Some political leaders are once again trying to cultivate the army top brass to serve their partisan political agendas. Altaf Hussain, MQM Chief, has called upon the patriotic generals to facilitate his party-led revolution in Pakistan. The Chief Minister of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif, who has met with the Army Chief more often than any other chief minister over the last two years, made an unusual statement on March 7. He said that the prime minister should hold an all-parties conference to come up with solutions to national problems. This conference should also include the army and the judiciary, he maintained. Making a strong plea for his suggestion, Shahbaz Sharif argued that it was imperative for all stakeholders, including the political leadership, army [and] judiciary [to] discuss the challenges faced by the country.
The PML(N) media people have tried to play down Shahbaz Sharifs statement as nothing more than a proposal for consultation rather than seeking the support of the army and the judiciary for pursuing the PML(N) agenda of building pressure against the PPP-led federal government.
This proposal is going to be rejected by the army and the judiciary because this drags them in day-to-day partisan politics which does not serve their interests. In fact, the two institutions would not even comment on this. Two basic principles of the Pakistan Armys expanded role should not be ignored by the political leaders. First, the army is an autonomous player that does not serve any group or partys agenda. It acts on the basis of its own calculations of the domestic political and economic situation.
Second, if it decides to influence the course of political change directly or indirectly, it keeps the initiative with itself. It may co-opt some political leaders and parties but it does not get co-opted by any political leader or party.
The Army and the paramilitary forces are engaged in countering terrorism in Swat/Malakand and the tribal areas. The Air Force has provided them with the necessary air support. The army and paramilitary forces have lost more soldiers and officers in countering terrorism than in any single India-Pakistan war. The army wants the political leaders and parties to own this effort and provide with the requisite political support for undertaking these operations.
Only three political parties are willing to publicly support the armys counter terrorism and counter-insurgency efforts. These are the PPP, the ANP and the MQM. Other parties, including the PML(N), maintain an ambiguous position on terrorism. The PML(N)s ambiguity is rooted in its desire of not losing the Islamic and far-right political vote in the Punjab which they need to sweep the polls if they want to set up the government at the federal level after the next general elections.
The Islamic parties and groups and Imran Khans far-right Tehrik-i-Insaf, often behave like the political front for the Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups. They ask the army to stop the security operation without making a similar appeal to the Pakistani Talban and other militant groups to stop violent operations and agree to function within the framework of Pakistani constitution and law.
In the Swat/Malakand area, the army and paramilitary are looking after the security on the main roads and, in some cases, in the towns. They are also managing some de-radicalisation programmes for former Taliban activists, especially the young ones. The civil administration and the local police are not in a position to relieve the army personnel for duties elsewhere.
The federal government does not appear to have the capacity to put together a strong and stable civilian administration in Swat/Malakand. The political leaders, especially the mainstream political parties, should help the local administration and the society to be more forthcoming in addressing the security issues in towns and villages.
However, all political parties are not convinced that they need to help the army or the federal government to overcome this challenge because they have been socialised so deeply into the conspiracy theories of what has been happening in Pakistan that they often view the army and the federal government as working on some foreign agenda. By implication, the Taliban and other militant groups are working for a justified cause, at least from their point-of-view.
The primary responsibility of managing socio-political and economic affairs lies with the political leaders and parties, both in government and opposition. They need to dispassionately think of ways and means to address Pakistans economic and security problems.
The most formidable challenge for the Pakistani state and society is economic that restricts Pakistans foreign policy and domestic options. If the political parties and leaders are determined to misguide the people by playing up emotions against the outside world and preach defiance to them both in domestic and foreign affairs, they may achieve their short term goals of putting the federal government in trouble. However, if Pakistans economic and security problems accentuate, both the PPP and the PML(N) will suffer.
The interesting feature of the political polemics in Pakistan is that every party or leader suggests solutions which do not involve any effort or sacrifice on their part. Therefore, the parties are opposed to new taxes and they do not want any increase in petroleum prices but insist on the federal government (no mention of the provincial governments) to end corruption as if corruption started in Pakistan with the induction of the elected civilian government at the federal level.
The constitution and law provides channels of interaction between the top brass of the army/military and the federal government. The military makes a significant contribution to policy-making on security and foreign policy through these channels. These need to be kept open and relied upon on a regular basis. The military does not have to be invited to an all-parties conference.
The judiciarys role is fully articulated in the constitution and law. All the state institutions, including the military and judiciary, must function within their defined fields and respect each others autonomy.
The political leaders should do their job. If they are asking the non-elected state institutions, the military and the judiciary, to help them to address their problems, this exposes their lack of confidence and inability to address their issues and problems through dialogue inside and outside the parliament.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.
