Within a day of
Tahirul Qadri’s Long March to Islamabad, things have started to fall into place
regarding the intention of the imported maulana. With the passage of the day,
all non-parliamentary and non-political forces seem to be taking their place in
subverting the political system. Supposedly eager to improve the quality of
democracy, all of these characters are happy to flout democratic norms to push
their way into power. Thus, not surprisingly, we have Qadri announcing the death
of the government, the Supreme Court ordering the arrest of the prime minister
in a case which has not been completely investigated, Imran Khan asking for
premature resignation of the president, and the former dictator prodding the
current army chief to move in and take over — all in the same
day.
But then we
know that the former dictator, Pervez Musharraf, is a passionate fool for
suggesting a more direct action when his generals may be doing the same more
discreetly. There are many, besides human rights activist Asma Jahangir, who
can hear the echo of marching
boots behind what has
happened since the Long March, including the order of the Supreme Court to
arrest the prime minister. This may appear problematic to some who have been
arguing about a phenomenal improvement in civil-military relations and the
impossibility of a direct military takeover.
However, why would
the military take over if it could do the same job through its multiple
partners? The ultimate objective is to get things done without hurting the
organisation. The GHQ has multiple short-term and long-term goals to desire a
change. The short-term, for example, pertains to the desire to control
policymaking and the negotiation process prior to the American pullout from
Afghanistan in 2014. Even a remote intervention in negotiations will not make
the generals happy. They are probably reminded of the Muhammad Khan Junejo
government during the mid-1980s that had followed a different line from the GHQ
during the negotiation process to facilitate Soviet pullout from
Afghanistan.
The longer-term
objective that may be of greater consequence is to carry out a socio-political
re-engineering and bring about a forced ascendency of what the GHQ and its
partners consider as the middle class. Historically, the generals have always
found themselves in confrontation with traditional power structures for whom
they loosely use the term feudal. The army top brass has advertised its own background being middle
class and so wants to empower this socio-economic category into political
prominence. This is a cruel joke because the country has already been through
four distinct cycles of elite formation, three of which are linked with military
rule. Part of this socio-political re-engineering
plan is to install new
political actors that give the military greater hope for social, political and
economic stability, thus, the idea of a longer technocratic government before
the next elections are held. This is an idea mentioned by one of the army
favourites — Imran Khan and more recently by Tahirul Qadri. Such a plan would
certainly affect the PML-N, which probably has a greater chance in the next
elections.
But back to those who
feel that the army has no role to play as civil-military relations in Pakistan
were redefined after Musharraf was sent home packing in 2008 and all generals
turned democracy loving. The tendency is to compare Pakistan’s situation and
that of its military in politics at the moment with conditions under former
President Ziaul Haq — the conclusion being that the military is no longer a
political actor. Such analysis does not take into account three facts. First,
that the Pakistan Army has been through phases of evolution. The Zia period
signifies a time when it looked similar to a number of Latin American or
Southeast Asian armed forces engaged in direct rule and indiscriminate use of
force. Therefore, there is greater consensus in the civil society regarding the
negative image of Zia’s dictatorship.
Second, the
non-experts do not realise that there are various types of militaries: (a)
professional, (b) ruler, (c) arbiter, and (d) parent-guardian. While the first
type does not intervene, the later three types represent different models of
interventionist armed forces. The ruler type were mostly found in Africa or
Latin America and would remain in direct power at all times and not trust
civilians. These were found primarily in weak civil societies. The arbiter type
come and go, depending on their assessment of threat. The Pakistani, Turkish and
Indonesian militaries belong to this category. The final type pertains to a
military that desires to have permanent intervention but may not want to take
direct responsibility of the state at all times. Thus, it creates political and
social partnerships and creates non-political but mostly legal and
constitutional formulas to sustain its power and power base. Such a type can be
found especially in developed civil societies that may resist direct
intervention.
Third, the
Pakistan military has evolved into a parent-guardian type which keeps the option
to either jump in directly, depending on the mood, or bring about change from
the top through its partners. Interestingly, it has been struggling gently for a
permanent role in politics through legal/constitutional changes starting from
the days of Ziaul Haq, when the idea of a National Security Council (NSC) was
brought to the fore for the first time. This NSC structure was formulated under
Musharraf but was put on hold after the change in government. This, however,
does not mean that Musharraf’s successors do not desire a permanent position in
power. Now we have the imported Maulana Qadri talking about the military and the judiciary sitting in the caretaker
set-up. Furthermore, the army’s partnerships provide it a more pervasive
control of both the state and society. It is now well represented in politics,
different levels of the economy and, increasingly, the intellectual segment
through the media, academia, religious right (including militants), liberal-left
and the NGO sector. Besides many other advantages, the diverse partnerships help
the army hide its oppression and coercion, which normally is tucked away in
distant corners of the territory and gets justified in the name of national
security. Thus, it always remains relevant as a saviour.
Maulana Tahirul Qadri
has set the scene to facilitate direct or indirect
intervention.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 17th,
2013.
Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/494903/civil-military-relations-and-the-qadri-drama/
NB: This e-mail is forwarded by Friends of National Students' Federation (NSF); striving for a secular Pakistan. Friends of National Students' Federation (NSF) is an electronic forum to disseminate information from dialectical perspective. This e-forum may or may not agree with the contents of a particular writing, but circulate it for alternative view points and healthy debate
The Friends of National Students Federation is defending the rights of progressives/liberals/secularists/non-believers/minority groups from the demands of religious power-seekers. The FNSF vows to combat the influence of religion on governments. We want to ensure that Human Rights always come before religious rights, and we fight the massive exemptions religious bodies demand - and are sometimes granted - from discrimination laws that everyone else is subject to. Every privilege has its victims.
We campaign for a society where everyone is free to practise their faith, change it or not have one. Belief or lack of it should not be an advantage or a disadvantage. Religion should be a private matter, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged influence in the public and political arenas where it can too easily become an excuse for conflict, inequality and injustice.
We fight to protect free expression from attacks by religious groups who often want to restrict or prevent any examination of their activities and the results of their beliefs. We are working to protect artistic expression from religious censors.
We
believe that only by secularising our institutions can we ensure that
no religious ideology can dominate and discriminate against others and
that progressives/liberals/secularists/non-believers/minority groups are
given equal treatment.
(This write-up owes a lot to National Secular Society of England)
No comments:
Post a Comment