The elephant never forgets
With the COAS and DG ISI meeting the prime minister together and the latter retracting his statement, the civil-military tensions – which are a permanent feature of Pakistan’s politics – have subsided for the time being. With reports of a caretaker setup being in place sometime in the second half of the year, the government it seems will be able to complete its tenure. This would, thus, become the first elected government ever to have ruled for a full term of five years. The going was by no means easy for the PPP government. WikiLeaks reports tell of the army-Zardari relations worsening soon after the new government’s takeover and the COAS telling the US ambassador that despite his desire for democracy to stay, Zardari might have to be relieved. The PPP-led government has, thus, just scraped through by the skin of its teeth.
The PM’s statement only manages to paper over the cracks. His statement at Davos regarding his government’s good relations with the army is equally facile. The elephant never forgets. While the PM, being the weaker party, has gone back on his stand, the two army leaders still stand by their position that the memo is a reality. Even if those who matter fail to produce Mansoor Ijaz before the commission, the incident will be quoted as another example of politicians compromising on the ‘sovereignty of the country’ whenever a list of charges is framed to remove any subsequent civilian government.
This is now a widely accepted reality that the army leadership accepts elected governments only on sufferance and that too for short periods. Even during the civilian rules, the grin remains despite the cat having disappeared. Important policy matters continue be the sole domain of the army leadership. As if it was a compulsory subject in the army schools’ curriculum, any fresh graduate would rattle off the all too familiar charge sheet: Politicians are corrupt, incapable of running the country, untrustworthy and pose a security threat because of their ‘links’ with Pakistan’s enemies. Who these enemies are is only for the army leadership to decide. Politicians must not rush into an area which angels alone can tread.
During military rule, the politicians blame the successive coups for keeping democracy unstable. They routinely declare that if elections are held regularly, this would create a political environment conducive to civilian rule. The army would gradually accept the supremacy of the civilian authority and work obediently under it.
This amounts to a refusal to realise the vulnerabilities in the political parties that help the army to take over. There is a reluctance to accept and remove serious drawbacks that characterise mainstream parties in Pakistan.
Why is it that there are no spontaneous and powerful expressions of public resentment whenever an elected government is removed through a coup? The answer is simple. The performance of the ruling party is generally so dismal and frustrating that most of the people consider its dismissal good riddance. The entire cabinet led by the PM is seen to be busy in minting money directly or through middlemen. Every MNA is keen to extract the price for his cooperation with the government at the expense of the national exchequer and at the common man’s expense. Development work is undertaken only if a fairly large portion of the public funds can be diverted to the MNA’s bank account by the civil contractor. The way funds meant for the rehabilitation of the flood affected population in Sindh were misappropriated is an eye opener.
Instead of considering themselves responsible to the people, public representatives prefer to lord it over the people. They consider themselves beholden only to those who award them the tickets. Most of them think they have got elected on account of their charismatic leadership and can get away with ignoring the masses.
Bad governance has become endemic. Not that military rules are free from corruption or bad governance. They have, in fact, institutionalised the first. They claim they have a foolproof system of internal accountability, a claim proved false again and again. They want to be treated like holy cows.
Political leaders have yet to imbibe democratic culture. They are intolerant of their political rivals. They are even willing to seek the army’s help to bring down their opponents’ government. They do not practice democracy within their parties where none outside the royal family is considered fit to lead.
Important decisions are taken by the top leadership. There is no attempt to groom new leaders capable of leading the party in case of the party supremo going to jail, falling ill or being sent into exile. The parties are thus totally paralysed when eventualities of the type occur. Despite Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan’s utmost effort, he failed to mobilise the PPP and PML(N) workers because they had not learnt to act in the absence of BB and Nawaz.
Unless the political leaders learn to serve the masses instead of serving themselves, practice good governance and develop a democratic mindset, army intervention cannot be simply wished away.
The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.
