111 510 510 libonline@riphah.edu.pk Contact

Pakistani democracy and idealism

Pakistan is a security state – something that has led to many an ill in the country. It would have been acceptable if in the last 60-plus-years we had transformed our country into a real welfare state. However, the harsh reality is that Pakistan is now an even worse security state than before. In the past it was under threat from its eastern border; today it is facing multiple challenges – from the east, the west and from within. Once the darling of the west, today Pakistan is considered a ‘nuisance’ by most western nations.
This current situation is a result of the gross failure of both the civil and the military leadership of the country. The leadership failed to settle various issues and disputes with Pakistan’s neighbours and initiated a policy that resulted in total failure and led to even worse external and internal security threats for the state.

Once we admit the fact that Pakistan is a security state we cannot deny that in such states the military always plays a role beyond the book. To me it seems that as long as Pakistan remains a security state, we can neither promulgate a true democracy like that of the UK, nor establish equality between civil and military institutions. While we can continue to hope and aspire for a true democracy where a military officer and a civilian are equal, without due political evolution it would result in a disaster for both the institutions and the state.
The primary reason behind the present state of affairs stems from the fact that there has always been some civilian support for military ‘sins’. For example Dr Tahirul Qadri had appealed to Gen Musharraf to intervene in the country’s affairs long before the general’s October 1999 coup. The leadership of the Awami National Party proudly announced that Musharraf was on the same page as the party – and the MQM supported Musharraf right till his last day in office.

Imran Khan not only welcomed Musharraf’s take over, but also strongly supported him till 2002. A major chunk of the top leadership in the PML-N and the PTI today was once close to Musharraf. The PML-N made a deal with him and opted for a way out by accepting that its leadership – the Sharifs – would leave the country. From the beginning the PPP tried to negotiate and reach a deal with Musharraf, which it finally did – out in the open – in the shape of the now-infamous NRO. The party also supported him in his second term as president. As for the religious parties, the MMA was formed on Musharraf’s instructions – and the party returned the favour by extending full support for the 17th Amendment.

And when I talk about civil support, I do not mean only the political leadership. There were other actors involved as well. Those mediapersons who criticise Musharraf now can be best judged through what they wrote after the October 1999 military takeover – columns full of evidence against Nawaz Sharif, proving him a traitor. The same people also put forth convincing arguments for the legality of Musharraf’s coup. Even the Supreme Court of Pakistan not only validated the illegal move but authorised the dictator to amend the constitution. Would civil institutions support such military takeovers in seasoned and mature democracies? Anyone responsible for such an action would be convicted as a traitor.

In our fury against military persons like Musharraf, Aslam Baig or Asad Durrani perhaps we are missing the real point and, instead, targeting the whole institution. The Pakistani media today does and says things at times that might be unethical – to please or obey their media houses. But if any one dares to blame the whole media for the actions of a few journalists, we rise against them and make it a question of dignity and honour. Why do we forget to give the same treatment to the military? And, likewise, for a few judges like Irshad Hassan Khan and Dogar we cannot label the whole institution of the judiciary as corrupt.

While everyone in this country is asking to be forgiven for past sins, no one seems to accept the same standard for others. The media wants its past role forgotten, as does the judiciary. Imran Khan says that since he openly admitted that his support for Musharraf was a mistake, he must not be held responsible for that. Nawaz Sharif speaks about his transformation after October 1999, and how now he must not be considered as Zia’s protégé. If we all want our dark past cleansed, why not accord the same leeway to the military?
As a staunch believer in the supremacy of the constitution, I am of the opinion that the military should distance itself from politics. And it should be made clear that anyone who tries to abrogate the constitution in the future will have to face punishment for treason. To this day, the military in Pakistan has not ended its involvement in the country’s political affairs. All major decisions of foreign affairs and national security must be taken by the civilian leadership.

I am proud to say that I started writing my column just after October 1999 – by challenging Musharraf’s authority. My aim in writing this column is not to argue in favour of the political role of the military. I just feel that the idealistic notion of converting Pakistan’s fragile and weak democracy overnight into a mature and strong democracy could seriously backfire.
We have witnessed only extreme shifts and changes in our political system. It is time we try an evolutionary approach. Once our civil institutions achieve the moral and professional standards that other democracies practice, we will be able to push the military back into its constitutional role. But again, who will cast the first stone? Is there anyone who can claim completely ethical and aboveboard conduct and then bring former military leaders to the court and end this process according to the constitution?

Unfortunately there are those who wish to transform Pakistan into Madina through lawmaking, and those who wish to transform it into the UK through the judiciary. The reality is that Pakistan is neither Madina nor the UK. With all its peculiarities, it is Pakistan. We do not have to follow Afghanistan but perhaps we can look towards Turkey for inspiration.

The writer works for Geo TV.Email: saleem.safi@janggroup.com.pk

Saleem Safi, "Pakistani democracy and idealism," The News. 2013-04-17.
Keywords: Political issues , Political system , Military leaders , Supreme court , Democracy , Constitution , Judiciary , Imran Khan , Nawaz Sharif , Gen Zia , Gen Musharraf , Afghanistan , Madina , UK , PTI , PMLN , NRO