fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Democracy off track
By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 10 Sep, 2010
"In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies that themselves have been fairly genuinely elected, there isnt a single example of when the army has acted publicly or privately to support Zardari."
Two years of the accidental president and two and a half of a transitional parliament, and, lets be honest, things arent looking good on the democracy front.
Everyones got their own theory they were always crooks, whatd you expect; incompetence begets incompetence; theyre just looking to make money and scamper off; etc but the conclusion is pretty much the same: the country wont be better off at the end of the latest experiment in democratic (!) governance (!!).
But thats only part of the story. Leave aside all the sins of omission and commission by the politicians for a minute (admittedly, a difficult task) and focus on the 800-pound gorilla of Pakistani politics: the army.
In a complex world, few things could be simpler: if democracy is to be strengthened, the armys political power and influence must recede. It may not be a sufficient condition, but it is definitely a necessary condition. Yet, since the exit of Musharraf, the opposite has happened, and if it wasnt entirely by design, it clearly was by no accident either.
Consider. The army has a chief who has become our latest indispensable. The army controls the national security and foreign policy domains. The army calls the shots on the fight against militancy inside the country. The army has selectively intervened in the democratic process (reinstatement of CJ Iftikhar).
The army has contemptuously slapped away ham-fisted, OK nonsensical, attempts at civilian control (ISI under the interior ministry) and policymaking (no-first-strike nuclear doctrine). The army has cut the government off at the knees over non-issues (we are getting Kerry-Lugar aid exactly under the terms originally approved by Congress; Camerons remarks are at the very least matched, if not outdone, frequently by American rhetoric).
Im no theorist, but it seems to me that all this talk of democracy failing in Pakistan yet again and that being the fault of the civilian politicians yet again misses a very big point: the biggest and best organised political party in the country, the Pakistan Army, has been very, very naughty over the past couple of years.
You dont need to have any sympathy for politicians to figure out that the democracy train isnt going to reach its destination if the army is occasionally pulling out a sleeper or two from underneath the track along the way.
Nonsense, say the armys apologists. The army has got its hands full, and isnt interested in politics. If the civilians got their act together and governed properly, the army would stay in its barracks and would gradually become irrelevant, they claim.
The examples of governmental incompetence come pouring out. The only reason Kayani is forced to shepherd the strategic dialogue with the US is because the bureaucrats and politicians cant be bothered to put together a basic report on anything, the apologists claim.
The army never tried to exclude the government from the fight against militancy, the armys fans argue. Look at Swat, the civilians couldnt even rebuild mosques and schools after the fighting had ceased. Look at the cities, where counter-terrorism is a police-led fight, what have the governments done to improve the police or overhaul the criminal justice system to deal with terrorists, those enamoured of the army ask.
Many, if not most, of the questions and accusations are true a weak government shouldnt complain if others occupy the spaces it shows little interest or competence in occupying.
But this is Pakistan and this place has its own history, a history which indicates that the army is a canny operator, more organised and cleverer than the politicians, and with a sense of when to opt for strategic retreat and when to embark on unobtrusive encroachment.
The problem with this area is that much of it descends into a blame game and farce. With so much at stake, both sides tend to heap all the blame on the other. The truth, as it often is, lies somewhere in the middle.
The accidental president has proved to be an accident of very bad timing. If the last couple of years had been a period in which Pakistan was bumbling along, say, with a four-five per cent GDP growth rate, militancy that is extant, not rampant, the avarice and incompetence of the present lot could perhaps have been absorbed and the country would have emerged to live another, possibly better, day.
But this isnt just another period in Pakistans history, it is a defining one. The country needed experience and serious leadership, true statesmanship; instead, it got Zardari & co. History will not remember that Zardari & co were just representative of all that Pakistani politics has to offer; history will just remember that they have failed this country at a crucial point.
(In the 1950s, Pakistan had seven prime minister in the space of seven years leading up to Ayubs coup. Most Pakistanis would struggle to name more than two, but Ghulam Mohammad, the governor general, has emerged as an arch-villain from that era. Could Zardari be our 21st-century villain?)
On the other side, all the finger-pointing in the world by the armys apologists will not change the fact that their side has not shown the restraint and humility it demands from the politicians.
In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies that themselves have been fairly genuinely elected, there isnt a single example of when the army has acted publicly or privately to support Zardari. There is on the contrary every sign that they have enjoyed his travails and misfortunes.
The great irony of the past couple of years is that the 800-pound gorilla has often got away with pretending to be the innocent babe, while the real new kid on the block, maybe not innocent but definitely inexperienced, has ended up becoming everyones favourite whipping boy, a monster with powers he can only dream of having.
cyril.a@gmail.com
By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 10 Sep, 2010
"In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies that themselves have been fairly genuinely elected, there isnt a single example of when the army has acted publicly or privately to support Zardari."
Two years of the accidental president and two and a half of a transitional parliament, and, lets be honest, things arent looking good on the democracy front.
Everyones got their own theory they were always crooks, whatd you expect; incompetence begets incompetence; theyre just looking to make money and scamper off; etc but the conclusion is pretty much the same: the country wont be better off at the end of the latest experiment in democratic (!) governance (!!).
But thats only part of the story. Leave aside all the sins of omission and commission by the politicians for a minute (admittedly, a difficult task) and focus on the 800-pound gorilla of Pakistani politics: the army.
In a complex world, few things could be simpler: if democracy is to be strengthened, the armys political power and influence must recede. It may not be a sufficient condition, but it is definitely a necessary condition. Yet, since the exit of Musharraf, the opposite has happened, and if it wasnt entirely by design, it clearly was by no accident either.
Consider. The army has a chief who has become our latest indispensable. The army controls the national security and foreign policy domains. The army calls the shots on the fight against militancy inside the country. The army has selectively intervened in the democratic process (reinstatement of CJ Iftikhar).
The army has contemptuously slapped away ham-fisted, OK nonsensical, attempts at civilian control (ISI under the interior ministry) and policymaking (no-first-strike nuclear doctrine). The army has cut the government off at the knees over non-issues (we are getting Kerry-Lugar aid exactly under the terms originally approved by Congress; Camerons remarks are at the very least matched, if not outdone, frequently by American rhetoric).
Im no theorist, but it seems to me that all this talk of democracy failing in Pakistan yet again and that being the fault of the civilian politicians yet again misses a very big point: the biggest and best organised political party in the country, the Pakistan Army, has been very, very naughty over the past couple of years.
You dont need to have any sympathy for politicians to figure out that the democracy train isnt going to reach its destination if the army is occasionally pulling out a sleeper or two from underneath the track along the way.
Nonsense, say the armys apologists. The army has got its hands full, and isnt interested in politics. If the civilians got their act together and governed properly, the army would stay in its barracks and would gradually become irrelevant, they claim.
The examples of governmental incompetence come pouring out. The only reason Kayani is forced to shepherd the strategic dialogue with the US is because the bureaucrats and politicians cant be bothered to put together a basic report on anything, the apologists claim.
The army never tried to exclude the government from the fight against militancy, the armys fans argue. Look at Swat, the civilians couldnt even rebuild mosques and schools after the fighting had ceased. Look at the cities, where counter-terrorism is a police-led fight, what have the governments done to improve the police or overhaul the criminal justice system to deal with terrorists, those enamoured of the army ask.
Many, if not most, of the questions and accusations are true a weak government shouldnt complain if others occupy the spaces it shows little interest or competence in occupying.
But this is Pakistan and this place has its own history, a history which indicates that the army is a canny operator, more organised and cleverer than the politicians, and with a sense of when to opt for strategic retreat and when to embark on unobtrusive encroachment.
The problem with this area is that much of it descends into a blame game and farce. With so much at stake, both sides tend to heap all the blame on the other. The truth, as it often is, lies somewhere in the middle.
The accidental president has proved to be an accident of very bad timing. If the last couple of years had been a period in which Pakistan was bumbling along, say, with a four-five per cent GDP growth rate, militancy that is extant, not rampant, the avarice and incompetence of the present lot could perhaps have been absorbed and the country would have emerged to live another, possibly better, day.
But this isnt just another period in Pakistans history, it is a defining one. The country needed experience and serious leadership, true statesmanship; instead, it got Zardari & co. History will not remember that Zardari & co were just representative of all that Pakistani politics has to offer; history will just remember that they have failed this country at a crucial point.
(In the 1950s, Pakistan had seven prime minister in the space of seven years leading up to Ayubs coup. Most Pakistanis would struggle to name more than two, but Ghulam Mohammad, the governor general, has emerged as an arch-villain from that era. Could Zardari be our 21st-century villain?)
On the other side, all the finger-pointing in the world by the armys apologists will not change the fact that their side has not shown the restraint and humility it demands from the politicians.
In two years as president, a president genuinely elected by assemblies that themselves have been fairly genuinely elected, there isnt a single example of when the army has acted publicly or privately to support Zardari. There is on the contrary every sign that they have enjoyed his travails and misfortunes.
The great irony of the past couple of years is that the 800-pound gorilla has often got away with pretending to be the innocent babe, while the real new kid on the block, maybe not innocent but definitely inexperienced, has ended up becoming everyones favourite whipping boy, a monster with powers he can only dream of having.
cyril.a@gmail.com
