fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
COMMENT: Saving the system Shahzad Chaudhry
The army has its hands full in fighting terrorism and an insurgency, and cannot afford to take its eye off the ball; running governments is a passion for those in the military who have time to spare
The system in question is the democratic system of governance, and the effort is to save it from getting derailed. Quiet clearly, that is the most popular sentiment, and yet democracy seems tentative and under siege. What might upstage re-instituted democracy in Pakistan? It certainly is not nascent; there have been, after all, at least 30 years out of the 62 when democracy was the ruling dispensation in its pure form. In the remaining 32 years it was always a mix of the military or the quasi-military system of governance. And yet we are unable to root for democracy as the system with manifold apprehensions of its sustainability. In the current environment of a largely perceived uncertain future, there seems only one trigger that might derail democracy: a clash of institutions.
Amongst the institutions there are three that are rooted in the constitution: the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. Pakistans unique historical experience has thrown up three more, not formalised in the roles that seem to have been arrogated to each, and yet perceived as pillars nonetheless the military, the media and civil society.
The last two are a recent phenomenon. Civil society has largely taken on humanitarian causes while delving into political ones as a measure of support for the restoration of democracy against non-democratic dispensations. Consisting mostly of luminaries of the legal profession, the group has tended to be idealistic and elitist in its representation. However, in the absence of any other civil society voice, it remains the only one propounded as representing society in the state-society relationship. The masses remain confined to a fringe role without a voice or true representation except when indulging in electoral processes as voters. That remains the reason why some of the causes that the popular civil society groups tend to undertake are either at great variance with popular opinion or are unrelated to their concerns. Such groups do not by themselves have the necessary mass to initiate a popular movement, and may therefore be considered less of a threat to the current political dispensation.
The media is, however, another kettle of fish; increasingly politicised and opinionated, it has evolved as perhaps the best representation of the greatly re-energised middle class of Pakistan. The relationship though is mostly uni-directional, with the media initiating an opinion and the masses following the proposed strain of thinking. Conservatively inclined, its appeal and popularity have both tended to send shivers down the proverbial spine of the hitherto well protected and ensconced political elite. It will continue to flaunt its power of persuasion and its ability to portray widely assumed perceptions of one view or another. The medias role has both been formative and constructive the restoration of the judiciary, developing consensus in the war against terror, and a rising tide of anti-Americanism are all the fruits of the medias labours. President Zardaris recent tirade against a section of the media defines the discomfort that politicians tend to carry on the growth of this untamed beast. But it is more a matter of accepting the changed reality of yet another player in the political arena and resorting to coexistence. It will need deft, informed and educated handling, and without exception all parties in power will need to work with it. It may still not be the game-changer that it is made out to be, but appropriate to its capacity can be a convenient avenue for carrying the message of change and in collusion with another agent become a means for change. By itself, it is not a threat.
The military is the only non-formal pillar that stands aggrandised under a tradition of intervention and becomes the more plausible means of concern to the political system. As in any study of threat perception, it is the capability rather than the intent that factors into any consideration or apprehension. The militarys proclivity for such adventurism and its track record are difficult to defend. In the same vein, the bogey of a military takeover against a political government makes an easier sell. President Zardaris December 27, 2009, address seemed an attempt to pre-empt such a hostile possibility and win sympathy against such crass fear of being displaced from power, but did not find too many takers. Instead, it was largely perceived to be a cover for stark failures in policy, governance, and delivery to the people of basic services and provisions.
Under a more mature and stable political system, any military must stay subordinate to the political leadership. The Pakistani experience is, however, an entirely separate matter; the trichotomy of power as enunciated in the constitution has been suitably readjusted as the troika instead, of the president, prime minister and the army chief and this from the custodians of the democratic government. Till we replace the troika as the apex body of power in national affairs with the rightful claimants of the actual trichotomy, the structure will remain lopsided and unsure of itself. The implications of such uncertainty in the power stakes are huge and mostly disparaging. The current state of Pakistan reflects the consequences of a highly unsure political situation. How much of it relates to any subversive machination of the army is open to question.
The armys current leadership was besieged with the issue of restoring its prestige after the disastrous nine-year rule of General Musharraf. It also has its hands full in fighting terrorism and an insurgency, and cannot afford to take its eye off the ball; running governments is a passion for those in the military who have time to spare. Four different experiences of delving directly in politics have only convinced the army that it was always a mixed bag of performance. Politics always suffered; while the economy may have fared better somewhat, if for nothing else consistency in policy, perhaps the most understated consequence of such adventurism has always been a serious dent in the armys own professional orientation. Cronyism, misplaced loyalty and opportunism generally tend to replace merit, professionalism, integrity and honesty as the basic planks of organisational functioning, since sustenance largely begins to centre around mutual gratification and support. This adverse organisational impact takes rather long to wash, and needs deliberate and committed effort in that direction. The army, in its current state, is barely recovering from the malady. It neither has the proclivity nor the effort to spare to wrest the state away from the political system. Has the army learned a permanent lesson is a difficult one to answer. For the sake of the army and the country, one hopes so desperately.
Shahzad Chaudhry is a retired air vice marshal and a former ambassador
The army has its hands full in fighting terrorism and an insurgency, and cannot afford to take its eye off the ball; running governments is a passion for those in the military who have time to spare
The system in question is the democratic system of governance, and the effort is to save it from getting derailed. Quiet clearly, that is the most popular sentiment, and yet democracy seems tentative and under siege. What might upstage re-instituted democracy in Pakistan? It certainly is not nascent; there have been, after all, at least 30 years out of the 62 when democracy was the ruling dispensation in its pure form. In the remaining 32 years it was always a mix of the military or the quasi-military system of governance. And yet we are unable to root for democracy as the system with manifold apprehensions of its sustainability. In the current environment of a largely perceived uncertain future, there seems only one trigger that might derail democracy: a clash of institutions.
Amongst the institutions there are three that are rooted in the constitution: the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. Pakistans unique historical experience has thrown up three more, not formalised in the roles that seem to have been arrogated to each, and yet perceived as pillars nonetheless the military, the media and civil society.
The last two are a recent phenomenon. Civil society has largely taken on humanitarian causes while delving into political ones as a measure of support for the restoration of democracy against non-democratic dispensations. Consisting mostly of luminaries of the legal profession, the group has tended to be idealistic and elitist in its representation. However, in the absence of any other civil society voice, it remains the only one propounded as representing society in the state-society relationship. The masses remain confined to a fringe role without a voice or true representation except when indulging in electoral processes as voters. That remains the reason why some of the causes that the popular civil society groups tend to undertake are either at great variance with popular opinion or are unrelated to their concerns. Such groups do not by themselves have the necessary mass to initiate a popular movement, and may therefore be considered less of a threat to the current political dispensation.
The media is, however, another kettle of fish; increasingly politicised and opinionated, it has evolved as perhaps the best representation of the greatly re-energised middle class of Pakistan. The relationship though is mostly uni-directional, with the media initiating an opinion and the masses following the proposed strain of thinking. Conservatively inclined, its appeal and popularity have both tended to send shivers down the proverbial spine of the hitherto well protected and ensconced political elite. It will continue to flaunt its power of persuasion and its ability to portray widely assumed perceptions of one view or another. The medias role has both been formative and constructive the restoration of the judiciary, developing consensus in the war against terror, and a rising tide of anti-Americanism are all the fruits of the medias labours. President Zardaris recent tirade against a section of the media defines the discomfort that politicians tend to carry on the growth of this untamed beast. But it is more a matter of accepting the changed reality of yet another player in the political arena and resorting to coexistence. It will need deft, informed and educated handling, and without exception all parties in power will need to work with it. It may still not be the game-changer that it is made out to be, but appropriate to its capacity can be a convenient avenue for carrying the message of change and in collusion with another agent become a means for change. By itself, it is not a threat.
The military is the only non-formal pillar that stands aggrandised under a tradition of intervention and becomes the more plausible means of concern to the political system. As in any study of threat perception, it is the capability rather than the intent that factors into any consideration or apprehension. The militarys proclivity for such adventurism and its track record are difficult to defend. In the same vein, the bogey of a military takeover against a political government makes an easier sell. President Zardaris December 27, 2009, address seemed an attempt to pre-empt such a hostile possibility and win sympathy against such crass fear of being displaced from power, but did not find too many takers. Instead, it was largely perceived to be a cover for stark failures in policy, governance, and delivery to the people of basic services and provisions.
Under a more mature and stable political system, any military must stay subordinate to the political leadership. The Pakistani experience is, however, an entirely separate matter; the trichotomy of power as enunciated in the constitution has been suitably readjusted as the troika instead, of the president, prime minister and the army chief and this from the custodians of the democratic government. Till we replace the troika as the apex body of power in national affairs with the rightful claimants of the actual trichotomy, the structure will remain lopsided and unsure of itself. The implications of such uncertainty in the power stakes are huge and mostly disparaging. The current state of Pakistan reflects the consequences of a highly unsure political situation. How much of it relates to any subversive machination of the army is open to question.
The armys current leadership was besieged with the issue of restoring its prestige after the disastrous nine-year rule of General Musharraf. It also has its hands full in fighting terrorism and an insurgency, and cannot afford to take its eye off the ball; running governments is a passion for those in the military who have time to spare. Four different experiences of delving directly in politics have only convinced the army that it was always a mixed bag of performance. Politics always suffered; while the economy may have fared better somewhat, if for nothing else consistency in policy, perhaps the most understated consequence of such adventurism has always been a serious dent in the armys own professional orientation. Cronyism, misplaced loyalty and opportunism generally tend to replace merit, professionalism, integrity and honesty as the basic planks of organisational functioning, since sustenance largely begins to centre around mutual gratification and support. This adverse organisational impact takes rather long to wash, and needs deliberate and committed effort in that direction. The army, in its current state, is barely recovering from the malady. It neither has the proclivity nor the effort to spare to wrest the state away from the political system. Has the army learned a permanent lesson is a difficult one to answer. For the sake of the army and the country, one hopes so desperately.
Shahzad Chaudhry is a retired air vice marshal and a former ambassador
