Civil-military wrangling continues
The ISPR press release of November 11 underlining ‘the need for matching/complimentary governance initiatives for long term gains of [military] operation and enduring peace across the country’ has caused quite a furor; and rightly so, but for all the wrong intents and questions.
Everyone has an axe of its own to grind. Politicians outside the government saw an opportunity in it to kick the government at the wrong place, getting assumed encouragement from GHQ. The media, like always, tried to dig deep and prove what was said in the press release was right in black and white form. And the people, who are always at the receiving end of everything – from propaganda warfare to the sufferings of conventional and guerrilla warfare fought out in the streets from Miranshah to Karachi – nodded their heads in approval when the anchor persons tried to explain to them that what the boys said was motivated only by the interest of the people and the country.
No one, except Mehmood Khan Achakzai, questioned on the first day after the issuance of the statement, whether all this was politically right or not and whether if it was constitutional at all. But he was an odd man out who most probably will be taken care of by the social media. And why not when most of the politicians saw nothing wrong in it except this one chap who always smells a rat whenever someone whispers ‘army’ into his ears? Exemplary sensory coordination. Isn’t it? It was only on the second day that some others, mostly from PPP, jumped into the fray – in support of the government which itself shied away from taking a clear and forceful stand on the issue.
But let’s get serious, for God’s sake. It’s not some funny affair, it involves the state and the constitution; it is legal and political. It is another matter you don’t hearmore often about these issues in the ensuing debate; nor do you see most of the post-Zia generation of politicians bothering much about it. Siraj-ul-Haq sees no reason why this statement of the military should be made controversial. Imran Khan ‘welcome[s] the announcement of the corps commanders meeting wholeheartedly’.And the legal wizard among politicians, Baber Awan finds no legal or constitutional problem with it. At worst, it was a call-attention notice, he said. ‘If it has not been liked by the government, it is because it (the government) belongs to the shopkeepers’. Case dismissed. Bingo!
Some of the leaders belonging to MQM, ANP and PPP tried to take advantage of it through echoing the ‘bad governance’ mantra. Well… It seems lots of water has passed under the democratic bridges over the past some years in which controlled democracy became a norm rather than an aberration and in which ‘leaders’ of all the parties, with little worthwhile exceptions, prospered like anything.
May be that’s the reason that instead of calling into question the issuance of the statement itself, every oneof us started discussing the extent of the correctness of its details. The people, the media, the politicians, including Shahi Syed, Khurshid Shah and Shafqat Mehmmod, all agreed with the contents of the ISPR press release and called upon the government to pay heed. Yes, they advised so. It looked like the whole nation had gone wise overnight. Except that one Achakzai (or has he become Achakzai again by the time you are reading this?), everyone seems to have realized that: a) there is a hell of a difference between what is written in the redundant books of political philosophy and the realpolitik that is practiced on ground right here, right now (Reymond Geuss); b) it is always good to avoid criticizing the real rulers (Kevin Storm or whoever); and c) even if one is not wise enough to learn from the experiences of others (Voltaire), he must not be stupid enough not to learn something from the agonies he himself has gone through.
So, no strong reaction from the political side during the first day or two, no reference to the books of politics, to the constitution, to the right of the elected government to formulate policies, to the authority of the armed forces to criticize a legitimate government and no calling of a general onto the carpet to explain why he and his institution chose to cast aspersions on the performance of that government.The first lesson for a politician, a journalist or a general, like any beginner in political science should be like this: there are three pillars of the state; executive, legislature and judiciary. Executive is government. Military is an arm of the government; and not vice versa.
Under the 1973 Constitution, the Federal Government has the control and command of the Armed Forces and the supreme command lies with the President. That the armed forces have to defend the country against external aggression and act in aid of civil power under the direction of the Federal Government and that the validity of any such direction cannot be called in question in any court (Articles: 243 to 245). This constitutional arrangement makes the military subservient to the authority of the democratically elected government. Even minus this constitutional arrangement, military is not an equal ‘pillar’ in the political arrangement of the state. It never was. It is a subordinate organization/department, always answerable to the government.
So, how can a ‘subordinate’ stand and dictate in public to its ‘superior’ to act according to his/her liking? The matter here is not of right or wrong. The question here is of the fitness and propriety of things and the moral and constitutional authority to do or not to do something.
In June 2010 a Rolling Stone profile, ‘The Runaway General’ revealed that Gen Stanley McChristal, the top US commander in Afghanistan thought and talked negatively about the country’s civilian leadership. According to that profile, he said he was ‘pretty disappointed’ by his first meeting with President Barak Obama. He also reportedly criticised Vice President Joe Biden and other members of Obama’s political team. It wasn’t public but he was called to the White House and after a 20-minute meeting with the President, the General tendered his resignation. The president accepted his resignation in the middle of the most crucial of modern day’s American war’s most crucial moments. Gen McChristal apologised for his behaviour and said in a statement:
“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
Were it for the right and wrong of what he said and stood for to resolve the issue, the President may have resigned instead of him. But no, it was the principle of civilian supremacy that was invoked and one of the finest American generals was relieved of his duties.
This is not to suggest that we must follow the US example in toto. We simply cannot. Nor can we make comparison between the levels of development of the two countries’ democracies. But in order to move forward, individuals and institutions must allow small steps to be taken and personal and institutional inertia must be shunned.
It is true that governance is bad. It is true that civilian side is lagging behind in the implementation of its part of the National Action Plan (NAP). It is also a fact that the priorities of Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif governments are dictated by their personal whims. More than that, the performance of the civilian political leadership over the past 7-8 years leaves much to be desired. But as a matter of fact, there is so much to be desired from the military’s side too.
It is mostly the civilian side that has remained at the receiving end since the creation of the country. They can be criticized easily. Their affairs can be probed and questions asked without any fear. They can be mad accountable through elections periodically. But nothing of the sort can be done with the armed forces. As things stand today regarding war against terrorism, there are many things and questions relating to military establishment that the people may like to know about and have answers to. No one, not even in the military, can deny that many of the bad things that Pakistan has been facing are the direct and indirect consequences of the policies adopted by the military establishment regarding Afghanistan and other crucial national security issues. The infamous distinction between good and bad Taliban was also not that of the civilian political leadership, nor was the decision to leave tribal areas and KP to the terrorists for good eleven years theirs.
If questions must be asked, then the fact is that nobody knows exactly about ‘their’ part of the National Action Plan and actual progress in Operation Zarb-e-Azb. What is its timeframe? Why is it taking so long for the army to sort out a handful of miscreants within its own geographical boundaries? When will it allow TDPs (the new name given to the previously called IDPs) to return to their homes? Why is media not allowed to visit places where army has been conducting operations; and where so much success is coming down the army’s way? After all, nobody would like to hide from the world a good job done. Then, is it really in the hands of civilian rulers to stop terror financing and close down terrorists’ sleeper cells across the country? Who is capable and in-charge of giving this country the alternative narrative?
As they say, there are skeletons in everyone’s cupboard. It’s better to contend with the good fortune that every Tom, Dick and Harry is enjoying here despite all the shortcomings, misdeeds and acts of omission and commission. It’s time to move forward. Politicians here have amassed billions and trillions of ill-gotten money with impunity. They are partners in the crime of keeping the teeming millions illiterate, sick and destitute. Most of these politicians are product of manipulation. They have been ruling the masses without merit. And they are ruling them according to their personal whims and priorities’ lists.
The men in khaki, on the other hand, have been thrusting national security policies down the civilian rulers and people’s throats since time immemorial and to the detriment of the masses. Today, the military establishment is in charge of most important and sensitive aspects of national security and foreign policies of the country from behind the scene. These policies have deep negative bearings on the economic, social and political development of the country and the performance of the civilian governments.
It will be in the fitness of things to allow a change in the status quo accordingly. Or, if no bloody revolution takes place against these apparent and behind-the-scene rulers, they and their children and their coming generations will be consumed by the rising sea of backwardness, bigotry, disease and violence. A meaningful and positive change is quite possible if Nawaz Sharif pledges not rule like a king of yesteryears and General Asim Bajwa refrains acting like a watchdog over the elected representatives of the people, telling them what to do and what not to do and coercing them into submission through the power of the gun.
Times have changed. Militaries have minimised their role in political affairs even in societies where they ruled the roost once. And those societies have moved forward. Pakistan was never meant to be a country led by men in uniform. It’s time to leave the already acquired political space to those it belongs to, not to increase it. Or we will keep on moving in a circle while the world will move on. And one day we will realize that it has gone far ahead to catch up with. That will be too late.
