Fears of a Military Coup in Pakistan

Mr. Waheed:

I appreciate your attempt to express yourself in the National Language. It was hard to read your concerns, a little bit of Aa`raab would have helped.

Secondly, just like you ended up writing your senseless review I ``Waqtun Fawaqtun`` have an urge to bring the Baa`Mauqa or Bae`Mauqaa verses from the Kulyaat. My prerogative! You are not obligated to read.

Simple!

Take Care

To UR:

Well Said.

Regards

It`s too early to comment on whether the coup was good for Pakistan or not. What can be said for a fact however is that the ``democratic`` status quo was seen to be an utter failure.

The real question is what is the true reason for the coup?

1. Was this an impulsive reaction to being so obviously stabbed in the back by Nawaz Sharif?

2. Does the General truly have Pakistan`s best interests in mind and simply chose this incident as the final straw to a serious of injustices commited by the Sharif government?

3. Is the General( or the army) personally interested in the top job of Pakistan slowly planning this coup for a while and used his dismissal as an excuse?

The great danger in martial law is of course that the ruling military is not accountable to anyone.

However at the same time I question the blind acceptance of a western style democracy as the solution to Pakistan`s problems. In order for a western style democracy to be successful, you need:

1. Feudal System to be abolished.

2. Financially the majority of the people be belonging to the middle class.

3. A significant majority of the population to be literate.

4. Political Parties that don`t operate as the leadership candidates personal hoodlums. I.e there is a real party platform that provides real solutions to guiding the country.

5. A justice system that has the power to hold the politicians accountable for their actions.

6. Major institutions such as the Police,Education system and Banks to be operating with majority of it`s employees being honest and ethical.

Pakistan rates very poorly on all of these points. And as such it`s political climate will always be ripe for dictatorships unless the very foundations of Pakistani life are properly established.

If one looks at the rise of democracy in the west, you see that of the 6 points I mentioned , #1 and #2 were an absolute necessity before the nations can even begin to move towards democracy. Yet even then the early forms of democracy were very limited to ``elite`` of the country. This was normally done by establishing ``rules`` on who is allowed to vote. e.g a certain amount of income used to be required and many other rules. Eventually as literacy rates increased, the rules were changed to enable the majority of the men and women to vote.

Voting for a leader requires knowledge and understanding what the political parties stand for. Illiterate people simply aren`t in the position to make an informed decision. What ends up happening in modern -day Pakistani elections is that the candidates either appeal to the emotion of the voters in the cities or buy out their feudal masters in the villages. Then the people just vote for whomever the master says to vote for. Similar events occur in the tribal areas.

Unfortunately the westerners and Pakistanis themselves have forgotten how long it took for democracy to evolve in Europe and North America, and instead look as democracy being the quick fix to everyone`s problems. As another reader mentioned earlier, Russia is a prime example of how this went wrong. Russia went from being a socialist state ruled by the communist party elite to a ``democracy`` ruled by the ex-communist party elite. The prime reason for Russia`s problems isn`t #1-#3 rather is the the lack of #4-#6. Especially their gov`t not being accountable to the general public via a functional ethical justice system.

Regards,

Fozia

JR:

You stated: ``You know better than I that the Armed Forces in Pakistan enjoy a very elitist position. Most of the officers children are abroad and the officers themselves live quite lavishly with their bungalows and officer`s clubs-all at the expense of the common man.``

Have you ever served in the Pakistan military? I did for a long time, and believe me your statement is furthust from the truth. The reason I left the military was because I could barely make a living. The Pakistani military is one of the lowest paid professional jobs in the country. Very few people in Pakistan chose the military as their first choice of profession. Most youngsters try to go towards jobs in the business, medicine, computer industry etc., or Civil Services. The military is usually way down on their list. For the record, my wife and I never lived in anything even close to a bungalow. We could barely pay our bills, with my salary. The only people in the military who some lavishness in their lives are the senior generals. And their lavishness is quite a bit below the lavishness of their civilian counterparts. I believe the above is true for the Indian military, as well (although, I cannot say with certainity regarding the Indian armed forces).

I am not stating this to support the military. I am just describing a fact.

Re: ALL

This was perhaps the only way, short and sweet that Nooaaz-Sheriff`s govt could have been disbanded. Wether he bought, coerced, bribed the ``mandayte`` is besides the issue. He however did have the ``heavy mandayte``. They really would have to do it the ``legal way`` which ``they`` thought would be too long, and hey, my god would set some half decent precedent in the country for a change.

The so much timid Musharaf, almost reminded me of Bhutto, Gialani, Zia triangle...my god...what a flash back.

Generals, my foot...!!! They are all in together. The ever green ex-cia club in washington, bueraucrats/technocrats and party. Its not even funny any more.

P.S: Zahra Bibi

humaray haal per rahem kha`eyae, aour waqat baywaqat, batukkay aour baymozooN iqbal kay shaer daghnaa baund farmaeyae...! Aap bayshak mussllaye per bara-jamaan ho ker noor jahan kay jang 65 kay milli naghmaye sunniyyae, aour dua go rehaye, kay aap kay Fauji humayshaa aap kay sir kay saa`aye baan rahaiN...humain aisaye koi shoak nahin. Aour aggar aap iss ghalat fehmi kaa shikaar hain kay mulk ka difaa sirf aap key Fauj he karr saktee haye aour baqi saaree qauom baygharait haye toua aap foraaN Haj key tiyyaree kiyjeeyae, Munataey maaneeyae aour mazaaroN key taraf rajooh farma`eyae, shaid aap hey key du`aoN mein asar ho...!

In response to ``two-nations`` (Reply #: 60):

Dear ``two-nations`` (What a name! Can your explain its?):

You have made some interesting points. Permit me to summarize them:

First, ``the army is well in power now.``

Second, ``it would be foolish to return to some interim government.``

Third, the ``entire system has to be scrapped`` and a constitution needs to be promulgated.

Fourth, in the new set up Army must have a formal role in governance.

Fifth, the new constitution must be based on Quran/Koran.

Sixth, the westernized elite (proponents of liberal democracy in Pakistan) are far removed from the ground realities.

Seventh, the westernized elite must be deported from Pakistan (at the cost of public money).

Eighth, and finally, that ``God`` help Pakistan ``come to grips so that the people can stop suffering.``

Let me respond:

First, the army is still not in power in a formal sense. Nonetheless, Army has long been in virtual control of Pakistan. The Army is an important part of the problems of Pakistan.

Second, yes it would be foolish to return power to some interim government that is honest, trustworthy, free, and cognizant of the real problems of Pakistan. This would hurt a lot of people of power in Pakistan.

Third, the existing constitution has no meaning if an Army general can overthrow a democratically elected government. The Army has killed the constitution on two other occasions in our history. Perhaps we still do not understand the meaning of the Constitution. However, our existing Constitution needs an overhaul, but through a high level democratically agreed Constitutional Commission.

Fourth, why the Army needs a role in governance when it already virtually controls Pakistan (Share of resources; Fauji Foundation; appointment of retired Army officers in many public and private Corporations; and other goodies).

Fifth, why the Constitution be based on the Quran, why not the Quran be the Constitution? By doing so, people will think several times before making any attempt to dishonor it. If your argument has any real power, we would solve all of our problems by adopting the Quran as our Constitution. At this juncture, we may make it easy for our non-Muslim minorities to leave Pakistan (if they wish so). But, there is one major danger. Can you think of that?

Sixth, who is not westernized (in one form or another) in Pakistan? For example, you and I are westernized because we have written this post in English language. Why liberal democracy is inappropriate for Pakistan? What ground reality, what it entails?

Seventh, the westernized elite would love to get out of Pakistan if they are allowed to take their wealth with them. Why should the public pay for their tickets? And, who are you/we to throw them out of Pakistan?

Eighth, and finally, if you/we only look toward the God for help and do nothing to end our sufferings, God surely is not going to help us.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Karakoram,

I`ll update my records. Good to know you don`t have Army connections, then I value your opinion more than those that have Army connections.

You know better than I that the Armed Forces in Pakistan enjoy a very elitist position. Most of the officers children are abroad and the officers themselves live quite lavishly with their bungalows and officer`s clubs- all at the expense of the common man. The very reason the Army wants a continued confrontation with India is because they can conjure up this spectre of an India ready to attack Pakistan and thereby keep the budget funds coming straight into the Army`s pockets rather than for any other cause. The Army people want to protect their life styles and Nawaz was trying to short change them by diverting funds into his pocket. That`s why he got it bad.

Please don`t trust your benevolent Army to keep the nation`s interests in mind.

two-nations:

Regarding reply 60: I agree partly. A new system does need to be in place. I do not think giving the army an institutionalized role in politics is the right idea. The correct way to go, in my opinion, is to bring back the checks and balances that existed earlier, and that NS has worked so hard to remove. Had the 8th amendment been in place, the army would not have needed to act directly.

Also, I think people over-estimate the popularity of clergy in Pakistan. If you take a look at previous elections, the Pakistan population has never even come close to voting for religious parties. The current National Assembly has only 2-3% representation from a combined religious group of parties. The religious parties are very vocal, and have a very very strong following amongst their very small group of followers. The general population doesn`t care for them. Again, the election results of the past bear this out. Any govt. with an institutionalized rule for the clergy will divide the country up on secretarain lines, because many groups amongst the clergy hate each other.

I vote for:

`` The Empire Strikes Back``

:-)

There seems to be a significant body of opinion in Pakistan that a great military victory in Kargil was thrown away politically in Washington. This is contrary to the Indian view whereby a facesaving exit for Pakistan was negotiated from a humiliating military misadventure. In hindsight, it was a mistake by Nawaz Sharif to put himself in the center of the Pakistani climb-down in DC and not have humiliated the military with himself. This allowed the military and many Pakistanis to delude themselves about a military victory in Kargil.

From an Indian viewpoint, the most disappointing thing about the final act of Kargil was a lack of any sense of humiliation of the Pakistani Army about itself. Yes we feel the Pak Army was humiliated but the Pak Army does not feel that about itself. In certain circumstances, self-humiliation is necessary so that the beast does not rise again. The beast of military rule has risen again. Pakistanis have to realize that the growth of Pakistan is in the hands of the common man - it is not in the hands of the army or Nawaz or Benazir. The only way a common man takes control of his own destiny is by giving democracy time to take root. Bihar in India has gone through a decade of misrule but at the end of it all, the Biharis have realized caste-affiliations are not a substitute for good governance. This is an extremely valuable lesson in itself and it is through the process of democracy, failures included, that the realization has made its way into the consciousness of the common man. A decade of civilian rule in Pakistan is not long enough - I give Karamat credit for going gently into the night even if NS was dead wrong in the decision. Pervez still hasnt got it.

I am going to go out on a limb here. These coups may have a theological/social/religious basis - when you believe the collective wisdom of the people should be subordinate to a holy book because the book is divinely inspired, it is very easy to believe that democracy itself is at fault.

A military coup is a far cry from Iqbal`s exhortation of raising consciousness to the point where khuda himself asks bataa teri marzi hay kya?

A lot of people seem to be confusing the Pakistani`s support of the coup, with support of Army rule. They are two different things. This coup, in my opinion, as much as I hate to say it, was a necessary evil. NS had blocked all constitutional ways of getting rid of corrupt rulers (it could not be done through the President, through the Supreme Court, through a vote of no-confidence, or through street protests). I have no doubt he would have been able to manipulate the next elections, and would have gotten himself elected again. By that time, Pakistan would have completely gone down the drain. This is what I believe most Pakistanis seem to think, as well. This is apparent from the news reports from Pakistan. However, I do not think too many Pakistanis support an extended military rule. I certainly do not.

two-nations:

I saw Oakley`s interview also. I thought he made some very good observations. He stated that perhaps a technocrat govt. for a few years was the right idea. He stated that the previous technocrat govt. (of Moeen Qureshi) had worked well, but all their good work had been undone by NS and BB. He also stated that the civilian govts., similar to those of the past (refering to BB and NS) were only going to cause more problems. He also suggested that extended military rule would not work either, because it had not worked out earlier. I agree with his analysis.

I would like to make a point here, regarding elections. Elections are only worthwile, if they are actually in a free and fair environment. Otherwise, they only legitimize the rule of the thugs. Take Benazir, as an example. She has been convicted of corruption by the Pakistani courts, the Swiss courts. Independent investigations by BBC, New York Times etc. have also proven her corruption. She is the current poster child for Transparency International. Everyone in Pakistan knows she is incompotent and corrupt. Yet if elections were held today, she would win by a landslide in her constituency of Larkana. The reason is that Benazir and her ancestors have been the ruling feudal landlords of that area for ages. Even if her 10 year old kid stood for elections, he would win. There are tribal lords with murder cases against them in Baluchistan, who win unopposed again and again. These are the anamolies of the Pakistani elections that people in the West do not seem to understand. This process will not be changed by BB or NS, because it suits them perfectly. Someone needs to create a level playing field for the average citizen.

I hope some kind of neutral govt. can be put into place that makes changes like land reforms etc. If the whole govt. can be removed in two hours without firing a shot, then introducing land and other reforms is also not that hard. It just requires motivation, and the right people in positions of power. If this is not done, then Pakistan would have been better off without the coup.

This is unbelievable! Just because a person cares to write about his/her likings for the army or for the Civil Govt that in no way implies a family connection. I guess very few people are vocal enough to write about their likes and dislikes openly. Probably they do not want to be labelled as pro-Army or pro-Civilians.

In case, if they change their views for some reason then they will feel awkward. What should a fellow do if he/she has a soft corner for both?

Simply because both entities serve a different role. The defenders will be the defenders and not the rulers. Whereas the rulers cannot be the defenders. Lastly, in the time of despair, when the world is not regarding Pakistan in a stable condition i.e ????the PM should have given a second thought before putting the country in an embarassing position. (Adding Fuel to the Fire)

Whats truly amazing is that the coup was bloodless. Not one person believed in Nawaz or the democracy in place, to protest (let alone die for)what they were losing. They knew that they were not losing anything. Except maybe Nawaz, which for many was a plus point.

JR:

It seems you know much about chowk pakistanis. Just so that you have enough info on me, none of my family members are in the armed forces and neither do I think that the Army is qualified to govern. They may do a better job at law and order than Nawaz though. And they are known not to be corrupt. They do however need to get back to the barracks, lest they lose these qualities by spending too much time with the politicians.

I suggest that this article be named one of two names:

A bridge too far

or

The Empire Strikes back

What we are seeing is a lot of support for the army from chowk pakistanis. A good segment of chowk Pakistanis have army connections/relatives and that is why they are so supportive of the Army`s actions. Among Pakistani elite are mostly ex-Army or children and relatives of Armed Forces Personnel. Only these people can make it in and out of Pakistan. So, the chowk Pakistanis reactions are understandable.

Mr. Rishi:

No doubt the government was the elected government and I am not even saying that what happened with the elected government should have happened. I am in fact quite sad to hear that.

But one ``reckless`` act that leads to an ouster is very sad and shows the ``wisdom`` of the ruler.

On other hand, I am not sure what is the clause and where is this clause that says the PM can kick out the army Chief any time. I am criticizing the disgraceful and very embarassing act by the PM`s Team. That is it. If it lead to the ``Taking Over`` by the army that is something else. I am indifferent to that.

The Genereal was on duty. There is certain respect that should be shown to the senior most fellow on duty. Otherwise there should be no ranks in army or in Civil Govt. Every one should be treated alike.

BTW, on what basis can any PM retire the army general ? For his strong headedness ? Do you mind consulting your sources and enlightening me on that ? ( *_ *)

Well, the armed forces are the ones defending the borders so that internally there is a stable govt. Now if the ruling govt. tries to shake the ``defenders`` then there should be a roar.

Note: Yes, I have always had a lot of respect for the armed forces as the defenders of the country. I guess I am entitled to have this liking unless rules have changed on that ? Must have happened recently!