The transition

A cause to rejoice, or a call to arms?

Thankfully the stars were not quite in favour of the prime minister donning the military regalia to add the role of the Chief of Army Staff to a plethora of duties that he is already performing. So, we finally have the new army chief in the person of General Raheel Sharif. Welcome to the post, general!

Much is being said of the delayed transition in the military leadership and the possible impact that it may have on the challenges that the country is faced with, particularly in the context of the fight against terror, the scheduled US drawdown in Afghanistan and the simmering relations with India. Most of the commentators, in their overzealousness, emanating from a palpable lack of understanding of how the institution of the army functions and what may or may not be possible for a new chief to do, are predicting various scenarios which appear to be out of sync with reality.

The institution of the army does not act on the whims of its chief alone as the political leaders are wont to doing. A recent example is the so-called package announced by the prime minister to revive the economy which is illustrative of the inherent dictatorial penchant of the ones deceitfully wearing the democratic apparel. This has been done without any debate in the parliament which would have been the right approach to follow in any democratic dispensation. But, no, the parliament is there only to rubber-stamp the princely adjudications of the chief executive. The spots are those of a dictator and the prime minister cannot even hide them!

The package is also a vile continuation of the old proclivity to provide to the tax-defaulters and the money-launderers with ways and means to whiten their ill-gotten billions which they have amassed by scavenging the state’s coffers. Let us not forget that this is done a la the spirit of the National Reconciliations Ordinance (NRO) where such criminal provisions are enacted at the drop of a hat with no questions asked!

On the contrary, the army chief will only implement policies after these have been debated exhaustively by the top echelons of the institution. No whimsical decisions will hold sway as is so often the occasion with the political leadership. There are also no skeletons in the military command’s cupboards that need to be hidden from public view by ‘buying’ court adjudications or by appointing tainted criminals to key positions with powers to define the fate of individuals (read political leaders) and, in certain respects, even the fate of the state. There is a merit-based system that throws up commanders, each one of them equipped with the qualities of capability, capacity and courage to lead.

The existing balance of power between the military and the political hierarchies is based on one dominant fundamental: the sharing of responsibility in matters regarding the national security, foreign affairs and the economy. Areas that further accentuate the need for this consultative process include the war against terror and policies regarding India and Afghanistan. Any deviation from this fundamental premise will cause ripples between the two leaderships as has been the case on a few occasions in the last five to six years.

When Nawaz Sharif was ‘elected’ as the prime minister, he had his eyes fixed on three things: the appointment of his men in the presidency, the General Headquarters and the Supreme Court. He has his Mamnoon Hussain in the presidency. But, that is just about all that he will have to be content with because the army chief will never be anyone’s man, and the appointment of the chief justice is beyond his call. Under the circumstances, the best that he could hope for was to create an impression that he had selected the new army chief, so the necessity of bypassing the seniority benchmark and appointing a relatively less-fancied general to the coveted slot in a bid to stamp his personal authority on the institution. He is also keen to create an impression that the elevation of the new chief justice has his blessings so that these two people remain amenable to his disposition. What he does not recognise is that, for this to happen, the bulk of responsibility would rest on his shoulders. But, unfortunately, the actions of the government create an impression that the prime minister is driven by a dominant dictatorial penchant and that he would try to impose his exclusive non-consultative and non-democratic writ on institutions and individuals alike. This is where trouble is likely to brew.

Indications are aplenty of the widening gulf between the government and the judiciary. The non-implementation of the apex court directives in innumerable matters is indicative of the political leadership’s mindset to quickly oversee the transition from Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to the next incumbent of the coveted office. The question is whether that would bring about the desired change in the judiciary’s perception of the government’s intentions and a softening of stance towards its errant ways? If that be so, what would be its possible impact on the painfully slow ascent of the rule of law which is considered to be the one core requisite for facilitating improvement in matters of governance in the country? The government’s intentions can be adequately gauged from the fact that a large number of state institutions are without their heads, thus bringing their work to a grinding halt. This is so because the apex court has been an impediment in the way of the government appointing its Mamnoon Hussains to these coveted positions. So it waits for December 12 and the new incumbent hoping that he would look the other way.

The relations between the prime minister and the army high command are symptomatic of a perennial trust deficit. The prime minister’s infatuation with the past and his tendency to trace the core of all problems to the dictatorial interludes is dominant in his discourse and interactions. This is an attempt to divert public attention from his and his government’s glaring failures during his past stints in power as well as during the first six months of the current one. An exclusive product of a military dictator, his refusal to concede that he was responsible for systematically dismantling the fledgling democratic edifice is the most detrimental component of this growing negative syndrome. It appears that he is either unable to get over the bitterness of the past, or he is unwilling to do so and would like to use this as a convenient ploy to hide his incapability and incapacity, and that of his foot-soldiers, to cope with the growing challenges. Whatever its need and causes, it remains a monumental factor in further perpetuating the gnawing trust-deficit and impeding the emergence of a healthy relationship between the military and the government that would be conducive for the formulation and implementation of state-friendly policies. An immediate concern for the nascent relationship will be the war against terror that is likely to test the apparently divergent perceptions of the two institutions in dealing with the scourge.

The army seems to have turned a new leaf in its history which is emphatically illustrated by the six-year stint in power of the outgoing COAS. The temptation to intervene was presented to him on a platter not once but many times, but he wisely resisted it and, instead, helped the government in overcoming the challenges that it faced. One such occasion occurred during the movement for the restoration of the judiciary when all pundits had proclaimed the immediacy of a military intervention. The controversies surrounding the Kerry-Lugar Bill and the Memo fiasco were the other occasions that could have prompted military intervention as would have numerous other instances exemplified by gross corruption and abject failure of governance. But the army resisted the bait. That showed signs of maturity.

A similar effort on the part of Nawaz Sharif has been woefully missing as he remains immersed in the putrid juices of his own past, completely unmindful of its sinister ramifications.

If he tries, as is his obvious wont, to disturb the existing balance of power between the military and the political hierarchies and stamp his authority in an autocratic manner, the existing trust-deficit would likely aggravate quickly which could result in undesirable moves from both sides. The need is for the prime minister to understand that individuals and their self-securing moves cannot hold sway over institutions and their role in the process of national evolution. He must understand that the army is a key national institution that needs to be strengthened. He also needs to understand that the past that he embraces passionately is to be left behind because the present works by different dynamics. In simple words, there is a need for him to grow up and stop thinking in terms of his personal interests dictating the national paradigm. It should be the other way round and the supremacy of the national paradigm should be acknowledged ungrudgingly as, otherwise, the cause to rejoice could swiftly transform into a call to arms!

Raoof Hasan is a political analyst and the Executive Director of the Regional Peace Institute. He can be reached at: [email protected].