Democracy and Military: Are They Complementary? - 2
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards." - Sir Willian F. Butler
Pakistan, unfortunately in the last seven years is being pushed deliberately and against the wish of the people, towards religious extremism and sectarianism. When Hakimullah Mehsud, met a violent end at his lavish home in Pakistan’s remote northern tribal areas on November 1 st, his death sparked not relief but outrage, says the Economist. “The leader of one Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami, Syed Munawar Hussain declared Mr Mehsud, the murderer of thousands of Pakistanis, to be a 'martyr' ”. He also remained un-repentant. In the words of a Western diplomat,” Any normal country would be celebrating”. Not so in Pakistan. Pakistan unfortunately and habitually mourns the wrong “heroes”.
Mexico is another country that can be cited as an example of rebounding. Its new President, Enrique Pena Nieto, has not only changed the country through radical reforms, but his energy reforms are going to put Mexico above most countries. Only a ruler with a lion’s heart would dare to reverse what had earned the Mexicans a national holiday, namely, denationalization of the oil industry which was nationalized on March 18, 1938 by President Lazaro Cardenas. It would entail protests from unions and vested interest individuals, but not from the public that favors it. President Pena accomplished a great legislative success by striking a pact for Mexico with his two opponent parties, namely PRN and PRD and his own, PRI. What Pakistan’s PM, Mian Nawaz Sharif should have done in the first week, and did not do till now is forging an alliance among four main parties, namely, PPP, PTI, PML (N) and MQM, and introduce major, radical reforms in tax collection; in energy sector; in counter-terrorism, in privatization of PIA, Railways, Steel Mills, WAPDA, and following the Edison’s way, i.e. make it publicly, leaving no chance for any charlatan to retract from what had been made public so openly.
Why go very far. In India, Arvind Kejriwal, a former bureaucrat, did not talk about reforms or revolution. He actually brought one. In his tiny Suzuki car last year he had predicted electoral triumph for his AAM Admi, “Common man” party. New Delhi’s 15-year ruling chief minister, Sheila Dikshit, had roundly dismissed Mr Kejriwal as an irrelevance. Mr Kejriwal literally with a broom, which also being his party symbol, swept the elections, winning 28 seats, a stunning debut for a group of political amateurs, says the Economist of December 14, 2013. What did he do? He raised funds with text messages sent to millions, backed by anti-corruption protests of Anna Hazare. In Delhi, 120,000 unpaid volunteers knocked on doors to discuss inflation and graft. He made two popular promises: to provide 700 liters of free water, and to halve the electricity bills. He made good on these two promises in the first week. Every motorized rickshaw in the city carried his poster smilingly. The prediction is that Mr Kejriwal’s revolution would break out beyond the capital. He accepts no money from the rich. Delhi had always been ruled by the Congress, now first time, a new factor has appeared, a non-Congress, and a non-BJP. Alas, in Pakistan the new factor of Imran Khan appears now an ugly mirror of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and JUI and Mullaism, all in one.
Pakistani people deliberately and perhaps under a vicious plan are being kept under two shadows: the shadow of fear and death, and illiteracy by the so-called elite and the feudal ruling class. Fear does many good things for this kind of rulers. It warps peoples’ judgment as it clouds their minds; it feeds ignorance which suits the elite; fear snatches away, and tempts people to trade off their freedoms for a few moments of false safety and lollypops. Trading away freedoms means trading away a good portion of democracy and freedom and democracy are inseparable. Winning an election in Pakistan has been made equal to winning a lawsuit in which it is the winner who gets all the cookies. Democracy does not work like that because it is for the people, be they winners or losers. Democracy is not an ideal system, nor it is totally practical, but it has the potential to serve as a good guide leading towards reforms, says Woodruff. It is like the North star, guiding us about the direction, though like the star it remains unattainable. What happens when the sky gets cloudy and people cannot see this star for guidance clearly. Following others like sheep can be harmful, nor can the painting of a North star serve as a substitute. On the journey we have to see the star with our own eyes. The People of Pakistan always found this star of democracy shining dimly on a cloudy sky. They never saw it clearly, and hence they never found it as a true source of guidance. Democracy remained in Pakistan at best a façade, and at worst a nightmare for a common man. Military takeovers added further to this confusion. The effective way to keep military in the barracks is by delivering to the people; by governing well; by staying upright.
Military interventions have been unfortunate. Stephen Cohen in his book, “The Idea of Pakistan”, says, “One military intervention in fifty years could be seen as an incident and two as an aberration, but four spells of military rule indicate deeper systemic problems”. The military relationship with the political process is a five-step dance. “First, the army warns what it regards as incompetent or foolish civilians; second, a crisis leads to army intervention, which leads to the third step: to “straighten out” and fix Pakistan; fourth, the army, faced with growing civilian discontent, ‘allows' civilians back into office, and fifth, the army reasserts itself behind a façade of civilian government, and the cycle repeats itself.
How can this cycle be broken? The way Turkey did, and by avoiding what Egypt did. Any compromise on Turkey’s way of performance can even put Turkey in trouble, as is happening now. Mr Erdogan “is making overtures to the same generals whom he put behind bars. His enemy now is his former ally, Fethullah Gulen, Turkey’s most influential cleric, who lives in self -imposed exile in Pennsylvania and whose devotees have infiltrated the police and judiciary”. The Pakistani scenario is not different.
Humbling the military as an institution is like humbling the country. Robert Gates in his new book, “Duty”, somewhat unjustly criticizes President Obama for “micro-managing” the army missions, for not having “his heart in the Afghan War, which can have a devastating impact on the troops to whom Gates has dedicated his book,” writes Melvin Goodman, a senior scholar. Senior Bhutto created the FSF, and embarked on the mission to turn the country into a nuclear country, because his innermost desire was to neutralize the influence of the military. Mr Tarik Ali in his book, “The Duel”, narrates a conversation he had had with Indra Gandhi a few months before her assassination in 1984. It is an eye-opening conversation. At one stage Indra Gandhi said, “Let me tell you something. And this is about our generals. After Pakistan had surrendered, General Manekshaw walked into this very office and saluted me”. Mrs Gandhi, like Zulfiqar Bhutto, was a good mimic, and her description was very diverting. What she then described surprised me (Tarik Ali) a great deal. After the salute Manekshaw asked her whether the military high command had permission to 'finish the job'. This meant crossing the border and taking West Pakistan. Given the demoralized state of the Pakistan army, the outcome was preordained unless the Chinese and the United States entered the conflict.
“This being India, I thanked the general and said the cabinet would consider the suggestion.", said Indra Gandhi. She then summoned an urgent cabinet meeting. “When I reported the military request, the ministers were initially very excited and many of them were prepared to go along with it. When the meeting began, I was alone. When it ended, I had a unanimous vote for an immediate cease-fire. I tell you this to show you that in India too generals can be very irrational. In Pakistan they run the country.”
Tarik Ali, a personal friend of late Benazir Bhutto, further says that back in London several months later, he repeated the conversation to Benazir Bhutto. She listened carefully, then asked, “ But why did you tell them that our generals weren’t preparing an attack? At that moment she reminded me most of her father. She too thought the best way to break the military’s grip on politics was by helping them to be defeated in a war”. The poor late Benazir could not bridle her husband, but she thought of controlling the generals in a novel way. You do not cut the head in order to get rid of headache. Our politicians in their desire to be in power just plan to do that.
And there lies the two-prong problem. The civilian rulers in Pakistan are never willing to change their ways; to correct themselves; to stop indulging in outright corruption; to stop lying to people because as the Prophet of Islam said, “Truth is trust, and lying is treason.” It is good governance alone that can keep the military in the barracks, willingly and happily. By humbling them outwardly, and by hugging them inwardly; by inviting them to topple the political rivals on their behalf, is like asking a lion to eat meat when given, otherwise stay vegetarian. It is as much unnatural as it is un-wholesome. It is unpalatable too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
