By Amir Zia
April 14, 2014
The News
The onus of making democracy work and deliver primarily lies on the elected government. The politics of confrontation on non-vital issues will only push the vital ones on the backburner. And then, there is always a price attached to the politics of dare.
It is not an everyday occurrence that Pakistan’s army chief warns distracters against undermining the military’s institutional morale. It is also unusual that a couple of federal ministers have to repeatedly clarify that the target of their recent contentious statements was not the armed forces, but a former military ruler.
While Army Chief General Raheel Sharif in his rare statement last week vowed that the military will “resolutely preserve its own dignity and institutional pride,” the two ministers also appear unrepentant for their harsh remarks ridiculing General (r) Pervez Musharraf.
This apparent tiff between the government and the army certainly serves as an ominous sign for the country’s fragile democratic process even if it has not become alarming at this stage.
The fundamental question that remains is: what forced the army chief to issue this stern warning that reflects the collective sentiment of the armed forces? Certainly a couple of irresponsible statements by the two federal ministers alone could not have triggered this reaction. This highlights the problem within civil-military relations and the feeling of distrust that seems to be growing between these two important institutions at a time when the Pakistani security forces and agencies remain the prime target of various anti-state political and militant groups as well as foreign powers.
The discontent of the armed forces at this stage is more telling; since the return of democracy in 2008, the military leadership has firmly supported democracy and democratic institutions despite serious reservations about the alleged mega-corruption and misrule under the PPP-led government. The military has also backed the democratic transition from one elected government to another following the 2013 general elections.
In a way Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif got an ideal start to his third stint in power as there has been an overwhelming consensus among all the institutions, including the army, about the supremacy of the constitution and continuation of the democratic process.
This intra-institutional honeymoon, however, seems to be short-lived. Military insiders blame the recklessness of the civilian leadership in handling important issues for the strained ties, but they admit that the tussle has not crossed the Rubicon.
Government stalwarts also appear confident that Prime Minister Sharif will not allow his government’s tensions with the mighty military establishment to aggravate or get out of control.
The calculated brinkmanship by some close confidants of Prime Minister Sharif is seen as an attempt to ‘gradually’ bring the civilian leadership in an assertive role and push the boundaries of elected institutions a little further.
The small trusted coterie around Sharif thinks that the timing to achieve the target of bridling the army’s influence and establishing ‘their’ supremacy could not have been better.
The obvious basis of this civilian leadership’s assumption is; the army remains too bogged down and over-stretched because of the grave internal and external security challenges it faces. The country’s weak economy, governance issues and the fact that the US-led western powers support democracy and democratic institutions at least in Pakistan’s case – these are all seen together as restraining factors for the generals from adopting any ‘adventurous course.’
Some analysts also tend to believe that the military is no longer that powerful or the sole deciding factor in Pakistani politics as it once used to be.
In the mission to expand its turf, Musharraf is not just one easy symbolic punch-bag for the government, but the former military ruler’s trials and tribulation also help settle the personal scores of the Sharif family and their loyalists.
Indeed national opinion remains fragmented over former army chief’s trial for his ‘secondary sin’ of enforcing the Nov 3, 2007 emergency, and is causing discontent and resentment within the ranks of the armed forces. But the treason charges against Musharraf and the indirect approach adopted by Sharif’s key cabinet members to criticise, attack and undermine the institution of the armed forces is not the only factor that bedevils civil-military relations.
There are several other important issues on which the civilian and the military leaders do not see eye-to-eye despite repeated claims by top government officials that the two sides remain on the same page. The foremost is the way the government is handling and holding talks with the Al-Qeada linked local militants, responsible for killing more than 45,000 civilians and approximately 5,000 security personnel during the more than a decade long conflict.
The armed forces – long been declared as enemy number one and a legitimate target by Al-Qaeda and all its affiliate and inspired local militant groups – have their concerns about this policy of appeasing the Taliban and yielding too much in too little time including the release of some militants without any substantial gains.
The talks have already hit a deadlock as accepting many of the key demands of the militants is beyond the powers of the civilian negotiators.
The military leadership rightly refuses to pull troops out of the troubled tribal areas. There are also question marks whether the army will be able to forget and forgive those terror masterminds that ordered and executed attacks on sensitive defence installations across Pakistan and killed and beheaded soldiers.
The passionate defence of the killers of Pakistani soldiers by some federal ministers and attempts to legitimise these groups by holding direct talks with them as equal stakeholders is also creating resentment among the soldiers and their families which have given immense sacrifices in this protracted conflict.
The release of hardened militants is also a knotty question despite the inclination to do so by Sharif’s security affairs think-tank led by Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. Setting the pace of the process of improving ties with India also remains a divisive issue, though the GHQ supports the peace overtures with New Delhi.
Instead of managing the civil-military relations with caution, maturity and in the spirit of building institutional consensus, the Sharif government appears to be treading the same old confrontationist path that failed this ruling party in the past when it had two-thirds majority in parliament.
Agreed that the constitution and parliament remain supreme in a democratic setup, but the overtly simplistic and selective interpretation of these notions can be self-defeating and dangerous for the democratic institutions that continue to work in a flawed and dysfunctional manner.
Using these notions as mere slogans and based on the narrative set by a section of the popular media, which often fails to understand and appreciate the complex nature of intra-institutional relations, the complexity of statecraft and politics can unnecessarily pit one institution against the other.
Instead of the desire to dominate, the civilian leaders must focus on building consensus and developing a harmonious working relationship within institutions. This can only be done by shunning the politics of brinkmanship, curbing the desire of administrating personal vendetta, and taking into account the concerns of all the other stakeholders.
The civilian leadership also needs to set its priorities right and make a clear-cut demarcation between what is important for the country at this stage and what is not.
The onus of making democracy work and deliver primarily lies on the elected government. The politics of confrontation on non-vital issues will only push the vital ones on the backburner. And then, there is always a price attached to the politics of dare.
Who should know this better than Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif? Twice in the past he has paid the price of confrontation and picking fights too early. Should he go for the same course of action a third time again? Whatever hardliners around him may say, the prime minister must adopt a sensible course which brings the political heat and temperatures back to normal.
April 14, 2014
The News
The onus of making democracy work and deliver primarily lies on the elected government. The politics of confrontation on non-vital issues will only push the vital ones on the backburner. And then, there is always a price attached to the politics of dare.
While Army Chief General Raheel Sharif in his rare statement last week vowed that the military will “resolutely preserve its own dignity and institutional pride,” the two ministers also appear unrepentant for their harsh remarks ridiculing General (r) Pervez Musharraf.
This apparent tiff between the government and the army certainly serves as an ominous sign for the country’s fragile democratic process even if it has not become alarming at this stage.
The fundamental question that remains is: what forced the army chief to issue this stern warning that reflects the collective sentiment of the armed forces? Certainly a couple of irresponsible statements by the two federal ministers alone could not have triggered this reaction. This highlights the problem within civil-military relations and the feeling of distrust that seems to be growing between these two important institutions at a time when the Pakistani security forces and agencies remain the prime target of various anti-state political and militant groups as well as foreign powers.
The discontent of the armed forces at this stage is more telling; since the return of democracy in 2008, the military leadership has firmly supported democracy and democratic institutions despite serious reservations about the alleged mega-corruption and misrule under the PPP-led government. The military has also backed the democratic transition from one elected government to another following the 2013 general elections.
In a way Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif got an ideal start to his third stint in power as there has been an overwhelming consensus among all the institutions, including the army, about the supremacy of the constitution and continuation of the democratic process.
This intra-institutional honeymoon, however, seems to be short-lived. Military insiders blame the recklessness of the civilian leadership in handling important issues for the strained ties, but they admit that the tussle has not crossed the Rubicon.
Government stalwarts also appear confident that Prime Minister Sharif will not allow his government’s tensions with the mighty military establishment to aggravate or get out of control.
The calculated brinkmanship by some close confidants of Prime Minister Sharif is seen as an attempt to ‘gradually’ bring the civilian leadership in an assertive role and push the boundaries of elected institutions a little further.
The small trusted coterie around Sharif thinks that the timing to achieve the target of bridling the army’s influence and establishing ‘their’ supremacy could not have been better.
The obvious basis of this civilian leadership’s assumption is; the army remains too bogged down and over-stretched because of the grave internal and external security challenges it faces. The country’s weak economy, governance issues and the fact that the US-led western powers support democracy and democratic institutions at least in Pakistan’s case – these are all seen together as restraining factors for the generals from adopting any ‘adventurous course.’
Some analysts also tend to believe that the military is no longer that powerful or the sole deciding factor in Pakistani politics as it once used to be.
In the mission to expand its turf, Musharraf is not just one easy symbolic punch-bag for the government, but the former military ruler’s trials and tribulation also help settle the personal scores of the Sharif family and their loyalists.
Indeed national opinion remains fragmented over former army chief’s trial for his ‘secondary sin’ of enforcing the Nov 3, 2007 emergency, and is causing discontent and resentment within the ranks of the armed forces. But the treason charges against Musharraf and the indirect approach adopted by Sharif’s key cabinet members to criticise, attack and undermine the institution of the armed forces is not the only factor that bedevils civil-military relations.
There are several other important issues on which the civilian and the military leaders do not see eye-to-eye despite repeated claims by top government officials that the two sides remain on the same page. The foremost is the way the government is handling and holding talks with the Al-Qeada linked local militants, responsible for killing more than 45,000 civilians and approximately 5,000 security personnel during the more than a decade long conflict.
The armed forces – long been declared as enemy number one and a legitimate target by Al-Qaeda and all its affiliate and inspired local militant groups – have their concerns about this policy of appeasing the Taliban and yielding too much in too little time including the release of some militants without any substantial gains.
The talks have already hit a deadlock as accepting many of the key demands of the militants is beyond the powers of the civilian negotiators.
The military leadership rightly refuses to pull troops out of the troubled tribal areas. There are also question marks whether the army will be able to forget and forgive those terror masterminds that ordered and executed attacks on sensitive defence installations across Pakistan and killed and beheaded soldiers.
The passionate defence of the killers of Pakistani soldiers by some federal ministers and attempts to legitimise these groups by holding direct talks with them as equal stakeholders is also creating resentment among the soldiers and their families which have given immense sacrifices in this protracted conflict.
The release of hardened militants is also a knotty question despite the inclination to do so by Sharif’s security affairs think-tank led by Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. Setting the pace of the process of improving ties with India also remains a divisive issue, though the GHQ supports the peace overtures with New Delhi.
Instead of managing the civil-military relations with caution, maturity and in the spirit of building institutional consensus, the Sharif government appears to be treading the same old confrontationist path that failed this ruling party in the past when it had two-thirds majority in parliament.
Agreed that the constitution and parliament remain supreme in a democratic setup, but the overtly simplistic and selective interpretation of these notions can be self-defeating and dangerous for the democratic institutions that continue to work in a flawed and dysfunctional manner.
Using these notions as mere slogans and based on the narrative set by a section of the popular media, which often fails to understand and appreciate the complex nature of intra-institutional relations, the complexity of statecraft and politics can unnecessarily pit one institution against the other.
Instead of the desire to dominate, the civilian leaders must focus on building consensus and developing a harmonious working relationship within institutions. This can only be done by shunning the politics of brinkmanship, curbing the desire of administrating personal vendetta, and taking into account the concerns of all the other stakeholders.
The civilian leadership also needs to set its priorities right and make a clear-cut demarcation between what is important for the country at this stage and what is not.
The onus of making democracy work and deliver primarily lies on the elected government. The politics of confrontation on non-vital issues will only push the vital ones on the backburner. And then, there is always a price attached to the politics of dare.
Who should know this better than Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif? Twice in the past he has paid the price of confrontation and picking fights too early. Should he go for the same course of action a third time again? Whatever hardliners around him may say, the prime minister must adopt a sensible course which brings the political heat and temperatures back to normal.
Nawaz Sharif should have matured by now.
ReplyDelete