Ever since Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf began its dharnas in mid-August, there has been a massive influx of opinions, a shift in loyalties and a confusion of concepts in the Pakistani people. There are various categories and explanations and interpretations of what has become one of the most controversial buzzword of Pakistani politics: democracy.
There are many analysts and politicians whose statements and version of events have been making their rounds in the sphere of public opinion. As Pakistan breathlessly watched the drama unfolding between PTI/PAT and the government, with an insidious influence of some military officials and the chants of some dictatorship-happy commentators, the many years of fractures of the civil-military nexus were undressed and you could see, almost in a Dickensian way, the ghost of martial law past, present and future.
The talks of soft coups and hard coups, the infamous tweets of the DG ISPR when PTI/PAT workers violently charged into the Red Zone; the praise for Gen Raheel Sharif for not overthrowing the government and the reserve of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for standing his ground and accompanying political parties such as ANP and PPP supporting him in doing so – all painted a terse and critical picture. The message was clear: for a country like Pakistan, democracy was not going to come easy.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek became the latest players to challenge the system – but not in a good way. In the events that unfolded in 2014, they starred on the wrong side of history. They were not fighting for a democratic or civilian supremacy – but were frequently quoted to say things like, “Even Musharraf’s dictatorship was better than this government!”
There was a talk of revolution and change and a new Pakistani order, so to speak, but the viewers were confused: PTI was already ruling the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwah and Pakistani Awaami Tehreek was not even an elected representative party of the country at the moment. Given all of that, PTI had the scapegoat of rigged elections whereas PAT had the case for Model Town – both parties demanded that Nawaz Sharif resign. What happens after that or who takes over after or in case Sharif resigned - was a question that parties themselves were unable to answer adequately.
In the political confusion and chaos, the print and televised media played an absolutely crucial role in shaping public opinion. Pakistanis, already confused with the idea of what civil supremacy is, already finding themselves supporting dictators like Musharraf and, in some cases, praising Generals Zia and Ayub, couldn’t understand what was so terribly wrong about rooting for a martial law.
There were few voices that bleated about the importance of civilian rule, about minimising the role of the Army in the political arena; what we all saw were fruits of a poisonous tree. Analysts and even certain politicians, flanked with money and strong, far-reaching mouthpieces (viz private channels), picked up easy rhetorical devices (look, people are dying, look this is falling apart, look that is falling apart) and blamed anything and everything to the civilian government and brazenly called for a martial law.
The story unfolded thus – Dr. Qadri left the country after his ‘movement’ winded down into a slow trickle and Imran Khan kept his march on – keeping D-Chowk as ceremonial grounds for returning. Post the December attack on Army Public School, Peshawar, Khan wrapped up his dharna – only to soon restart his rigging allegation diatribe less than a month after the attack.
In the meantime, the civilian government and the military heads were seen rolling out the punches against terrorist outfits. Swift capital punishments, banning hate literature/speech, a crackdown on certain militant outfits and the much-debated military courts.
Parliamentarians and democracy champions were wounded by the idea of introducing military courts to test and try the criminals that were able to suppress and dominate civilians and the existing judicial system in the country. The fan club of dictators weren’t as perturbed, quite obviously. They had nothing to add to a fissure in the democratic setup. However, when the democratic setup began showing some failures of its own (the recent most being the petrol shortage), the defenders of the defenders (those peddling the dictatorship agenda), were more than happy to hail the image and the work of General Raheel Sharif as a ‘leader’ and scoff, once again, at the ineptitude of civilian leadership. These defenders conveniently forgot that the creation of Taliban and many militant outfits across Pakistan, including the harmful militant/Islamist ideology has been the gift of dictators to this country and its people. These defenders also forgot how strategic depths and proxy wars were not works of civilian leaderships - but military commanders who seemed all too happy to govern the country as well. These defenders forgot that Pakistan was supposed to be a democratic country - and the Army has no place in the ranks of elected officials. These defenders also couldn’t understand the irony or the absurdity of military officials pushing political agendas
The problem here is that in a country like Pakistan, one that is developing, one that has major infrastructure and law and order issues, one that ranks low on all good scales of human development (safety, education, wealth and environmental well-being) and ranks high on all terrible scales known to researches (number of journalists killed, infant mortality, violence against women, terror attacks), it is extremely easy for situations to spiral out of control. Add a struggling leadership and you’ve got a minefield of disasters waiting to happen.
This makes it incredibly easy to take out rallies and protest and wail on TV shows against a civilian leadership. This makes it incredibly easy for ‘Hawaldaar Media’ to put civilian leaders in the target and hold them responsible for ‘incompetence’ and ‘failure’ and ‘inefficiency’. This makes it incredibly easy to sweep under the carpet the years of failures that have been owed to this country at the hands of military rule. This makes it incredibly easy to forget that Voltaire once said, “To find out who rules over you, see who you cannot criticise”. This makes it incredibly easy to forget that Pakistan’s first proper constitution (one that was based on principles of democracy and voted unanimously for) was shaped in 1973. This makes it incredibly easy to forget that Pakistan has failed to have more than twenty consecutive years of civilian leadership.
Yet it is civilian leaders you will see in talk shows. It is a civilian leader known as Benazir Bhutto who died at the hands of a monster that was created by the trigger happy policies of our military leadership. It is civilian leaders that the people of Pakistan want to hold ‘accountable’ for crimes they may or may not have committed. It is civilian leaders we make fun of, we spoof their accents, we rag them for their food choices and dissect their statements and it is civilian leadership that bears the cost, the brunt and the face of Pakistani failures – which are not exclusively civilian failures to begin with.
Perhaps it is time for the country, for the ‘free and vibrant media’, for the intelligentsia to start understanding the impact of their support for the military. Perhaps it is time to hand out a copy of the theory of separation of powers to these ‘informed analysts’ and ‘experts’ to understand the true meaning of democracy does not mean a five-star general presiding over the Parliament. Perhaps it is time for Pakistan to understand the shift in narrative, to stand in clear and objective view of what it wants for the future. A government of the people, by the people and for the people? Or merely the pretense of a democracy, a sham that secretly is ready and prepared for a general to take over?
Yet again?