It was long overdue but what finally clinched the decision by the army high command to withdraw its personnel from cushy jobs in civilian service was the appointment of a new army chief who rightly, and timely, concluded that his force must be depoliticized to restore its much-threatened reputation as a professional fighting machine.
Over the last several decades, but particularly during the Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf eras, the military dictators had doled out civilian positions to their favourites. The practice became so rampant that it acquired institutional sanction and over the time special quotas were fixed for the military inductees in civil service.
That helped many young commissioned officers, thanks to their superior pedigree; enter into Central Superior Services - at a huge cost of demoralising their new colleagues who came through the Federal Public Service Commission. But the rulers were not content with the quotas and would not hesitate in sending their favourites on secondment to other civilian positions.
As a result, some 300 key civilian positions in the present government are being manned by the serving military officers. Much of the Musharraf dispensation's political and administrative failures are correctly blamed on these inductees, for each one of them being the 'eyes and ears' of the President enjoyed unquestionable authority to play havoc with the things under or around him.
In a sense they are political appointees like the ones who join the US Administration with every change in the White House occupancy. Now that at the 106th Corps Commanders' conference on Thursday Army Chief General Kayani approved 'de-induction' of serving personnel hope has emerged that back-to-barracks public call has been heard and is being honoured.
Equally significant is the new chief's decision that the army would not micro-manage the forthcoming elections. Late last month the ISPR had stated that the task of conducting elections is the sole responsibility of the Election Commission of Pakistan and the army would stay away from the electoral process except for its duty under the Constitution to help maintain law and order.
But if there was any confusion as to the role of the army in the elections that should dissipate with the army high command reiterating that the force would stay away from the elections and it is up to the Election Commission to ensure the fairness and transparency of polls.
Of course, this is reiteration of the army chief's earlier statement, but some observers think that given the fear that the opposition parties would reject 'unfavourable' results the army high command thought it proper to de-link from the electoral exercise.
Whatever be the reason for army's clearly heard stance that it has nothing to do with the conduct of elections the message comes loud and clear that army would like to jettison its political role in order to enhance its professional reasonability of defending the country's frontiers.
His decision to celebrate 2008 as the 'Year of the Soldier' also strongly suggests his perception that frequent embroilment of the armed forces in political matters has greatly damaged the image of the forces and that action to redeem that image cannot be any further delayed.
If these moves by the army high command to retreat from the political arena have been welcomed by the public it becomes incumbent upon the public, through its civilian leaders, to make sure that the forces are not 'invited' to clean the mess they create as elected leaders.
All the sins against democracy were not committed by the army alone; the civilian leadership was equally responsible for it created situations in which Bonapartism flourished. That luxury is perhaps no more available given the difficult situation the country is presently confronted with.
There is this formidable challenge of coming to grips with surging religious radicalism, which often culminates into deadly terrorist incidents. Then there is the looming crisis of a failed economy, with potential to worsen in coming days when elected government would have to actuate decisions put off for long.
So there is every possibility that things would go worse before they get better. No doubt that would test the patience of the army high command. But our past serving as the backdrop military intervention would not help; may be the situation would be alleviated somewhat but that would be of temporary nature. The long term solution to our national problems is democracy, the undiluted the better.
Comments
Comments are closed.