The lesson not learned
Nawaz Sharif kept people waiting for months as he decided which general he should appoint to succeed former COAS Ashfar Parvez Kayani. This was the first time after the fateful nomination of Pervez Mushrraf that he was called upon to make the choice. Caution, therefore, was in order.
As things stand, the army continues to control the levers of power. A little after the newly elected PPP government assumed office in 2008, Gen Kayani announced that army would have nothing to do with politics. He also ordered the withdrawal of serving army officers from the civilian posts. Despite Gen Kayani’s avowed commitment to democracy, vital decisions regarding foreign policy and national defence continued to be taken by the GHQ. The agencies’ hold on Balochistan was further tightened. While the law makers in the province were provided millions of rupees in the name of development funds, the government was rendered even more powerless than under Musharraf. While Gen Kayani conceded that existential threat emanated from the extremists and militants, India continued to be treated by the army as the principal enemy. This explains why despite efforts by both Zardari and Sharif to improve ties with New Delhi, border incidents continued to take place which ensured there was no progress in that direction.
Will the PML-N government be able to retrieve the turf lost to the army in days to come? Will it be able to establish civilian control over the security sector and formulate foreign policies independently? Will Sharif succeed in bringing the civil- military relations to the level he visualised in his interview with Karan Thapar in May?
Appointing a general third in the line of seniority would not alone ensure this, as the appointment of both Zia and Musharraf would indicate. Once in the seat of power, the COAS is bound to follow the interests and thinking of his institution and no institution willingly surrenders the turf it has acquired. The army maintains that it has valid reasons to have monopoly over decision-making over vital issues.
The army considers the politicians as a bunch of rabble-rousers who do not know what they were talking about. On the other hand, the army claims it has developed institutions for the capacity building of its top echelons. What is more these institutions continue to provide it inputs on issues related to economy, national security, governance and international affairs. The claim cannot be rejected off hand.
Before an army officer becomes a general he passes through the Kakul Military Academy, the Command and Staff College, Quetta and the National Defence University (NDU) in Islambad. These institutions prepare him for leadership at the appropriate level. The NDU’s mission is “to impart higher education in policy and strategy formulation with emphasis on national security and defence, and act as a national think tank”. The University conducts a two-year long Master’s programme. Students take classes in advanced strategic methods, conflict resolution, nuclear politics and diplomacy. The NDU’s institutes serve the university in developing policies for the government, while creating simulations and war games to help keep the military current with specific concerns. The NDU also provides input to both the government and the armed forces.
In developed democracies, political leadership receives intellectual feedback from think tanks and the academia. Further inputs are received at the congressional hearings or, in the case of Britain, during the working of parliamentary committees. This has produced a political leadership which, despite its peculiar prejudices and influences from various lobbies, is fairly knowledgeable.
Unless the government focuses on strengthening the parliamentary committees, encouraging them to engage academicians and receive intensive and regular inputs from concerned government departments, the politicians’ capacity to formulate policies will remain limited.
As things stand, strengthening the parliamentary committees enjoys little priority with the PML-N government. Parliamentary procedure requires setting up of the committees within 30 days of the assumption of office by the prime minister. It took the government six months to appoint the committees.
A military regime is able to provide a comparatively stable government because there are no rival centers of authority in the institution. The politicians are divided into different parties with each one competing with the other for popularity. In the 1990s, the PPP and PML-N remained engaged in no-holds-barred scuffles for ephemeral swings at power, thus providing the army opportunities to intervene.
It is often contended that things have changed over time and that the two major parties are now reluctant to take their rivalries to the point where the army might step in. This explains why during 2008-11 the PPP did not persecute the opposition while the PML-N did not take its differences to the streets.
The impatience shown by Imran Khan however makes one wonder whether all political parties have learnt from the past. Despite having formed the government in KP and maintaining a significant presence in the National Assembly, the PTI still entertains a fondness for agitation. Will Sharif succeed in persuading the PTI and Jamaat-e-Islami not to push the system down the abyss? Unless political stakeholders learn to act responsibly, it would be difficult to limit the army to its role as defined in the constitution.
Political parties in Pakistan need to learn from Turkey if they are really interested in keeping the army in its place. The Turkish army enjoyed enormous prestige for nearly eight decades due to its overwhelming contribution in the creation of modern Turkey. It was no mean task to make it subservient to the civil power.
PM Recip Tayyep Erdogan single-mindedly set himself on two tracks: improvement of the economy and turning Turkey into a democratic country. The first step towards the goalposts was setting up a clean government. He brought no relatives or cronies into the cabinet nor did he promote any blue eyed boys in bureaucracy.
The Sharifs are doing the exact opposite. Cabinet slots remain vacant as no family members, who alone are considered reliable, are available to fill them.
Through sensible policies the Justice and Development Party brought about fantastic improvement in the national economy, domestic law and order and the rise of Turkish prestige in the region and the world at large.
Erdogan had to work hard to prove that his policies and style of governance could deliver where the generals and rival politicians had failed the nation. Only then could he challenge the generals.
Erodogan’s trump card was the management of the economy. Up till a decade ago, the country lurched from one crisis to another, with sky high inflation and interest rates and a feeble currency. Under Erdogan, the Turkish economy has tripled in size, the largest economic growth in its history. What is more, the economic benefits have reached millions of the same common people who find life more comfortable than under the military rule. Turkey enjoys economic growth rates close to China’s, its companies competing successfully in the EU, the Middle East and farther afield, in Africa and Central Asia.
Turkey’s independent foreign policy has provided it a higher profile on the international stage. Turkey is creating a place for itself in the Middle East through vigorous engagement with its immediate neighbours. It is also hosting the Pak-Afghan dialogue. Its economic performance is the envy of the European Union which had rejected Turkey’s overtures of join it.
The PML-N government’s economic policies are geared towards benefitting the few. Measures towards good governance are nowhere in view. The plight of the common man meanwhile continues to worsen. The situation does not strengthen the government’s hands.
With such ferment around, expecting the political dispensation to thrive and earn respect of the people is slightly far-fetched. Apparently, the PML-N and the PPP, the parties now committed to peaceful coexistence, have not learned another cardinal principle: longevity and respect comes only from performance. Without that there would always be forces willing to pounce and upset the applecart – in the name of restoring order.
Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad is a political analyst and a former academic.
