Doctors or the Disease

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.”
- Abraham Lincoln

Before we proceed further, we should get rid of one canard right away, that’s the criticism of the military’s detrimental interference in state-running, implies in some sense a lack of patriotism or respect for those who defend the motherland to the peril of their lives.

…”It is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk…” Swap the words ‘war’ and ‘conflict’ with the ‘military’s political role’, and this extract from the Robin Cook’s spellbinding resignation speech to the Commons, becomes equally true for the political debate in Pakistan.

Although, I am not at all obliged to demonstrate my patriotic credentials for anyone, I still solemnly declare for the record sake, that I, from the bottom of my heart, love our armed forces and hold them in high esteem. Well, another problem, I love Pakistan even more (to paraphrase Caesar’s dearest friend Brutos).

Moreover, by any stretch of imagination, it is not “anti-Pakistan” to distrust the motives of the self-styled messiahs in general, or condemn General Musharraf and his cronies for their unashamed shenanigans in particular. Rather, quite the opposite. Audacious citizens, vigilantly monitoring each and every move of the rulers -- imposed and the elected ones alike, boldly questioning their intentions/deeds, and explicitly putting across disapproval when and where it calls for, keep nations afloat.

Can anyone deny that people in uniform, who proudly consider themselves to be far more patriotic (and competent) than their civilian counterparts, all too often behave like any petty thief, firstly for grabbing the power and then thereafter for maintaining it? “There is a fine line between spontaneous misdemeanour and cold, calculated abuses of power – which many politicians forget”, wrote The Scotsman in its editorial on Friday July 13, 2001, while discussing political corruption in France. Alas, in the land of pure, abuse of the (fire)power is no more a sin. To be more precise, thanks to the periodic blessings of the country’s Supreme Court, might is right has been elevated to the de facto instrument of government.

Appalling track record and empirical evidence aside, the recent protracted and shamefully manipulated electoral process, (s)election of the senators by the army high command, blatant horse-trading, revival of lotaism, macabre blend of ‘patriotism’ and ‘pragmatism’ and immorality; vividly illustrates the impartiality, sincerity and enthusiasm of our top brass for democracy and fair play. So, is it unreasonable to ask, do we have general elections or generals’ (s)election?

Remember, on October 12, 1999, we were told that we had had just “sham democracy” until then and the military had taken over, once again, for liberating us from the shackles of crooks and to deliver “genuine democracy”. Sadly, three and a half years down the road, the word “democracy” has been totally faded away -- in essence if not in propaganda -- from that much-touted phrase. Today, what we are left with is a vast array of shams. Sham COAS, sham accountability, sham referendum, sham president, sham constitution, sham parliamentary majority, sham chief justice, sham ministers and governors. Succinctly, the sole tangible advancement is across the board illegitimacy. If all this is not depravity, then the word has no meaning.

The fog of deception has enveloped the entire country. With the exception of some ardent pro-GHQ civilians and of course those with personal interests embedded with the military’s hegemony, the majority has started awakening to the bitter truth that the “last saviour” is actually the root cause of the multitude of predicaments being faced by Pakistan. To more and more Pakistanis, their numbers increasing exponentially, military itself is the major problem – not at all an answer to the problems.

Not only that, the route to this nadir has been an ugly display of opportunism and bullying, dissembling and dissonance – suffocating the very hope of any improvement in the foreseeable future on its way. And the khakis have yet to realize, as Nineteenth-century Russian social thinker Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-70) once declared —"We are not the doctors. We are the disease".

An illicit act or two, in certain [very special] circumstances may have some theoretical justifications and as a result pardonable. Chronic and recurring transgressions on the other hand are indicative of congenital malice, which must be dealt with decisively. Few would disagree that an unconstitutional insubordination is preferable to a complete anarchy. It is also true that the loss of an elected tyranny where person(s) at the top might have got the reins by ballot in the first place but have started behaving like dictator(s) afterwards, doesn’t amount to a great tragedy.

Following the premise, the last military takeover might as well have some extenuating factors. Therefore, not the ‘legality’ of the last coup -- in strict academic terms, but the generals’ (historic and) deplorable role in incorporating corruption into the structure of Pakistani politics, is the moot point. It is their wanton part in composing/breaking political ittehads, buying/selling loyalties, habitual trampling of the Constitution, and consequently ruining of the state institutions, is unforgivable. This is what, detractors of the military deem treacherous and are highly critical of.

True, as some people would argue that Pakistan’s political leadership doesn’t live up to the trust its electorate reposes in them. But they tend to forget, the military doesn’t even ask for our trust; it subdues us by the virtue of brute force. No doubt, politicians betray our mandate. A question arises: What does army do by breaking every rule and law that could be broken, running a state within state, continuously impeding the smooth functioning of the civilian governments and unlawfully overthrowing them every now and then? Are they any better?

In fact, for the objectivity sake, one should also ask: Can army plausibly exonerate itself after (overtly) running the show for 29 out of 55 years? The mess we are in is not a making of solely civilians. Logically, larceny and deceit together ought to be more lamentable than perfidy alone. Blaming politicians for all wrongs is a smoke screen army top brass fondly and frequently deploys to cover up their own wrongdoings.

Civilians have undeniably played a role in the depressing spoof going on since the very inception of Pakistan, but the military rulers are the ones who have been producing and directing the tamasha. In reality, the hegemonic role of the army is the core issue. Its settlement is predicated to all other predicaments. However, unfortunately, it appears that Pak Army is not willing to get out of the quagmire it has bogged down in.

Furthermore, the military has always considered everything civilian as incompetent, corrupt, unpatriotic and threat to their supremacy and worked (hard) to quell it. This idiotic approach of military men has not allowed civil institutions to develop into viable and thriving entities of the society, capable of delivering and promoting a sense of good government.

Political stability is not the subjugation of a country by force as The Guardian wrote in its editorial note on June 25, 2001, “Democracy in the subcontinent has always been a perilous business. But subverting it can be fatal”.

On top of it, to Musharraf and his colleagues, reforms apparently mean blanket occupation of the commanding levers of the society. Generals want their own people at every post who do their bidding and not the bidding of the law. These consistent and persistent efforts by the army to conquer all bastions of power have been hampering the organic growth of national institutions from the day one. I leave the distinction between cause and effect to the good judgment of the readers.

A couple of years back Sweden, Italy and Belgium, in an extremely unusual manner refused to accredit Pakistan’s nominees for ambassadorial posts to their capitals; because the gentlemen in question happened to be retired generals. Despite such gross diplomatic rebuffs in the international arena, we have no qualms about placing country’s premier universities in the hands of military officials on home turf. Tragically, voraciousness to avail top slots as gratifying post-retirement entertainment of colleagues prevails over so much as solicitous task of inspiring/leading scholars at academic institutions of higher education.

We continue; by the way, who bears the ultimate responsibility for bringing the judiciary to an impasse where the entire legal fraternity refuses to accept the [outgoing] Chief Justice as a serving judge, let alone the presiding judge of the apex court? Forcing judiciary to endorse something inherently unjustifiable on one or the other pretext, over and over again, has not only eroded the trust of a common man in judiciary, it has corrupted it to the roots.

Firstly, the army gets validation of their misdeeds form the higher courts at gunpoint under that much-abused doctrine of state necessity. After that judges left with no option but to keep on violating the Constitution, deviate form their own previous rulings and dance to the tunes of the Army House. Numerous PCOs have rendered honourable judges honourless puppets by now. Judiciary is definitely independent; to invent novel methods for presenting GHQ-dictated verdicts in the courts as its own. Not more than that.

Finally, politicians too need to understand the basic most rules of the game. Their wild lust for power in complete disregard of all democratic principles is an insurmountable hurdle in evolving a decent political configuration. To be polite, flocking of turncoats around despots like flies is disgusting and shameful.

Yes, like-mindedness’ might have bought them transitory relief from the jaws of the NAB; ‘patriotism’ may momentarily bring them in limelight, ‘pragmatism’ might have won some of them lucrative posts for a brief period. But, it is certain that they will definitely remain under the boots of their godfathers in addition to condemning themselves to eternal disgrace. Insh-Allah.

It would be difficult to express it better than Edward W. Said, who recently wrote about Arab leaders, “When individuals get in the habit of switching the gods whom they worship politically there’s no end to the number of changes they make before they finally come to rest in utter disgrace and well deserved oblivion.”

Instead of climbing up through crutches borrowed by the GHQ, our political leaders should try to carve their own share among voters and political landscape. By selling self-respect so cheaply will keep this ball rolling forever. Only men/women of character and principle can keep an over-adventurous army at bay.

To wind up, I would humbly borrow the following lines from the letter written by a great Pakistani scholar, historian, theorist and political activist, Eqbal Ahmad, to a Pakistani diplomat back in 1971, fully applicable even today: “Given the fact that our government is neither accountable to the public nor sensitive to the opinion of mankind, our protest may have no effect until this regime has exhausted all its assets and taken the country down the road to moral, political, and economic bankruptcy. However, lack of success does not justify the crime of silence in the face of criminal, arbitrary power.”