Going by the majority of predictions made by our local pundits who analyse to death the political situation, on that front 2011 is destined to bring in much of a muchness. Though, as in this country plans tend to go no further than a day ahead, it is never safe to foretell what may happen even tomorrow. Of late, in certain sections of the press, there have been mumblings and grumblings about the lack of a proper perspective in the military-civil relationship. Why, it is asked, is an essential principle of public service not evident? Why is it that elected governments are unable to set policies that are implemented by the army? How is it that it is the reverse in Pakistan (despite last year’s prime ministerial bloomer about ‘my army’), that the generals set the policies and the government — all governments — follow. How is it that the generals openly manipulate both government and parliament when not in direct power? A brief surf through history should explain all. Since 1954, the army has been involved in politics, that is, since the country was but seven years old. The then army chief was invited into a civilian cabinet and appointed as defence minister. What does that tell anyone? It took him four years to take over the country and appoint himself president. In Pakistan, the past is not another country — it hangs over the present as a suffocating pall of gloom. That overused string of words, subservience to Allah, America, the Army (in whichever order they are placed) encapsulates Pakistan’s past and present just as that other string of words, Unity, Faith, Discipline (in whichever order they are placed) do not exist in this country’s scheme of governance or politics. So much for Mr Jinnah! Does anyone doubt, after WikiLeaks, that our army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, is the most powerful man in Pakistan who heads the most powerful, the richest and the most disciplined party of an undisciplined lot? Are any of our international interlocutors in doubt that he is the man to talk to when they come to Pakistan — or even when a top flight delegation from this country departs on a begging trip? (One mistake the general made post-WikiLeaks was to have his spokesman tell us that he held the government and politicians in high esteem. After having picked them to pieces with the Americans, he would have done better to have remained mum.) A spout of righteous indignation has been spurred by the leak that told us that General Kayani at one point, in one of his many conversations with the American ambassador, had discussed the possibility of getting rid of the president and appointing a man of his choice. How could he possibly do this? Is it not out of the bounds of all legality, constitutionality and what have you? Well, yes it is, but that is how things work in this country and always have worked. It would not have been a difficult task and could have been accomplished without the movement of one pair of boots. All one has to do is revert to 1993 when the then army chief, the now reclusive General Waheed Kakar, in one fell swoop, without waving his swagger stick, obtained the resignation of both president and prime minister. And now this week, with various political movements in and out and lots of ‘demands’ (blackmail) being made by the movers and shakers, we are told that it is the ‘establishment’ that is behind it all. Now we all know what that word, used coyly in Victorian fashion as a cover up, refers to — it is the army and its agencies who poke their noses into every conceivable nook and cranny (even hassling media commentators). There is little that is new under the Pakistani sun. Published in The Express Tribune, January 1st, 2011.
QOSHE - Little that is new - Amina.jilaniaccount_circleinfobrightness_mediumcancel
Going by the majority of predictions made by our local pundits who analyse to death the political situation, on that front 2011 is destined to bring in much of a muchness. Though, as in this country plans tend to go no further than a day ahead, it is never safe to foretell what may happen even tomorrow. Of late, in certain sections of the press, there have been mumblings and grumblings about the lack of a proper perspective in the military-civil relationship. Why, it is asked, is an essential principle of public service not evident? Why is it that elected governments are unable to set policies that are implemented by the army? How is it that it is the reverse in Pakistan (despite last year’s prime ministerial bloomer about ‘my army’), that the generals set the policies and the government — all governments — follow. How is it that the generals openly manipulate both government and parliament when not in........
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
expand_moreexpand_less
Aeon
Al Jazeera
América Economía
Blitz
Buenos Aires Herald
Deutsche Welle
Dnevnik
E-International
Haaretz
Il Manifesto Global
Japan Today
Khaama Press
New Eastern Outlook
Pravda.sk
Project Syndicate
Psychology Today
South China Morning Post
The Korea Times
العين الإخبارية