The ballot box and the sword

The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor.

Once again, we have a discussion on in our country. It has reached the Senate and been heard, of course, on the seemingly endless talk shows that fill hour after hour of television time.

Is the military superior to a civilian government? Would it be preferable to have the army in charge once more? The whole debate has been added to by PTI chief Imran Khan’s rather brash remarks that COAS General Raheel Sharif is now the most popular man in the country. This verdict from Imran is of course impossible to prove one way or the other without actually conducting a ballot on the issue. But, primarily, it is irrelevant.

Yes, General Sharif has done his job in fighting militants well. But this in no way equips him to take over functions that belong purely in the civilian domain such as combating corruption or dealing with errant politicians. The fact that Imran suggests it is yet another indication of his rather frightening lack of political acumen or his limited understanding of how hard we have fought through the years of Ayub Khan, General Ziaul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf to win back that important right to place folded pieces of paper into ballot boxes and choose our own leaders.

It is especially ironic that Imran’s remarks should come only a few weeks after former minister Mushahidullah Khan made his comments about the ISI being behind the sit-in last year in Islamabad. This of course has been denied from all quarters, but can only add to the speculations. The impression too is there that, as before, the military likes a government that is tame and willing to follow orders. The fact that the constitution sets things the other way round, with the military bound to follow executive orders, has become irrelevant.

The problem is that more and more ordinary people appear to be following the idea that our generals are best suited to lead the country. Yes, they in many ways seem more competent than the political leadership, which has not been helped by the corruption allegations that have come pouring in. After being restricted chiefly to Sindh, they now come from Punjab as well when NAB has begun investigations against politicians linked mainly to the PML-N (as well as Qasim Zia of the PPP). The understanding that develops from this follows a pattern. We come to believe politicians are dishonest; men in uniform honest.

But is this strictly true? The first chief of the National Accountability Bureau, set by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999, Syed Muhammad Amjad, a man known for his integrity and refusal to compromise, stepped down after a short period in office, pointing out that it was impossible to eradicate corruption unless the judiciary and army were also investigated. According to rumours that float from time to time, and which no one dare attempt to authenticate or investigate , corruption within military institutions is not uncommon and may exist on a wide scale. And there is no reason to believe this may not be the case. The military, of course, receives far more funding than any other institution in the land.

This however is, for now, a side issue. Perhaps the military will look into its own matters. What we need to establish strongly in the minds of citizens is that without democracy, we cannot survive. Yes, we have a moth-eaten, corrupted and malfunctioning democracy. But it is still better than the alternatives.

What is crucial is that, as civilians, we persuade our politicians to themselves take on the task of tackling corruption and setting the house right. To some extent, this has happened compared to the 1990s. But there is still a long way to go – a very long way.

We will reach the goal, but it will not come soon. The ailment of corruption is one that spreads rapidly through society, much like a deadly plague. It would need to be scientifically eradicated. We must remember, however, that no force has the magic wand required to do this on its own. Even if the military were to take on greater civilian powers, they would not be able to eliminate corruption instantaneously. We should have learnt this by now.

Pervez Musharraf’s drive against corruption, about which he spoke at length following his 1999 takeover, floundered fairly quickly, caught up in the cogs of politics and all that this involves. There is no reason to believe either that the military could bring in the development or the peace that we need. They have not succeeded in the past.

The important thing is that all institutions play within the boundaries of their constitutional lines. These lines have been drawn up clearly. They lay down what is to be done, where the ball can be thrown, which moves can be made, and when a foul is committed. Overstepping these boundaries has caused us tremendous disarray in the past. We must not repeat this disorder.

Eventually, the only way to build a viable country is to have a democratic order tha works to an acceptable degree. In many nations, it does not work perfectly, and this of course is a flaw of democracy outlined by the ancient philosophers. It is however still the best system that we know. It is unfortunate we are once again hearing calls that it be put aside for the sake of ushering in those in khaki. Whether this happens through a proxy government or other means, the results will be disastrous.

Yes, it is quite true the military has done a great deal to clean up the country – notably in Karachi. Who would have thought the MQM would be making the remarks it is now coming up with, showing an apparent readiness to alter its methods of working. This would be a sea change in the life of Karachi.

But eventually if we are to have a stable viable country, where ordinary people who struggle every day to survive come first it is important that each institution play a specific and limited role. This is what specialisation is all about – and the country needs specialisation. It is essentially the civilian government that must take on the task of tackling corruption and devising policies that can combat militancy. Its failure to do so over many years and over the terms of many governments, not unnaturally need to call for intervention from outside.

By now, however, we should have learnt that periods of army rule have really done us no good at all. We have not turned into the vibrant, rapidly progressing country that every military leader has promised would be our destiny. Civilian leaders have of course made much the same false promises. But they perhaps can claim more obstacles in their way. Democracy is a far harder system to run than a dictatorship. This should not be the ultimate excuse but it has been a factor as has been the constant threat that hangs over civilian governments. They need to find a way to overcome this and demonstrate they are capable of taking action that can alter the country and introduce democracy in its truest sense.

Email: kamilahyat@hotmail.com