Is Militarism
Irreversible in Pakistan?
By Dr Ahmad Faruqui
Dansville, CA
After watching cricket with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh in his native Delhi, General Pervez Musharraf
proudly declared to world acclaim that the peace
process with India was irreversible. But he has
yet to declare in Islamabad that Pakistan’s
move toward democracy is irreversible.
During his recent tour of Australia and New Zealand,
he said Pakistan was already a democracy, but
for his having to wear a uniform to safeguard
it. Conveniently, the general’s four stars
are never visible when he travels abroad. They
are meant to shine and intimidate his fellow Pakistanis
at home, especially the khakis. He knows the day
he doffs his uniform, he would rule at the mercy
of his army chief. Even the taxi driver in Karachi
knows this simple truth, which is the iron law
of Pakistani politics.
Why, one must ask, is Pakistan still governed
by its military, in the sixth decade of its life?
Like the one field marshal and two generals who
preceded him, Musharraf believes that Pakistan
needs the big stick of the military to survive
as a nation state. Deep down, one senses an authoritarian
conviction that the people cannot be trusted to
choose their own leader. As Ayub famously said
in the early-sixties, it is the duty of the khakis
to “save the people from themselves.”
He forecast that Pakistan would be ready for true
democracy two generations hence.
Well, that time has now come and there is still
no sign of true, unfettered genuine democracy,
like the kind that exists in India or even the
kind that is being exercised in the theocratic
state of Iran. The generals, like the British
imperialists whose uniform they wear, believe
that Pakistan is a collection of warring tribes
that cannot self-govern. This is an ideological
premise. And then comes the issue of self-interest.
The generals of the Pakistani army have fallen
in love with the benefits of militarism that continue
to enrich them even when they retire.
Surely Jinnah did not create Pakistan so that
the Khaki Raj would replace the British Raj. A
furious debate continues to rage in Pakistan (and
recently in India) on whether Jinnah was a secularist
or a closet theocrat. But there is no debate about
whether he wanted to establish a democratic or
a militarized nation, since the answer is obvious.
So the necessary debate that needs to occur is
who derailed democracy, the civilians or the military?
It is often argued in the West that the military
is the only strong institution in Pakistan that
can hold the country together. But this argument
confuses cause and effect. An overweening military
has prevented the development of strong civilian
institutions. Had Jinnah lived, it is unlikely
that the dispute over Kashmir would have persisted
for half a century, resulting in the diversion
of billions of dollars to the military. It is
this large military force that has crippled civil
society in the country.
In India, the military is strong but its strength
has not come at the expense of civilian institutions.
Indeed, strong civilian institutions in India
have kept the military out of politics and kept
it focused on its core competency. India’s
military failures, unlike Pakistan’s, have
been openly studied, critiqued and analyzed, leading
to continual process improvements.
Today, Pakistan is a country on the edge, being
held together by its nuclear bomb program on the
one hand and on the promise of F-16s from the
US on the other. Both are relics of an irrational
and un-winnable conflict with India. Neither is
going to help the nation survive, because what
is chipping away at its national identity are
a myriad of internal problems.
Stephen Cohen’s candid assessment about
Pakistan’s political future to the US Congress
is worth noting. From a US perspective, Cohen
said the main problem is not whether or not Pakistan
is serious in pursuing terrorists but that “Pakistan
itself and its faltering political system, its
dysfunctional social order, its dangerous sectarianism,
and its grossly distorted political system.”
Pakistan, he said, is one of the few states that
have achieved “sustainable failure.”
Perhaps sustainable failure is a core competency
of Pakistan’s. Sadly, such a core competency
does not lend itself to generating revenues in
world markets.
About mid-way into his rule, General Musharraf
laid out the formula for making democracy irreversible:
“To keep the military out, you have to let
the military in.” While to everyone else
this sounded like asking the fox to guard the
henhouse, it provided the impetus for the misbegotten
National Security Council (NSC), patterned after
its Turkish namesake.
At a time when Pakistan seems to be inching deeper
into the abyss of militarism, Turkey is pulling
out of it. This is partly out of pressures arising
from its desire to join the European Union. Last
year, the European Parliament noted that the Turkish
military still has “inappropriately large
power” in that country’s polity and
called for stricter civilian control of the security
sector as a prerequisite for Turkey’s membership
in the European Union.
In response, Turkey passed a constitutional amendment
that curbs the military’s powers. For example,
special accounts that had long been used to finance
commanders’ pet projects have been terminated.
Military courts may no longer prosecute civilians
in peacetime and allegations of torture by the
military will be investigated and prosecuted promptly.
Most tellingly, structural reforms have been passed
to curtail the powers of the overarching NSC.
It has been enlarged to give civilian ministers
a majority and the enabling legislation has been
amended to prevent abuse of the NSC’s advisory
role and decrease the frequency of its meetings.
The prime minister is now authorized to appoint
the NSC secretary-general, who sets the agenda
and the tone of the council’s work. All
of this must make Shaukat Aziz envious.
Turkish democracy seems increasingly vibrant just
as Pakistan’s is becoming increasingly flaccid.
In his Congressional testimony, Cohen laid out
three conditions for Pakistan’s political
development. One, it should hold free and fair
elections in 2007 where the exiled leaders of
the two leading parties are allowed to participate
freely. Two, the army should end its “comprehensive
interference in domestic politics.” And
three, President Musharraf should give up his
Army job well before the elections.
There are no signs that any of these conditions
is about to be fulfilled. In Pakistani politics,
it is militarism and not democracy that is on
the march.
(Dr. Ahmad Faruqui is director of research at
the American Institute of International Studies
and can be reached at Faruqui@pacbell.net)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
