Last week, National Party President and Federal Minister for Ports and Shipping Mir Hasil Khan Bizenjo delivered a tirade in the upper house against the military for its alleged meddling in the election of Senate chairman and deputy chairman, which according to him caused the defeat of the ruling alliance's candidates. On the face of it, the result was hardly surprising. The ruling alliance had lacked the required numbers. And the opposition parties would not be worth their salt were they to allow the ruling party win while they could exploit political possibilities to their advantage.
But, perhaps, Mir Sahib knows something we don't. After all, he has had first-hand experience dealing with such situations. A case in point is the Asghar Khan Case, which exposed how before the 1990 general elections the military intelligence agency, ISI, distributed money among a group of politicians to prevent the PPP from returning to power. As per an affidavit former ISI chief Let-General Assad Durrani furnished in 2012 before the apex court hearing Asghar Khan's long pending petition, those who received money from the ISI to keep the PPP out included the names Mir Hasil Bizenjo and Mian Nawaz Sharif for taking Rs 0.5 million and Rs 3.5 million, respectively, from the meddlesome men in uniform.
The past, as someone famously said, is a foreign country; they did things differently there. Old habits die hard, however. The soldiers may still be doing things they are not supposed to do; there is no reason, nonetheless, to believe they have been behind Nawaz Sharif's legal troubles, as alleged by him and his supporters. Still reeling from his side's setback, while addressing a party workers meeting last Sunday, Mir Bizenjo called for a 'grand debate' among key institutions to take the country forward in a dignified manner, and defuse the tension in the present political atmosphere. "The time has come," he said, "for the politicians, the judiciary and army to hold a dialogue to ensure they would remain within their limits." Not too long ago, former Senate chairman Raza Rabbani had also proposed a similar 'grand dialogue". There can be no two opinions on that all institutions should play their respective roles, and refrain from interfering in the other's domain. The proposal, though, makes little practical sense considering that the role of all institutions is clearly defined by the Constitution. All concerned already know the limits of their respective remits. An inter-institutional conversation will not make them any wiser.
It is obvious to any impartial observer that the cause of the present 'atmosphere of tension' are the legal proceedings in the Panama Papers corruption case involving the ruling PML-N 'supreme leader' former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif and his family. Since his ouster in a related case, Mian Sahib has constantly been attacking the judiciary, and not-so indirectly the Army, for his situation. At the risk of sounding trite one must remind his defenders that the Panama Papers revelations about the Sharif family's controversial purchase of pricey properties in London came from Germany-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, not some plotting and scheming source in this country. If he really believed in democratic traditions, Nawaz Sharif should have stepped down soon after the scandal surfaced. Instead he chose to fight on by maligning the judiciary. Even if for argument's sake it is assumed that he is not guilty of the crime he is accused of, like any other citizen in a similar position he should have proved his innocence inside the court - which, so far, he has failed to do - rather than attack a state institution for performing its functions in a fair and transparent manner. There would have been no tension had he bowed before law.
In his speech, the NP leader also said if the armed forces recognized that they had made mistakes in the past, politicians would also admit they made mistakes, and the situation would normalize-an obviously puerile suggestion. Listing some of the mistakes committed by military leadership in the past, he said, Pakistan should never have been involved in the Afghan war during the 1980s and later in the so-called war against terrorism, had there been an understanding between the civil and military institutions. No sane person can quarrel with this part of his statement. Or for voicing a common concern that organizations proscribed by the UN continued to be "supported" and "encouraged" by 'institutions' till things went "totally against Pakistan" at the Financial Action Task Force meeting in Paris. He stopped short of saying anything about the civilian authority's mistakes. Delving in the past, however, is of no use in view of the fact that all sides-politicians, military and the judiciary- behaved badly all through the checkered political history of this country. As regards proscribed organizations, this government's track record is not any better. Under the political consensus-based National Action Plan, among other measures, it was to ensure banned organizations did not reemerge under new names, deal firmly with sectarian terrorists, and choke financing for terrorists and terrorist organizations. Yet, banned outfits - all sectarian terrorists - have not only been allowed to reinvent their identities, senior government ministers are known to hobnob with them. If there has been any attempt to block funding for them, it is not known.
The main systemic contradiction, needless to say, is in civil-military relations. It will not be resolved by finger pointing or holding a grand dialogue. It arises from misgovernance by the political class, creating opportunities for the military to encroach upon civilian space. Things will change for the better only when those elected to govern clean up their own act, protecting and promoting greater public interest rather than narrow self-interest.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.