Finally, the Prime Minister pointed his finger at who he thinks is conspiring against democracy this time. His intemperate utterings last week targeted the security establishment for running a State within a State. He thundered about parliamentary supremacy and the right of people's representatives to call the shots. The concept of parliamentary supremacy has been routinely used by the PPP government to disobey and discredit the Supreme Court of Pakistan, another institution that has figured prominently in its conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, the official US report on last month's Nato attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers was released, and though it acknowledged mistakes on part of the US chain of command in Afghanistan, the badmash superpower has refused to apologise for the lives lost. Do the strained Pak-US relations have any connection with the strained government-military relations?
Differences between the PPP government and the security establishment on the memo case presently before the Supreme Court have obviously triggered the recent Prime Minister-led PPP onslaught against the military leadership, but do the differences run deeper than that? Is the Prime Minister irked only by the fact that the Chief of Army Staff and the ISI Director General submitted their replies and affidavits to the Supreme Court without observing the norms of parliamentary democracy as interpreted by his party? Were they supposed to get their submissions approved by the Prime Minister before they presented them before the Supreme Court? Or are these differences on how to handle the memo affair only a symptom of a far more significant divide between the PPP leadership and the security establishment on the review of Pak-US relations currently underway?
The Pakistan Army has rejected the compensation offered by the USA to the families of soldiers killed in the Nato attack on its checkposts in Mohmand Agency. It is also convinced that the attack was deliberate. Sick and tired of the two-faced policies of the US and its Nato allies in the region, which, as is becoming clearer by the day, include undermining Pakistan's security establishment, the military would like the review of Pak-US relations to take into account its perspective on the war, leading to far-reaching decisions and a basic reorientation of our foreign policy. There are reasons to believe that the strong retaliatory measures taken by the government after the Mohmand attack came about after serious prodding by the security establishment. Now, it seems, the government would like to get back to business as usual with the US after going through the motions of some face-saving tricks.
Even while the Parliamentary Committee is engaged in the task of preparing recommendations for the review, senior government officials are heard talking about sorting out the irritants and normalising our relations with the US. There is talk about reopening of the Nato supply routes after those supplies are adequately taxed or after an apology from the US. What if the parliamentary recommendations include bringing down the level of cooperation even further? What if the committee entrusted with the task suggests the closing down of US Consulates in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar, downsizing the bloated US Embassy in Islamabad and curbing the undiplomatic activities of its diplomats stationed in the capital? Has the government already made up its mind where it wants to take the Pak-US relationship and is Parliament again being used as an eyewash?
Had it been a difference of nuance, the civil and military leadership could have worked through it and come to a common understanding of the challenge Pakistan faces today. But obviously, the differences are essential. Ironically, the security establishment's view represents public opinion and parliamentary consensus as reflected in its resolutions, whereas those claiming to be the sole representatives of 170 million Pakistanis seem to be representing interests that have nothing to do with the people of Pakistan or their future. Ideally, a democratic government would strive hard to develop a consensus around an issue of grave national importance such as this. As is seen in mature democracies everywhere, elected governments attach great importance to the inputs of its security apparatus while deciding about war and security-related matters. So why does the PPP government view the military's apprehensions and reservations as an attack on democracy? And more importantly, where is its own perspective on policy coming from?
It is sad, but it is true that the PPP leadership has been willing to serve as unquestioning serfs when it comes to the Pak-US relations, regardless of how the government decisions affect Pakistan and its citizens that the party claims to solely represent. The problem is not so much the deep differences that seem to have developed between the civil and military leadership when it comes to the US and how far were willing to bend for it. Going by democratic ideals, the elected government could over-ride the concerns of the military and decide to stay subservient to the US. But instead of defining the problem clearly, and putting on the table the real basis of differences, the government has chosen to hide behind vague conspiracy theories, raising insignificant technicalities and making dangerous insinuations about other State institutions. It has only weakened its case thus.
So, why would the PPP leadership resort to such dangerous brinkmanship? Why doesn't it just unearth the conspiracy and punish the culprits, instead of making political speeches about it? Why is it so allergic to the idea of the memo affair being investigated by the Supreme Court? The PTI Chairman, Imran Khan, feels that by insinuating that the security establishment knew about Osama's presence in Abbottabad, the Prime Minster has started enacting what was envisaged by the memo. Is he right about the NRO-democracy then, meant to serve those who facilitated the deal between Musharraf and PPP, rather than the people of Pakistan? It seems like people will have to decide this one - once again on the streets.
    The writer is an independent columnist.
    Email: hazirjalees@hotmail.com