WHILE the result of the recent crisis has caused national jubilation, it should not obscure the hidden corners which left the undemocratic practices of the past to continue. One such aspect has been the role of the military. In the recent crisis, it still bulked larger than it was supposed to, and played a major role in persuading the President that it was best if he acceded to the demands of the protesters. It was only after this intervention that the President was prepared to accede to the Prime Minister's decision to accede to the restoration of the non-PCO judiciary, which was the demand of the protesters. A simple chronology of the crisis shows that the Chief of Army Staff did not intervene once, but several times, in what was essentially a political matter, which should have been settled between politicians. It remains a pity that the two major parties of the country have signed a Charter of Democracy, of which the cornerstone was the stopping of the way of all future intervention by the military in politics, but when it comes to a crisis, and that too involving as non-military an institution as the judiciary, it is the military to which politicians turn. In a 'Spearhead Analysis' in this newspaper, former COAS and Ambassador to USA Gen (retd) Jehangir Karamat has spoken of the military following the 'Kiyani Model', whereby it did not take over, but remained "invisible but around, fully informed and acting through well timed and effective influence in the right quarter." This is the portrayal of a military which chose not to take over, not one which could not, as is supposed to be the case in democracies and countries under constitutional rule. However, as General Karamat noted, a precedent has been set, one of non-intervention, that should be followed in future to the extent that in future crises, political parties will deal with each other without any interlocutors, and the military will find itself with no other role but the one that other institutions of state had in this one: spectators. No doubt, spectators are uncomfortable, and this role sits ill on those trained to be men of action. But constitutional rule requires that state institutions should obey, and not be as anxious to save the state as our military professes itself to be. Pakistan has as much of a history of military intervention as the other examples General Karamat mentioned, Thailand and Bangladesh, but its military has this time proved that it does not seek to intervene until the political breakdown is irretrievable.