times

The PPP’s senators have alleged that there is disconnect between the civil and military leaderships and that they were not on the same page. Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani seems to have realised, though belatedly, that the constitutional safeguards against military takeovers vis-à-vis Article Six have become redundant. Addressing the Senate at the end of a debate held in the upper house to commemorate the International Day of Democracy, he was candid in saying: “Our weaknesses have made it redundant. In my eyes, no constitutional clause can protect democracy. Only the people can protect democracy provided they are given ownership of the system.” He is absolutely right and we will discuss later the surefire recipe for the protection of democracy. However, civil and military leaderships are on the same page as regards to the Karachi operation, action against terrorism and policy of quid pro quo with India.

However, there have been voices in political circles about military encroaches upon the domain of the elected government, and politicians have been expressing concerns about a possible takeover. But these concerns are not new. In July 2012, then Prime Minister (PM) Raja Pervez Ashraf made the funniest statement that “in the event democracy is threatened or imperiled in the country, the entire political leadership across the board will unite to defend it”. He had not realised that the biggest enemy to democracy in the country was none other than the corruption tainted and inept leadership of the PPP. Today, once again, the PPP is feeling the heat of action against its leaders on corruption charges and is trying to ring alarm bells for the PML-N but at the same time demanding that there should be across the board accountability. Meanwhile, Punjab’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has become active and mega scandals are likely to come under the radar.

The question is: why is there fear of a military takeover? After the February 2008 elections, people expected that the pillars of the state would work within the parameters defined in the Constitution but there was a parliament-judiciary standoff and they remained engrossed in asserting power. Parliamentarians said that parliament was supreme, the judiciary considered itself the most important pillar of the state and believed that it could strike down any article of the Constitution that contravened fundamental rights. As regards the military leadership, it has been assuring the politicos that it will not intervene, and it did not react during the whole of the PPP’s tenure when some politicians and chattering classes continued to lower the prestige of the armed forces in the public eye. Insult was heaped on the Kerry-Lugar Bill, in regard to the ‘Memogate scandal’ and then after the May 2 attack on the Abbottabad compound by US Navy Seals.

Though the present military leadership is committed to supporting and working with the elected government, politicos, analysts and panelists have been criticising it for intervening in political affairs. They expect from the military not to interfere even when there is anarchy in the country or when the government shows apathy towards the external threat to its security. They expect the military not to say a word if it is pilloried and denigrated, and they do not want to give the military the right to give its assessment of threat perception to the country. They expect it not to respond even if it is subjected to unwarranted and scathing criticism. In the US, UK and even in India — the largest democracy in the world — political leaderships take decisions on the basis of intelligence provided by their agencies and also act on the advice of the military leadership in matters of foreign policy, especially related to security matters.

The Indian military prevailed upon then PM Manmohan Singh not to withdraw from Siachen as it would make India vulnerable. Similarly, the Obama administration wanted to complete US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014 but, in 2012, US generals insisted on having 60,000 additional troops to win the war. A compromise was reached with President Obama who agreed to send 30,000 more troops. Today, all countries of the world have professional armies to protect their borders and to ensure law and order internally, as it is the responsibility of the government to establish the writ of the state and protect the lives and properties of the people. Last year, Army Chief Raheel Sharif, in his address on Martyrs Day, reaffirmed the armed forces’ unequivocal support to the civilian government. His predecessor, General Kayani, also made a similar commitment.

There is widespread perception that in Pakistan there is no democracy; there is plutocracy — the government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. In fact, democracy means equality and equality today is at best notional, as the right to vote alone is no guarantor for equality. Already more than 40 percent of the people are living below the poverty line. The government should take measures to improve their living conditions. Politicians, sociologists and analysts have been discussing ways and means to stop the army’s intervention but no serious effort was ever made to identify the causes that led to the promulgation of martial laws in Pakistan. Only when the government failed to deliver to the masses, corruption and nepotism became the order of the day and opposition parties formed alliances to get rid of the elected government, only then did the military intervene.

Having said that, our political leaders have yet to imbibe a time-tested recipe for the survival and durability of a true democratic order. It is the vested interest of the mass of the people in the system that sustains it and lends it durability and longevity. Palpably that interest is just not there in the prevalent system for which the existing political leadership across the divide is squarely to blame. It has failed in generating that sort of interest in the masses for its own foibles and stupidities. There is a complete dichotomy between the outlooks of the leadership and the masses. People want economic opportunities, jobs and livelihoods to feel some respite in their miserable, unlivable lives. PM Nawaz Sharif should take measures to dispel any wrong impressions and perceptions, as perceptions are sometimes more important — and powerful — than realities.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com