Army is
More Responsible For Our Political Mess
By
Dr Azizur Rehman Bughio
KARACHI: In the wake of the passage of the 17th Constitutional
amendment, President Musharraf's vote of confidence and recent
attempts to create a divide in the opposition, the entire exercise
of restoring 'genuine democracy' and political stability appears
to be of cosmetic character.
It
is not a serious endeavor to bail the country out from its current
political predicament. And the stand-off is only restraining the
parliament from performing its role, while the main issues remain
unaddressed.
This
state of affairs has further been made complex with the military
grip on politics becoming stronger and legalized through the means
of constitutional control. A satisfactory solution of our political
problem still eludes us.
No
national purpose has been served as far as search for an accountable,
representative and sustainable political system is concerned.
Supremacy of the Constitution and legislature needs to be preserved
and asserted.
But
only the president has gained technical legitimacy based on a
flawed referendum held in 2002. This gave him almost all previous
powers of a military chief executive in addition to an extension
of one year in his army post of the COAS.
In
spite of all this, it is claimed that democracy has come back
and political stability achieved. The ground reality defies this.
That the two national mainstream political parties namely the
PPP and the PML-N have no role and participation in the formation
of the federal government provides enough evidence to belie the
"official" truth. This is reflective of man-made disruption
in the democratic process.
The
position would have been different and politically healthier if
no foul play had been intended. A new party with malafide intent
came into being with assurances from the quarters that mattered
that "collaborators" were the ones to fall back upon.
Such was the show of the performance conveniently called democracy
restored in the land of the pure.
True,
several parties form a coalition government. But, never of the
kind that we have today, composed entirely of dissident factions
of the major parties with no single mainstream national party.
The
PML-Q cannot claim mainstream status as it is a crowd of dissidents
lured from the PML-N. Democracy gives birth to political stability.
It has its own characteristics and a culture.
It
has a force of flow like water that keeps cleaning what goes with
it and itself as well. Democracy creates an environment of inspiration
and assurance among the masses and plays reformatory role, in
the process. That is why more democracy has been recommended where
already existing one does not deliver.
The
story of our democracy is much tragic and more demoralizing as
it has been damaged by both the civilian and military governments.
But what is not widely known and remains unexplained is that democracy
has been damaged twice during the tenure of each military regime
- first on its takeover and then on its exit.
The
arrival of the army causes such sudden ripples in the political
situation that the people in general feel charmed but by the time
they wake up they find many in front of accusing fingers and others
behind bars.
This
is not to minimize the damaging role played by politicians, with
predominantly feudal background and no social awareness to rise
to the ever-changing national challenges.
They
comprise an elite to rule rather than serve. They are responsible
for initial setbacks to democracy and political stability. They
fail to comprehend the need for collective participation that
creates mutual trust and tradition of tolerance.
Political
leaders do not learn from their mistakes. But they feel justified
to stay in politics because they are the legitimate players in
that field. They could be replaced by better ones during a process
of regular elections. This way, democracy develops and takes roots
in society.
Collectively,
they have made a mess but in their individual capacity, there
have been exceptions. Quite a few of them definitely played honorable
and popular role in national politics, leaving their lasting imprint
on it.
The
Constitution of 1973 and the vision of going nuclear are examples
of outstanding achievements. This, in no way, justifies armed
forces' political intervention.
The
military rulers need cooperation which would mostly come from
the unprincipled and opportunist politicians. Such elements come
forward and accept whatever position is offered.
Secondly,
when the military rulers decide to withdraw from active politics,
they seek indemnity on the acts committed to have a safe exit.
Again, they need a similar set of ineffective and obedient elements,
reliable and pliable for them.
This
'investment' in political 'manpower' has been inherited by us
eight times so far. Damage thus caused to democracy is not difficult
to comprehend. The fact remains that if the army had not intervened
in the civilian set-up from the very beginning, no political leader,
of any worth, would have looked to the army.
Political
leaders turn to the army because they expect that the army generals
would take over the government one day, as a routine matter. Can
this flock of migrating birds help strengthen democratic institutions
and bring political stability in the country? Democracy certainly
needs an environment clean of corrupt political elements.
Only
sincere, serious and committed politicians can ably conduct national
affairs, inspire confidence and conviction. They can lay foundation
of strong democracy and take the nation forward.
Since
the armed forces have ruled this country longer than the political
leaders have done, they should be justly held more responsible
for the mess we are in today.
As
regards the mandated sphere of responsibilities, our armed forces
have done an excellent job. Even in the decisions of interventions
in political affairs, barring a few ambitious generals, the entire
military has certainly no involvement in it. They, therefore,
enjoy wide respect and popularity among the masses. - Courtesy
Dawn, Karachi
