The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Since last weekend there has been much excitement in Pakistan over the botched coup attempt in Turkey. This wasn’t because the Turks and us have a special shared affinity since the Khilafat movement and we were worried sick how our brethren might fare under a dictatorship.
Pakistan and Turkey have both suffered military interventions in the past and that hasn’t affected our bond. (Actually it might be no exaggeration to say that General Musharraf has been more popular with our Turkish friends that any contemporary Pakistani ruler).
Many of us watched what was unfolding in Turkey with anxiety about its likely effect in Pakistan. In a country where the fear of a saviour is omnipresent; a fear that begins to grow once an elected government’s initial honeymoon period has ended, and becomes especially pronounced near a scheduled change of guard at the GHQ, it was obvious that the effects of a putsch in Turkey would be felt in Pakistan. More so as no other army chief in recent history has enjoyed the reputation of a deliverer that General R has built for himself.
With banners displayed on streets across Pakistan inviting the army chief to “move in”, with the Sharif family embroiled in the Panama scandal that won’t go away, and with the opposition launching an all-out agitation against the PML-N government, the success of a praetorian adventure in Turkey at this time could have been ominous not only for the Sharifs but also for democratic continuity and constitutionalism in Pakistan. But the fact that it failed doesn’t necessarily mean that our appetite for adventurism will also whittle down.
The glee of the PML-N and its devotees over Turkey’s failed coup is palpable. On the other hand, apologists of adventurism have been at pains to explain that the coup failed solely because it was not fully backed by the military and was badly executed. Both sides are playing out scenarios in their minds in the context of Pakistan. Team PML-N wishes the failed Turkish coup to act as a deterrent in Pakistan. And Team SaviourVille is essentially saying that had the putsch been in the land of the pure, any question of ‘failure’ wouldn’t even arise.
There are two essential parts of this advisory. One, that had it been Pakistan, the top military leadership would lead a coup and not the ranks of a divided military as in Turkey, and would therefore succeed. And two, that public response would be one of celebrating such forced takeover by the military as opposed to resisting it. In other words, Pakistan military and its ‘men at their best’ wouldn’t do a sloppy job at launching a coup if they so wished, and if they so wished, ordinary people would welcome the move.
There can be no quarrel with any of this. And that is probably why many in Pakistan viewed the spectacular scenes emanating from Turkey – a military not united behind usurpation of the constitution; ordinary people resisting a forced takeover by fellow soldiers with tanks and guns, even at the cost of their lives – with nothing but sheer envy.
Almost everyone who has studied the ethos and structure of our military will agree that only the army chief can launch a successful coup in Pakistan. And thank God for that.
“Who guards the guardians,” Plato had asked in The Republic. “The wonder…is not why the military rebels against its civilian masters, but why it ever obeys them”, Samuel Finer had mused in The Man on the Horseback. In societies transitioning from rule of men to rule of law, constitutionalism, institutional evolution, political stability and civility all remain at the mercy of individuals wielding power before the transition is complete. Why else are we appealing to General R himself to be a good man and do the right thing on the matter of his extension?
There is a lot of nonsense being bandied about Erdogan and his government to explain the failed coup in Turkey, especially by those who wish military coups to remain a live threat in Pakistan. Our excellent all-weather relationship with Turkey aside, Erdogan is seen to be as autocratic a civilian leader as can be. He has been accused of showing no patience for dissent, for persecuting opponents, generals, judges, academics, journalists (anyone who opposes him really), of censoring the media, and of being involved in a corruption scandal.
Notwithstanding Turkey’s economic progress over the last decade and a half, Erdogan is not the ‘messiah’ he has been made out to be in Pakistan. And the cause of envy in relation to Turkey’s response to the attempted coup was just that: despite all the failings of Erdogan and the fear of further repression if he survived, even his harshest critics in Turkey opposed the putsch. It seemed that Turkey had graduated to a higher level of evolution with its people collectively rejecting the law of the jungle as a necessary response to a controversial leader.
This was sadly lost on Imran Khan and others embellishing a possible coup and peoples’ acceptance of it as a legitimate response to a bad government in Pakistan. Guardians using force to enforce the law is one thing. But to bring out tanks and armour that a nation hands them to fight enemies and draw guns to threaten fellow countrymen to abide by their diktat is simply abhorrent. Such use of force to conquer one’s own home can never be legitimate. But questions of legitimacy are still not part of the norms that guide our behaviour and actions.
The argument that military rule is welcome because an incumbent civilian leader is terrible is devoid of logical reasoning. The UK is going through a political crisis. But the question of the military taking over the government because politicians seem to be failing might have crossed no one’s mind. A Trump presidency might a nightmare for the US (and the world). But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff assuming control of Washington on the basis that the political class is rotten and has failed the country is not even imaginable.
We are not the US or UK and our institutions are at a different stage of evolution. But so is our consciousness, which is why our constitution and our laws are still mere lines in the sand within our own contemplation. We eulogise the military. But we fail to comprehend that the military is great because it is not dependent on the greatness of one individual. No one doubts that when a COAS walks into the sunset and the next commander takes over, he will wield the same authority that his predecessor did and have the allegiance of all those who don the uniform.
The military performs because it follows its rulebook meticulously. But rule of law in Pakistan remains at peril for many reasons, including that within the military mindset the command of the constitution doesn’t trump the command of the commander. If the military gets a terrible commander, the institution waits him out cognizant that breach of rules or chain of command will do more long-term harm to the institution than good. But the logic breaks down when it comes to evolution and strengthening of vital civilian institutions.
That a general has done a great job as army chief doesn’t qualify him to take over the country. That a military takeover is still possible doesn’t mean we must side with a prime minister unconditionally or not hold his feet to fire.
But what leaders like IK mustn’t do is endorse the argument that a rotten civilian government is justification enough for martial law and public acceptance of it. For that feeds into the larger narrative that we have a failed civilian political class due to which democratic continuity will pay no dividends ever. That is the biggest threat to democracy in Pakistan; not one failed leader or non-performing government. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/136970-Turkey-and-Pakistan
Comments are closed.