The manner in which the news of latest army promotions and postings hit the print and electronic media headlines says something about the state of democracy in this country. Five two-star generals, we are informed, have been promoted to three-star rank. One line announcement by the ISPR that "Lieutenant General Rizwan Akhtar will move to Directorate General of ISI" turned into a screaming headline in variations of 'new spymaster named.' We also learned where the other four generals had been working and where they will be going when they take over command from the present incumbents who are all due for retirement next month. There is an obsessive interest in the new spymaster.
Nowhere else would such appointments get so much importance. In India for instance, the appointment of even the army chief is a simple, low-key affair announced through a defence ministry notification. A majority of Indians are not expected to know an incumbent's name. Here the case is opposite. The reason, of course, is a long history of military interventions in politics. We might think the country has turned the corner. Not quite, yet. True, for the first time ever political power transferred from one democratically elected government to another. A newly-independent judiciary is bound by its own verdict never to endorse any extra-constitutional intervention in the name of the thoroughly discredited 'doctrine of necessity'. And there is a flourishing private independent media to defend democracy.
But old habits die hard. The Army has ruled this country for nearly half of its existence, and exercised indirect control over security and foreign policies when not in power. From time to time, soldiers have also been doing some political engineering work. Letting go completely does not come easy. Civilian governments' attempts to chart their own course in dealing with foreign policy issues, especially relations with difficult neighbours, both to the east and west, are simply unacceptable. Then there is the issue of self-image. The trial of former military dictator General Pervez Musharraf on treason charges is viewed as an affront to institutional 'honour and dignity'
In their anxiety to assert control after the ouster of our latest military ruler - as noted earlier, still a cause of trouble in civil-military relations-civilian governments have acted badly. For instance, the previous government sought Washington's help for the assertion of its authority by having included in the Kerry-Lugar aid bill a provision that linked assistance with soldiers' good behaviour. The move triggered top commanders' undisguised anger, compelling ministers to rush to Washington to make amends. Regardless of the reaction, the government did not do itself any service by asking its foreign friends for help against a perceived domestic threat. Besides, it should have known better considering that such help did not work in an actual crisis back in October 1999. Foreign influence has its limits. That government spent the rest of its time in office looking over its shoulder. There soon emerged the Memo Scandal which its defenders portrayed as a conspiracy to malign a civilian government. Truth was never established.
Now the Sharif government has messed up things for itself. It could have resolved the ongoing stand-off with the PTI through political means. Despite Imran Khan's persistent and unreasonable demand for the PM's resignation, a PTI team negotiating with government representatives has been willing to settle the dispute over alleged electoral rigging if the five other issues on its six-point list of demands about electoral reforms and an impartial inquiry into charges of fraud are resolved in a satisfactory fashion . All the parties backing the government in the recent joint parliamentary session support these demands. Politics being art of the possible it shouldn't have been impossible to sort out differences and agree on the way forward. Instead the situation was allowed to deteriorate to a point, where the Army assumed a seemingly protagonist's rather than an antagonist's role vis-à-vis democracy. Projecting the image of a reluctant and hence dignified 'facilitator' the Army chief has been making frequent calls on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, advising him on dos and don'ts. In one of the meetings, for instance, as reported by the media, the PM was advised to resolve the political stand-off peacefully, refrain from using force against the protesters, and stop his party's counter demonstrations as well as brining out sectarian groups in government support. The Army chief wouldn't be offering this sane advice had the government handled the crisis sensibly on its own.
Such interference will continue as long as democratic institutions remain weak. As the PM learnt to his respite, parliamentary support was his safest bet to ride out the political storm. He would be wise to pay due respect, from now on, to Parliament from which he derives the right to rule, regularly participating in debate and discussion and responding to the Opposition's queries and criticism. Also useful should be the example of Turkey where the Justice and Development Party has amply demonstrated that economic progress and prosperity helps a civilian government consolidate political power and confront challenges from military.
In the present context, the appointment to the DG-ISI's office gets undue importance. Underlying the interest are worries about possible manipulations of the political scene. These worries come from past experience when in 1990 the ISI cobbled together a coalition, IJI, distributing money among politicians to undermine the then PPP government and ensure the coalition's success in the next elections. The formation of Q League and the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) during the 2002 elections is also known to be the ISI's handiwork. It is erroneous, however, to assume that the ISI chief is an independent operator. Whosoever occupies that office acts in what the Army sees as its institutional interest. And the Army functions under the 'unity of command' rule. Which means the buck stops at the chief's office. It should matter little, therefore, which officer does what. They will stay in their domain only if the political system delivers good governance.
saida_fazal@yahoo.com