Another government commission faltered last week, hours after it was formed to probe the kidnapping and killing of a journalist. The government did not consider it important to consult the Chief Justice of Pakistan before appointing a judge of the Supreme Court to head the commission. In fact, it did not even consult Justice Saqib Nisar, who was supposed to head it. He has refused to be associated with any commission formed without consultation with the CJP. This is not the first time it has happened. The government had not consulted the Chief Justice before including a sitting judge of the Supreme Court in the commission to investigate the May 2 American operation in Abbottabad. That probe is yet to take off as well. The delay in the proper constitution of these two important commissions is adding to the confusion and chaos, but the government seems to be least pushed about the repercussions of its inaction. Meanwhile, the anti-military lobby is having a field day, using these incidents to fuel its hate campaign against the armed forces and ISI. While there's nothing wrong with criticising the security establishment for indulging in political engineering and any other activity that falls outside its professional duties, there are aspects of the present bubble-headed campaign that are disturbing. The tone and tenor of those gunning for the military and ISI seem to be geared more for vicious vilification, rather than course correction of a vital national institution. It is as if they have decided to single out and hold the armed forces responsible for everything that's wrong with Pakistan, and they don't mind twisting facts and exaggerating figures in order to prove their point. They say their ire is directed against the military elite but they make no distinction in their slogans, condemning generals and colonels in the same breath. They are ready to believe the worst about the men in uniform and unwilling to give them credit where they deserve it. They say it is the best time to take them to task. Is it just a coincidence that their timing has synchronised so perfectly with the intensified anti-military chorus of the United States and its propaganda machine? These anti-military campaigners, who would like us to believe that they are the most patriotic citizens that a country could hope for, inhabit a world of politically correct democratic jargon and seem to be oblivious of the national and international context within which they are so vociferously campaigning. They have no qualms about parroting the statistics, conclusions and speculations from planted stories in the Western media, and spreading them through social networking sites. Videos from YouTube recently shared by some of them would like us to believe that the Pakistan Army is actually a Punjabi club that is torturing Pakhtuns. The articles and comments posted by these politically correct flag-bearers of democracy demonstrate that their criticism, nay vilification, stems from a borrowed and suspect narrative. Surely, their zeal to set our polity in order would be far more credible if it was not just an echoing of what they hear, or are fed, by the US-led propaganda machinery. On the other hand, responsible voices in the media have started demanding from the security establishment to assert itself vis--vis a clueless and insincere political leadership. In earlier times, columnists and editors used to literally invite the armed forces to rescue the nation from the clutches of an unscrupulous power elite and declare martial law. Not so long ago, we heard the MQM Chief, Altaf Hussain, appeal to the 'patriotic generals' to step in. The present reminders to the armed forces of their responsibilities to the nation are not so categorical or unconstitutional. The proposed solutions fall short of a clear-cut intervention and they would like an arrangement where the democratic cart is not thrown off the road completely. These voices reflect a lack of trust in the present political leadership and its ability to steer the country out of the increasing mess. And this brings us to the other side of the coin as far as the civil-military equation in Pakistan is concerned. The political elite must share the blame for the lopsided equation. While they talk about sending the army to the barracks, they hob-nob with the generals in clandestine meetings, striking deals to share power. While they chant hollow mantras of democracy, they use it as a mere tool to enjoy power and privileges and to abuse their positions. While they shed crocodile tears about the problems faced by the people, they are least interested in solving them. While they mouth rhetoric about respect for the independent judiciary, they would like to wish it away. They have miserably failed in giving a vision of hope to the nation and come across as stooges of imperialism. They stand discredited in the eyes of the public within a few years of coming to power and are viewed by the citizens as members of a privileged club, regardless of their political affiliations. The problems with the pseudo-democracy in Pakistan, that begins and ends at winning elections, are many, but in this particular context it boils down to a lack of credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of people they are supposed to represent. How could a political government that does not have the force of the people behind it assert its supremacy over the well-entrenched and disciplined armed forces? A government that has no political vision and is incapable of constituting a credible probe body cannot be expected to set the equation right. In any case, the civil and military leadership should not get into an adversarial relationship and engage in a zero-sum game. In even the most developed democracies, the security establishment is considered an important partner while chalking out national security policies. Observers feel that such a partnership already exists in the case of Pakistan. Even if the balance is tilted in the favour of the military, what is required is a correction of the balance and not throwing the military leadership out. And the best way to correct it would be for the political leadership to strengthen its democratic credentials so that its point of view holds more weight. The writer is a freelance columnist.