Democracy and Military: Do They Complement or Nullify Each Other?
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
"Since the survival of Rome depended upon the survival of that particular army, he (Lucius Lentulus, the Roman legate), felt that it should be saved by whatever means possible, whether shameful or glorious; but if the army were saved there would be time to erase the shame, but if it were not saved, even if it perished gloriously, Rome and her liberty would be lost”. - Machiavelli in “The Prince” Chapter XLI
Was there ever an era in human history in which people lived so peacefully that they did not feel any need to maintain an army? Not that I know of any. Japan is aspiring to build one; Singapore has an over-seeing aerial power for its protection, plus it is lucky to have benign neighbors and good governance and a natural port; Costa Rica has no army, but it has a police force and a super power to look after its interests; Qatar has invented a new way of survival - acting as a mid-wife, a go-between sort. Simple societies cannot exist without an effective police force, not to think of countries.
The Machiavellian quote mentioned above was a response to a situation when Rome and its army got besieged by the Samnites who insisted on either total surrender of the Roman army with such shameful conditions as passing under a yoke, and entering Rome as disarmed, or accept extinction. Politicians often disagree with Machiavelli, but inwardly they follow his precepts. His piece of advice has been that once the very existence of the country is at stake, then such moral considerations as justice or injustice, mercy or cruelty, honor or shame, must be set aside for the time being, and the focus should be put solely on how to “stay alive”, because only the living have the ability to come back; the dead do not “Rebound or Re-bounce”. Life and liberty of the country, and its preservation should be of paramount importance. Let us not forget the warning given to us so wisely by the great historian, Arnold Toynbee. “Out of 21 notable civilizations, 19 perished not by conquest from without but by moral decay from within.” What Toynbee said so sophistically, our Punjabi rustics repeat that dozens of time a day, “Apni manji thalay pehlay sota phero”, (sweep under your own cot first, if you hope for any improvement.)
The idea sounds plausible, but it has a snag. The big question is, “Does the acceptance of shameful conditions for survival mean the survival of the 'King/The Corrupt Ruling Class', or the 'People' ”? Powerful political parties and their elected representatives currently substitute the concept of a king. People do not figure out anywhere in most of the present-day democratic countries, especially not in Pakistan. The elected members, like over-cooked rice, stick together. The best example being the five-year so-called democratic rule of the PPP in Pakistan in alliance with the very democratic and secular MQM and ANP. The ruling members just blew wind in the bag-pipes; the tunes that came out were only those of the main master. Shame on such a democratic rule; and double-shame on those who let such a mis-rule possible. Add to five years of shame and abuse the current seven-months of confusion and paralysis, and let the scribe know if the people who had elected them, or even the country that they rule ever figured out anywhere. Self-correction is not in the trait of leadership in Pakistan. Their fait accompli is block-headedness. They are good at shifting the blame.
Powerful countries are powerful because they have powerful armies. On the face of it, it appears a big anomaly. Living in a civilized world where respect for human rights and global interaction are a part of every country’s constitution, why there still remains an urgent and persistent need to maintain a burdensome army? Well! Societies have existed without philosophies; without science; even without democracies, but they have never existed without two things: Faith and army. Though both run counter to each other, but that is how the world operates on spiritual and mundane level. Faith keeps people reminding , "Thou shall not hurt”, “Thou shall not transgress”. Man listens to such soothing phrases, but using his prerogative of “free-will, and freedom of choice, he "does what it suits him”.
Even the 551-member jury selected through a lottery system, could not save the wisest man of the time, namely Socrates, though the Greeks prided themselves in being the first parents of democracy. Paul Woodruff, in his book, “First Democracy”, rightly says, “In the fifth century, democracies had the strongest economies and the most creative cultures, but the success that kept them safe was military: democracies could mobilize their citizens for war across class lines. That was because the citizens who filled their armies and navies were fighting for themselves. Free people are those who believe they are fighting for themselves when they are called to fight for their country. But soldiers who are fighting only on behalf of their leaders cannot truly be free; even if they are not physically whipped into battle, they are not following their own hearts - as free warriors do - into the fray”.
Does a similarsituation not exist in Pakistan? While the name-less soldiers, sitting all alone in minus-zero temperatures somewhere on the peaks of the tribal area’s rugged mountains, are dying in dozens every hour of the day, defending the people of Pakistan against the most callous terrorists, their political rulers at home and in all day light are heard discussing and disputing whether it is right to classify such deaths as theirs as “martyrdom”, or even worthy of a respectable burial. Any reasonable country would long have picked people like Syed Munawar Hussain and would have tried them under the charge of treason; would have briefed in clear terms such confused leaders as Imran Khan, telling them that you do not cry “fire, fire” while sitting in a theatre because you feel like using your right to freedom of speech. At least, the army could have done one thing much earlier. The lovers of “talks” with the terrorists, who are less than half a dozen, should have been made “state guests”, and taken in the darkness of the night to those rugged mountain peaks, and left there with the soldiers for at least a week with a view to giving them a firsthand experience on how it is to be a soldier and how the soldiers feel. Shamelessly, the media anchors invite people of a particular bent of mind - people whose sole knack is “antism”, to defile, denigrate, humble and de-spirit the soldiers through their criticism of the army. Just as in Vanilla ice-cream, it is almost impossible to separate sugar and milk from the vanilla flavor the same way in the army culture it is very hard to disassociate and separate an army general from his soldiers. They live and die as a family, which is not the case in the civilian setup.
Democracy evolves, prospers and catches roots if it works. Its genesis owes its gratitude, not to the philosophers, politicians, historians and even poets who initially opposed it, but to the people’s poets like Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and to the people themselves. “No one, no matter how wise or successful, should ever consider himself above the law,” depicts an idea that is closely related to the traditional concept of respect and reverence. Faith and true democracy both eulogize this concept of justice and democracy. Violation of it is not a small matter. Even Plato did not like ordinary citizens without knowledge given the right to govern. “Governing powers should be granted only to educated elite”. For him and others even education would not qualify ordinary citizens to govern themselves. Democracy is intrinsically attached to people. It is, therefore, not an ideology, nor a philosophy; it is a system which is good if it works, if it serves the interests of common people of all classes and cultures; it is bad, rather lethal if it serves only the elite.
Democracy has delivered rich dividends in the recent past around and beyond Pakistan. The Economist of December 21, 2013, picked Uruguay as the country of the year. Its president Jose Mojica is self-effacing, modest, lives in a humble cottage, drives himself to work in a Volkswagen Beetle and flies economy class, but he is bold, liberal, and he has introduced reforms. If it were the growth of GDP only, perhaps South Sudan would have been the country with 30% increase in 2013; if it had been a country with the least amount of debt, it would have been Estonia among the European Union countries; if it were the people and not the rulers, then perhaps Ukraine would have been the country where they are ruled by a thuggish president; it would definitely have been Turkey, and its Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had there been less attempt on his part to become a Sultan. Even Somalia could have been the country, a country that is passing through a Pakistan like situation, but it deserves merit for controlling, or at least keeping at bay the piracy and the religious extremism. (Continued next week)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
