A Straight “No” To Army’s Intervention In Politics

Often I contemplate why we, as civilians, assume that we cannot govern the country? Haven’t we — the “bloody civilians” as the army thinks — recognized our worth in all these 63 years of Independence?

A few days back during a debate with a friend he said to me:

“Civilians like you are worth nothing in the political system of this country”

Now I don’t understand one thing: why underestimating yourself as a civilian? Will we always remain “bloody civilians” in the eyes of uniformed ones?

Army is an institution, not a contractual leadership icon. It is we, the civilians, who are going to make any difference. If not, we will always keep on hanging between the 10 years military rule and couple of years civilian rule — the epitome of Pakistan’s political history. And If the things will keep going on in such a way, we will yet remain confused forever which ideology to follow — military or civilian. Army “may” change things to good for a short period of time, but it won’t and it can’t change things the way we need it for a long-term progression.

PS: I, in any case, am not endorsing the “democracy”. I don’t believe in this “ism” or that “ism”, and which is a different debate. I only intend to say that the “bloody civilians” are worthy of ruling too. Besides, the army’s influence in the politics of Pakistan should be subdued.

Political Systems and their Needs

Democracy, Dictatorship, Communism, Socialism, Monarchy, Anarchy etc. — all are names of different Political and Economic systems. All can be good and at the same time all can not be good. These all can be acceptable without any variance by the people of that particular state IF they feel their country is in progression with a good law and order and economy etc. within that particular system. So be it Democracy or Dictatorship – unless people are getting attention of government in a good way – they’ll stay as happy. Partially, it also happened in Musharraf’s era too. Initial years of Musharraf was better than the last few years. Absolute majority of people accepted his Martial Law in 1999. People were happy under his tyranny – and they were anticipating for a good future of Pakistan – albeit Musharraf was a dictator. But when the same Musharraf started showing his wispy colors – the same people started opposing him. And then we witnessed a strength of Musharraf who once was accepted warmly by nation en masse – was getting scorned by the same people. Why? Because he started committing serious blunders in his last few years of tyranny, and he kept on doing mistakes rather than rectifying himself. It all wasn’t acceptable.

In short, there’s nothing like “A good dictatorship” or “A poor democracy” or vice versa. What all citizens want is a good system – a good law and order – a good sovereignty of country where government is liable to protect the rights of its citizens.

For instance, Cuba’s ex-president Fidel Castro ruled over Cuba for nearly half century. He came in to power after the Cuban revolution that brought down one American Dictator. Although Castro was a ‘dictator’ too, but he brought revolution and Cubans were happy with him. Hu Jintao, who’s General Secretary of China’s communist party and head of world’s largest army — he’s also a dictator. Chinese are very much okay under his tyranny. China is prospering.

In another instance, Sweden is one of those countries which enjoys a good democracy within the country. Swedish people are happy under a democracy. As long as the “System” of governance is okay and people are getting their due rights and getting justice — people don’t tend to think much about change. Same goes with the Fiedel’s Castro’s governance where he – a dictator – ruled for five decades and Cubans were happy, but they (Cubans) weren’t happy under an American dictator.

In another instance, Hugo Chavez promoted Direct Democracy in Venezuela. People enjoy this direct democracy since their country is stable under this democracy. They don’t want dictatorship.

So that, it’s all about manners of governance than democracy/dictatorship/monarchy etc. itself.