Is Military Intervention In Pakistani Politics Avoidable?

Mohammed Ajeeb

London: The answer to the question has to be a conditional ‘Yes’! It lies in reviving, establishing and embedding the values of true democracy in our society. After seventy years of being in political doldrums it is not going to be easy.

Pakistan came to be at an enormous human cost with millions either being displaced or killed on both sides of the border. Yet, it’s short history is nothing but a sequence of half-hearted attempts at democracy and military interventions.

Hence, not without trepidation, I am taking the risk of penning down my thoughts on this controversial question believing that it can no longer be pushed under the carpet. I do so wanting to see Pakistan fulfil its true potential which, in my view, is not possible without the sustained and undisrupted progression of democracy.

Undisputedly, Pakistan has a prolonged established tradition of military interventions in the political affairs of the country which, in fact, started soon after its creation in 1947.

The demise of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in September 1948, followed by the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, the first prime minister of the country in October 1951, left a political vacuum that could not be filled by the inexperienced politicians and the administration.

The situation was further complicated by the East Pakistan factor, separated by nearly 3,000 miles with different ethnic, language and cultural considerations, hence, not easy to manage from a distance and difficult to integrate into a single cooperate identity.

The people of East Pakistan soon after the independence began to challenge the government based in Karachi demanding a proportional share of political representation which included the demand for Bangla to be recognised as the national language.

Even today, the issue of cooperate identity i.e. one nation has not been totally achieved with distinct and competing regional ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities, making rife the claims of somewhat uneven share of power and resources placing considerable strain on the relationship between the centre and the provinces.

From a historical perspective, it is also equally relevant to note that those in the forefront of the struggle for independence in the main were oligarchs and feudalists from Punjab who overwhelmingly took over the reign of power in cooperation with the army which was also preponderantly Punjabi in numbers.

The East/ West uneasiness became forcefully to fore during the process of framing and agreeing the constitution in 1956. Maulana Abdul Hamid Bhashani, the Leader of Awami League, the major political representative of East Pakistan, expressed grave reservations, even threatening the secession and autonomy.

Accordingly, his party walked out from the Assembly on 29 February 1956 when the constitution of Pakistan was adopted. It also went on to boycott the ceremonies celebrating the inauguration of the constitution. However, even against this somewhat fraught East West union, the constitution was adopted and enforced on 23 March bringing to close the Pakistan’s status as the dominion thus becoming the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Sadly, however, the seeds of political animosity between the two wings of the country were sown on this historical day when unity and solidarity of the East and West Pakistan should have been on the public show.

This unfortunate saga of continued political bitterness between the two wings culminated in East Pakistan becoming an independent state in 1971 when the country was in the grip of martial law.

Since its creation, Pakistan, on and off, has spent several decades under military rule.

The first severe blow was struck on the embryo of democracy in September 1958 when Gen Ayub Khan took control of the country by imposing the martial law and suspending all political activities. Ayub Khan’s rule lasted for thirteen years severely halting the process of democratisation of the newly independent country.

The precedent established by Gen Ayub Khan created the appetite and paved the way for other Army Chiefs to do likewise over the coming decades.

Pakistan suffered two more military coups from 1977-1988 and 1999-2008 which further disrupted and undermined the process of democracy. In this, the General Zia’s reign of 11 years was perhaps the most oppressive and ruthless. It radically changed the value base of Pakistani society pushing it towards religious extremism and obscurantism, creating and nurturing a mind-set that was later to develop into the menace of religious terrorism and  sectarian violence , and doing untold  damage to the image and the unity of country from which the nation has still not recovered.

However, 33 years of military rule that curtailed freedom of political activities, inflicting gross abuses of human rights, stifling individual freedoms including the freedom of expression by strict censorship of Press and Media and in the process also politicising the judiciary thus irretrievable circumventing means for the return to the democracy.

The casting of aspersions on politicians by the military establishment to justify its unconstitutional intervention became the most effective weapon to disrepute and denigrate politicians. Along with this, the failure of the courts to support representative institutions in federation of Pakistan helped the military to legitimise its interventions against elected governments by contemptuously claiming the doctrine of necessity.

Restrictions on freedom of political activities and continued maligning of politicians under martial laws caused a strong sense of frustration and despondency in across Pakistani society. However, in this process the role and conduct of political parties was not above reproach. Political immaturity, mismanagement of economy, poor governance, bribery, nepotism and corruption encapsulated their main weaknesses which the electorate vehemently disapproved and being nauseated by it, often, welcomed military intervention and rule as a better alternative to being governed by the hapless and corrupt politicians.

Against this background, the country went through different kind of political experiments but failed to develop any viable system thus not being able to embed roots of democracy and democratic norms. The instability, chaos and continued abuses of human rights and desperation has now become the essential part of life, grossly embedded in the psyche of the nation.

The biggest drawback of a prolonged period of dictatorship is that the notion of democracy that entails freedom of expression of thought the value and significance for being pivotal to the progress of society gets lost. This is certainly the case in Pakistan that has suffered apathy and stagnation for over 6 decades.

Hence, it is not going to be easy to reverse and change the long established political traditions ill-conceived and badly thought-out ideas. It is openly acknowledged that the military establishment is a well-trained institution of all the armed forces of the country with a substantial share in the national economy of the country. The status of Pakistan as the security state surrounded by powerful enemies further enhances and solidifies its importance and recognition as the undisputed saviour of the nation.

However, during the last 10 years,  this powerful institution has been openly challenged and criticised, firstly, by the deposed and disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif who himself was implicated in mass corruption and forced to leave the country.

Latterly, by Imran Khan who led the hybrid government for nearly four years and sang hymns loudly praising and hailing Gen. Bajwa as the most democratic minded army chief. However, he very abruptly changed his tune immediately after being ousted from the office of prime minister as the result of successful no vote of confidence last year.

The abrupt change in the attitude of IK from being praiseworthy to loaded hostility against his former guide and boss are symbolic of the prevailing culture of hypocrisy, betrayal’s and selfishness amongst the politicians of all affiliations across the board. Such betrayal of the public trust goes on unabated without regret and shame by politicians without conviction of purpose to their role and responsibility.

Given this state of affair, it has been most convenient for the military establishment to divide and rule. Therefore, the political fraternity should also share the blame and guilt for often inviting and willingly accepting such unlawful intervention.

At the same time, the Army establishment should not ignore and brush under the carpet all its illegal and unconstitutional acts to gerrymandering elections and ousting elected governments and derailing democracy.

Its image and reputation is being abused, bruised and mauled incessantly. In the age of advanced communication and social media things can’t be covered up for long. Therefore, the institution whose constitutional role is to defend territorial integrity of the nation should take a serious notice of the rapidly changing political attitudes concerning its longstanding interventions in politics.

On the same token, for political leaders to seek open confrontation using insulting language, slur, vilification and personal attacks against the top ranking officials of the army is a mark of political hypocrisy and stupidity.

It is akin to playing in the hands of enemies of the country who are waiting in the wings to take advantage of its internal conflicts and weaknesses. The attempts to replicate the examples of Iran, Sri Lanka and Turkiye have no relevance to Pakistan’s political and religious make up.

The million dollar question: Is it possible to avoid military intervention in Pakistani politics?

The answer is a conditional ‘Yes’!. In order to avoid the direct and indirect intervention by the military establishment, it is an essential prerequisite for the politicians of all camps to put aside their egos and end their enmities in the spirit of fostering unity and for the purpose of collective dialogue with the army establishment to agree a way forward aimed at ending the intervention of army in the political affairs of the country.

This should be on the basis of negotiating a mutually agreed memorandum of understanding binding both parties to its terms and conditions thus agreeing a demarcation of each others responsibilities for acting within the ambit of the constitution.

The agreement also should include specific legal penalties for breaching the provisions of memorandum enforced and implemented by the highest court of the land.

The notion of creating bloody revolution to break the shackles of submission to the military establishment is a delusion, for no politician has the capacity and ability to manage it and it will not be compatible with the diverse temperaments of the populace and above all it could be risky venture for the existence of this new nation.

The author is former Lord Mayor of Bradford UK.