The Economist story from Saturday has made rounds all along social media. The Pakistani social media community has been abuzz with discussion over it. However, it is another string of continuous evidence that the foreign media belonging to the West comments on issues that confront third world countries when it has no grip on and is usually ignorant of facts on the ground. The article made a tremendous contribution to the fictional fantasy of how Pakistan is run – it was factually flawed in all respects.
It cannot be refuted that the army chief is the most covered man in the news, but what The Economist has ignored is the historical perspective to his role. General Raheel Sharif is not the first army chief to be covered in such a way – his predecessor enjoyed the same limelight if not more. Politicians are not only using his picture for publicity; they have previously used pictures of a sitting chief justice as well. Pakistan's democracy is a facade, the candidates try to sordidly use the reputation of anyone popular within the masses for electoral gain; whether a judge, general, cricket star or a hardline cleric.
The Economist then makes another mistake. It misleadingly articulates that the military is reasserting itself, when they don't need to do that. They are already the ones that call all the shots. Way before Prime Minister Sharif's stint when the Pakistan Peoples’ Party was in power, they used to complain about the army making all crucial calls, including the decisions on trade with India. Former Prime Minster Gillani once asked on the floor of the parliament what type of visa was granted to Osama Bin Laden hitting directly at the intelligence agencies.
That the army is engaging in a public-relations war couldn't be further from the truth. Yes the ISPR notifies the press about its chief every visit, but that's its job. ISPR has always been doing it, it’s the discretion of the mainstream media to project it nationally, and so it does with every release of ISPR. The media shows what its viewers want to see; and the army chief's picture of masculine and strong body language is something subliminally all Pakistanis want to see, especially with the war declared on terrorists and insurgent and the ceasefire violations with India. Nevertheless, The Economist picks up on this point; it asserts that General Sharif should receive more than usual publicity is understandable given the country remains mired in a bloody internal conflict.
Then it makes another error by suggesting, quite imprudently, that the constant boosting of the army has come at the price of undermining Pakistan’s civilian rulers. This is not true. Pakistan's civilian leaders have been undermined because of infighting amongst themselves. To this day, Imran Khan has made political gains and is seen as a widely popular politician. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Prime Minister. An Under 19 cricket match was stopped and the players and officials were forcibly removed from the ground so that the son-in-law of the Prime Minister could land his helicopter. It is events like these which undermine the civilian leaders. The fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the son-in-law further aggravates the undermining of the civilian leaders.
The landslide majority of the Prime Minister has come to nothing, because of the suspicions on his mandate expressed by a large portion of Pakistan's populace. It was the allegations of rigging and protests by nearly all the political parties in Pakistan which resulted in him not being able to control the country's foreign policy. The trade agreement with India cannot be finalized unless the ceasefire violations from both sides of the border stop. The treason charges against General Musharraf were halted because of the government being unable to take tough decisions and implement the Constitution. He is still more or less confined within the boundaries of his home.
The allegations levelled by The Economist on a military takeover and an extension for the army chief are pure speculation and without source. If it had alleged it against a British general, it could have seen itself faced with a number of lawsuits.
The article states that no one is calling for a drive against the corruption that pervades the army’s vast commercial empire. It is ignorant of the fact that just last month two high-ranking military officials were publicly shamed for misusing funds, in a move many army-watchers applauded as a significant attempt by the country’s top general to clean up corruption in the all-powerful institution.
Of course, the army would always call its actions successful, that's a feature all armies in the globe share. It is discriminatory to expect truthfulness and humility from only the armed forces of Pakistan. Questions about the gunmen entering the air force camp have not been asked because of the tremendous positive public opinion the army enjoys and the fact that it is in a state of war. This is what a war is supposed to be, you hit, but sometimes you get hit. In July four marines were killed after an attacker entered and fired at two military recruiting stations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The US media did not ask questions about how he entered; rather they applauded the marines for laying down their life for the country.
All in all, this article by The Economist was a defamatory smear campaign against the Pakistan's army's chief. International news outlets, with an immunity of persecution continue to defame individuals and organizations from third world countries without a grip on the facts at the ground. This needs to stop.