If civilians rule
Dr. Niaz Murtaza
The idea may seem heretical and even scary to some: how would Pakistan do if civilians had full control? Civilians rule today but the “ministries” of foreign/security policies reside in Pindi. Civilian supremacy means generals decide the means of security policy, but civilians decide its ends and also where ends end and means start. War is too serious a matter to be left to generals, sages say. But foreign policy is the mother of war. If the daughter is unsafe left with generals, so is the mother.
But an odd logic rules Pakistan. For long, even overall governance was deemed too serious for civilians. Major losses to the country and army image under its rule slowly imposed the humility in Pindi that governance suits civilians. Yet, there is the residual belief that foreign/security policies are too serious for civilians given their flaws: corruption, dynastic politics, weak parties and institutions. Once civilians fix the flaws, they may run these policies.
Civilians surely have these flaws. Viewed morally, we should want their quick end. But seen evidentially, the aim is laughably naïve. These flaws emerge from deep societal structures and disappear slowly as society changes, however much we may huff and puff in angst. We may even hit a plateau, as across Latin America. So should civilians never run these domains? But inept civilians do run them in many states, and, as with governance, better than generals.
So, the stark decision before us is this: we should give these domains to them even if inept civilians rule us for long. Military minds suffer from tunnel vision focused on war given their long, intense training. Leave such domains to them and they, more than civilians, militarize relations with estranged states. Forty years of militarized foreign policy under Zia, Musharraf and others has hurt us even more than sleaze. Trump’s new policy deserves much critique. But so does our Pindi-devised Af-India one. Many worry civilians may sell our foreign policy for personal gains. But the three rulers who did so the most were Zia, Musharraf and Ayub. The one who didn’t was Bhutto.
Pakistanis crave for short-cuts to dramatic progress and usually see ending sleaze as a low-hanging fruit to gain such aims. But to adapt a famous saying thus: grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (quickly), the courage to change those I can (quickly), and the wisdom to know the difference. Pakistanis fail this saying badly for it is ending civ-mil imbalance and not sleaze which is more of a low-hanging fruit: the thing we can change quickly with some courage to yield political stability, regional economic links and faster growth. Its success chances and pay-offs are both clearer. China, India and many others have grown fast despite high sleaze. But no state adopting a dodgy foreign policy under its army’s hold has. No state has ended sleaze rapidly, as we dream about doing. But Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, etc. ended civ-mil imbalances quickly. This is because sleaze emerges from society’s depth but these imbalances merely reflect one institution’s ethos and individual free-wills. A self-serving free-will act by Ayub soon became institutional ethos. So, if we generate the same ire against civ-mil imbalance as against sleaze, we may see progress sooner.
But how do we put back in the bottle the genie which knows so many tricks to upend civilians? Ultimately, civilians must get the suave and courage to confront the Pindi boys. But this is tough for power-hungry politicians who curry their favor to gain power. Only a powerful but not power-seeking politician can do this. Nawaz fits this role involuntarily. I hope he gets roasted in NAB cases fairly and barred from formal politics. But being our strongest and most inclined politician, he should then focus informally on civ-mil balancing maturely. But it will be a long battle, with his role being merely a start.
This role for a crook politician may provoke indignant howls of protest from our “pious” lot. But this reaction reflects the naïve belief that super-humans will fix our ills. Jihadists, Marxists and Bonapartists share this view. But that clearly will not happen. Third world in-egalitarian societies largely produce deeply flawed institutions and public personalities, whether in politics, bureaucracy, military, business, media or even civil society. Changes there mainly come from the clash among these flawed entities, as they all target the negatives of others for their own gain. These clashes of the flawed produce more stalemates and reversals in some states, causing stagnation or collapse, but marginally more gains and hence slow progress in others like Pakistan. This realistically is our best bet: the snail’s crawl, bullock’s plod and tusker’s lumber under democracy.
Elected rule often harms us but its absence always devastates us. But do we have the wisdom to see this?
The writer is a Senior Fellow with UC Berkeley and heads INSPIRING Pakistan, a progressive policy unit. email@example.com www.inspiring.pk.
The Express Tribune > Pakistan > Sindh ‘Local government system virtually abolished in Sindh’ ‘Local government system virtually abolished in Sindh’ Speakers point out flaws in functioning of local bodies at launching ceremony of research study By News...
Islamabad-Advocating further political, administrative and financial devolution, experts on Wednesday pointed out several flaws in the Islamabad local government (LG) system. A review report launched by INSPIRING Pakistan and Pattan Development Organisation, Islamabad called for legislative...