Point break

When a wave of public protest arose in Tunisia, the youth started protesting all over Egypt immediately after and autocrats had to vacate their seats of power; slogans of revolution began to be raised in our country as well. Our state is of a company which doesn’t have any fashion designing facility of its own and survives by being a copycat and mimicking the fads currently en vogue in the market. Whenever a novel political slogan is raised anywhere in the world, we make like a kite runner, snatch that slogan like a stray kite and start flying it. Since that kite is not our own but scavenged property, we soon tire of it and start chasing some new flyaway.

Much like the politicians, our various media analysts also have a tendency to latch on to trending buzzwords of the time: Islam, Islamic revolution, soft revolution, global village, open market, regional cooperation, end of history etc. There is no slogan or terminology in the world which has been safe from our hands and not been co-opted in local rhetoric. It’s a separate matter whether we have ever tried to understand the true meaning of these terms and/or benefit from them. I haven’t mentioned socialism because it is now out of fashion. The slogan of ‘revolution’ is still somewhat alive these days and has permeated into the speeches of our leaders; but as soon as the revolution of Tunisia and Egypt become a little stale, we too will be weary of the term. Because our political slogans can be likened to sartorial fashions, we enjoy them for a few days only to discard them like yesterday’s passé trends soon after.

When revolutions erupted in Tunisia and Egypt, they also gave rise to much philosophising about the ‘power of the people’ and ‘the demands of a new world’. As soon as state institutions started retaliating, the passion cooled off a bit. Yemen saw a revolutionary wave that flickered and died. In Libya, the revolutionaries lost ground as well. In Bahrain, state power was used with blind ferocity. When the rulers in Syria attacked the protesters, then the verve of the analysts and politicians impassioned by the displays in Egypt and Tunisia began to wither. The more cunning ones understood that the practical help which the US had offered in support of the protesters was beginning to wan. Saudi Arabia, Israel and UAE had strongly condemned these changes and Saudi Arabia went ahead and even carried out operations in Bahrain and Yemen.

This retaliation from ruling families and groups was an alarm bell for the US. What was being tolerated in Libya could not be in Saudi Arabia and/or Abu Dhabi as a replication of that situation in the latter countries could lead the economies of America and Europe to keel over. Therefore, the US support for ‘democratic freedoms’ and ‘fundamental rights’ died down very soon and it was then out to ensure that its support for change doesn’t create confrontational situations and endanger its own interests. Thus, the US which was championing democratic movements since the Bush years was now adopting a policy of silence in the face of autocratic might and violence.

Even though bombardment is ongoing in Yemen against Al-Qaeda, no pressure is being exerted on the ruling family in support of change and the protesters. Consequently, acts of state suppression of protesters are increasing in number and ferocity. The treatment being meted out to those asking for their rights in Bahrain is some of the worst violence seen in modern times. Not only Saudi Arabian forces are implicated in doling out this treatment; Pakistani forces too have been alleged to be providing support to the ruling family.

In Libya, even though Qaddafi’s forces are being bombed, it is not helping the rebels. Since Qaddafi’s forces cannot dent the might of the attacking forces, they have been indiscriminately killing common people in retaliation. In Syria, the protesters are being brutally fired upon. The Assad government has behind-the-scenes support of both Israel and Saudi Arabia and the US is offering nothing but token resistance.

I have detailed this situation to illustrate the fact that ruling powers and groups will do anything to stay in power. They will use any means at their disposal in any way possible against their adversaries in their blinding lust for power. Only two countries in the Arab World saw the revolutionary wave rise swiftly and the rulers resigned in a flurry but this didn’t have any impact on the centres of power. The fountainheads of power are still very much in place and trying to come up with ways to maintain the status quo. The process of transferring power to the public has still not been initiated and the chances of it happening seem dim. And the four countries where arms were used for suppression, it is possible that they may see a change in faces but the system will remain the same.

Now let’s consider Pakistan. There has been a campaign against the armed forces since the time of Musharraf and now it seems to be crossing the limits and, concurrently, the tolerance level of the powers that be is also being breached. The criticism levelled against the army after the Abbottabad operation, the Mehran incident and the Kharotabad episode can be termed as nothing but a test of tolerance.

The press release after the Corps Commanders’ meeting fully displays this dysphoria and consternation which has arisen in the armed forces as a response to the extreme censure and nitpicking it has been subjected to. The ISPR takes great care when issuing press releases and public statements but the above mentioned press release openly indicates that it is at the end of its rope and has run out of patience.

When a situation reaches point break, then it is very difficult to contain retaliatory action. Especially in a situation when the party being tested has access to power. We have seen the examples. When Yahya Khan felt that the Awami League had crossed the line in maligning the army in East Pakistan, he took the self-defeating steps which are now history without regard of the consequences.

When an armed power has had enough, it is extremely difficult for them to exhibit patience. There was a similar situation after Kargil. The generals were disgraced and humiliated. Instead of mitigating their sense of isolation, when the pressure on them kept piling up. When it reached the point where the COAS was to be deposed, the to-be-deposed COAS did not hesitate from retaliating.

I have compared four countries where the ruling powers used violence against the forces of change with reckless abandon. And we saw the reaction of those powers of the world which are supposedly the supporters of democracy. There is only one lesson in this for us: That we should proceed with care. We shouldn’t criticise and pressurise the army to an extent that it is compelled to take up arms without regard for the fallout. If, God forbid, that happens, then nobody will come to aid the hapless public. In the days to come, the US will become increasingly dependant on the Pakistan army and will thus be under compulsion to support it in its actions, good, bad or ugly.

Running a democracy is an art. Especially in a country like ours where the army has been in power for more than half its existence.

The writer is one of Pakistan’s most widely read columnists.