OPINION

Military and politics

Columnist MASOOD ANWAR examines the nexus between military and politics.

How closely does military relate with politics in Pakistan, is a question every inquisitive mind is seeking answer to. A simple comparison may look as: military remembers the past, it cares for the present and secures the future. Whereas politics sleeps with the past, plays with the present and experiments with the future. The comparison brings into focus the cultural differentiation between the two institutions, a point worth noticing.

Suffice it to say, relationship setting is not always free of grievances and exaggerations. Often perceptions are assembled in opposition to the original for everything is not as real as it looks. Whatsoever, relationship developed over the years between the military and politics is beginning to become a permanent guideline for the political future of the country. Needless to say, however, even after years of the military acting on behalf of politics, it finds understanding of politics not quite simple.

Experiencing politics in a remote mode always appears much easier than managing. Managing involves balancing of perceptions with realities and rationalising human rights with personal rights. The uncanny nature of politics is now well-known to the military rulers. Surely they have done well in defusing NS factor from Pakistan politics, though it is yet not clear as to what extent NS factor still is relevant. Ms Bhutto, on the other hand, has kept her position as a genuine factor in politics. She is growing more forceful after SC decision in SGS case. Her case, indeed, shall require careful management. The third factor the military, it believes, military rulers are qualitatively superior to most politicians and also capable of innovating political reforms leading towards political stability and continuity of the democratic rule. This might appear an innocent confession but it is a firm belief carried by the military. In the light of the above, therefore, I am inclined to say that a combination of these three factors is likely to shape the future political setup in the country.

Discussions on political and constitutional issues being televised give a fair indication of the public viewpoint. During one of the discussion the NRB Chief said that dialogue was the best method to gain wisdom on important issues. Since political and constitutional issues affect every person and more importantly the future of the country, it was necessary for everyone to engage in meaningful discussions before decision are made for making changes in the constitution of the country. According to the NRB Chief, frank and candid discussions on important issues always lead to encouraging conclusions. Indeed it is the right approach to first philosophize the issue leading to logically building of consensus then prioritizing possible options and lastly making appropriate changes in an agreed manner. NRB Chief also reiterated government's commitment to follow a course of reconciliation despite the fact that the CE Gen Pervez Musharraf had the authority given to him by the SC to make necessary amendments in the constitution.

In order to reduce strains, it appears government is trying to engage leading politicians of the country into settling broad-based agreements on constitutional matters so that a political course free of controversies is worked out. From the discussion, however, one gathers that the military government is being loaded with more and more responsibility. Apparently no serious disagreements on the quantum of change have been voiced yet the goal of how changes are to be made looks most challenging. Some important points worth making note of are listed below:-

  • Majority wants changes in the constitution to be made according to procedure enumerated in articles 238 and 239 of the constitution.

  • PML (L) claims it enjoys 2/3 majority in the parliament, if assemblies are restored, necessary amendment to the constitution will be passed without any opposition.

  • Those in opposition of PML (L) are skeptical of its intentions. In their view PML (L) was only trying to establish its rule by extending extraordinary co-operation to the military government. In return at the time of the general elections, it will have its caretaker PM which will give the party a clear advantage of returning back to power.

  • Others, are convinced that amendments to the constitution should not be left to the politicians. Military government, they believe, is fully empowered and has the support of the people to carryout necessary and essential amendment in the constitution.

  • Most politicians, however, expressed their disagreement on the manner other than prescribed in the constitution for making changes in the constitution. They warned that such changes would not be endorsed by the future political governments. Their legality too would be challenged thereby creating constitutional crises.

The challenge posed to the military government in the light of divergent views and opinions, will be a test of the will of the government. How will the government, under these circumstances react is a big question. Indeed this is what politics is all about. What is conspicuous is:

  • Is the government likely to make compromises on its declared agenda. Thereby jeopardising its justification of taking over in Oct 1999.

  • During the remaining period government will continue trying its best to improve its performance particularly in the economic sector. The question is, will it be willing to make changes in its principle stand on the issues of CTBT, Kashmir and Talibans, in order to secure foreign economic assistance. Could it make it on its own without the conditional foreign economic assistance is the next big question.

  • Would the government be able to achieve smooth transition to democratic rule without associating leading political parties and their leaders.

  • What role would the military allot itself in governance. Will it be able to ensure continuity of its policy measures without remaining in the forefront in government affairs. Active presence has its negative side. It is, however, important to note that successes and failures in governance are related more to perceptions than realities and if the military remain in active participation it has to get used to dealing with perceptions. Sometimes truth has to be compromised for gaining popularity. Some times recognition is achieved through scandals than through nobility. The military must also be aware that human rights and personal rights are viewed differently. For example, democracy is a human rights issue whereas poverty and deprivation is considered an economic issue less associated with human rights.

  • How equipped the government is and also willing to negotiate on the issue of provincial autonomy. On this issue the military government has been left alone. There are less takers of the government's version of the devolution plan. Outsiders support and consider this a right step toward eliminating political autocracy and establishing of a stable democratic rule. The reason why people within the country are skeptical of the plan is because the plan does not fully explain certain key elements such as fiscal powers of the Nazims, working relationship of the local government with the Provincial government and the role of the bureaucracy within the new setup.

  • The mystery that remains unsolved for the military is managing politics in uniform. When in uniform, expression does not match behaviour and thinking does not match actions required for maintaining political relationship. At the same time military is worried about its vulnerability outside the uniform.

Skepticism is a sign of a free and healthy mind but if skepticism is doubted for intentions and also not given due respect often skepticism leads to cynicism. Government fully acknowledges this characteristic of the people yet hopes and expects a degree of trust in its working. This is a genuine requisition and like any other government, the military government is also wanting people to place their trust in the devolution plan. Government's performance, however, does not provide enough incentive to the people to strengthen their belief in trusting the government. On the other hand, government could not unfold all its plans regarding implementation before time. Obviously it will have to sell its idea through appeals carrying good and sincere intentions. Most vociferous, indeed would find this a good opportunity to pin the government and establish their hold on the minds of the people.

Politics behaves funny, it is insensitive when it should show more sensitivity and it is insensible when it should behave more sensibly.

previouspagebackhome