The shot across the bow

Confrontation could lead to disastrous consequences

The confrontation between the government and army has come much earlier than expected. As usual Mian Nawaz Sharif has thrown caution to the four winds.

It began with infantile remarks by a batch of PML-N ministers. Musharraf baiting from circles expected to act responsibly was uncalled for when the former military ruler was already under trial on charges that could lead to capital punishment.

A sensible approach would have been to avoid posturing in the media at this time. The remarks created the perception that the ministers were pre-judging and politicising the case. Discretion required maintaining silence while the special court proceeded with Musharraf’s case.

One had also expected the special court and the higher judiciary to ensure that no perception of a media trial was created. The courts could have intervened to send a stern message to all concerned to maintain decorum during the proceedings. This too failed to transpire.

Now comes the not so veiled warning from Gen Raheel Sharif regarding the need to preserve the dignity of the army. The reservations entertained by the army could have been better addressed if taken up at the appropriate forum. The COAS and the prime minister have been meeting frequently and the issue could have been settled during these talks.

Why was it necessary to release the message through the ISPR as it was bound to generate further heat and add to the tensions?

Pakistan needs to set the civil-military imbalance right. Attempts to achieve the goal are likely to cause tensions, which is quite normal as long as these remain within manageable limits. Necessary changes however have to be introduced through persuasion rather than diktat.

Not to be seen to be yielding to pressure, the PMLN circles have reacted sharply. Some have strongly defended their position taken on military overthrows and the trial of Musharraf. Others have questioned the propriety of the COAS’ statement.

The past record shows that the army leadership is capable of committing any blunder. The statement has already raised the temperature at a most inauspicious time. Any eyeball to eyeball confrontation would push it many notches higher.

Was it not realised that confrontation could lead to disastrous consequences?

Don’t the two sides realise that extreme caution is needed at a time when the forces are fighting the terrorists and the battle cannot be won without full political backing? Any confrontation between the army and the civilian authority at this time would impair the army’s performance.

Don’t the two sides realise that a civil-military confrontation would also harm the economy beyond repair and whatever little progress in the field has been achieved would be reversed?

The exercise to rectify the civil-military relations might be unpalatable to some but this has to be undertaken if the country is to function as a democracy.

The year 2014 is altogether different from 1999. The new government was elected with a popular mandate after the previous establishment completed its tenure. This was the first ever orderly handing over of power from one elected government to another in Pakistan. The government has hardly been ten months in power. While its performance has enthused few, there is a national consensus on the government completing its five-year tenure.

Any indiscretion at this time is likely to lead to consequences the army has never faced before. It will find parliament, opposition, civil society, media and judiciary arrayed against any unconstitutional act. Soon after, street protests would follow. It could be a rehearsal, albeit on a much larger scale, of the movement for the restoration of independent judiciary.

Any forcible suppression of protest would deprive the army of the support from public which it badly needs to fight the terrorist threat. The forces would get engaged on two fronts, one against the militants, the other against the movement in the street. The situation will not add to the dignity of the institution and needs to be avoided at all costs.

Why was it necessary to release the message through the ISPR as it was bound to generate further heat and add to the tensions?

The opposition is unhappy with some of the moves made by the government, and rightly so, which it continues to criticise. None in the opposition however wants a premature removal of the government. There is no unusual tension between the treasury and the opposition, though. As under the previous elected government, there are no political prisoners in the country except perhaps in Balochistan where political activists suspected of links with the Baloch separatists have been made to disappear. This however has been done not by the government but the law enforcement agencies under someone else’s control.

The army will find little support from the opposition on the two issues that have exacerbated the situation, i.e. Musharraf’s trial and talks with the TTP.

With the exception of two minor parties, the MQM and the PMLQ, the opposition stands united on Musharraf’s trial. Some might like the names of others too added into the list of the accused but all agree that Musharraf must not be allowed to leave the country before the cases against him are decided.

The opposition is divided on the issue of talks with the TTP. The PPP and MQM demand military action instead of talks while the PML-N and the PTI are on the same page on the issue.

Hopefully the army realises that the strengthening of democracy is the only way to keep the federation united. This in turn requires strengthening of the institutions while making them work in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitution. The exercise to rectify the civil-military relations might be unpalatable to some but this has to be undertaken if the country is to function as a democracy.

Any indiscretion at this time is likely to lead to consequences the army has never faced before. It will find parliament, opposition, civil society, media and judiciary arrayed against any unconstitutional act.

The PML-N has to realise that while it has a right to rule for five years, the prime minister is supposed to act like the chief executive of a modern consensual democracy rather than a medieval emperor. The government is required therefore to take all stake holders on board before taking crucial decisions that affect them. The issues concerning ethnic and religious minorities and women cannot be settled by the government without proper hearings and inputs from the affected parties. Similarly the interior minister should have sought input from the army before releasing the Taliban prisoners.

Pakistan needs to set the civil-military imbalance right. Attempts to achieve the goal are likely to cause tensions, which is quite normal as long as these remain within manageable limits.

Necessary changes however have to be introduced through persuasion rather than diktat. There is a need on all sides to realise that personal, institutional and party interests are to be kept subservient to the overall interests of the people of Pakistan and the state. The dignity of the army is likely to be badly affected in case it was to take any unconstitutional step.