March/18/09
The Army's role
WHILE the result of the recent crisis has caused national jubilation, it should not obscure the hidden corners which left the undemocratic practices of the past to continue. One such aspect has been the role of the military. In the recent crisis, it still bulked larger than it was supposed to, and played a major role in persuading the President that it was best if he acceded to the demands of the protesters. It was only after this intervention that the President was prepared to accede to the Prime Minister's decision to accede to the restoration of the non-PCO judiciary, which was the demand of the protesters. A simple chronology of the crisis shows that the Chief of Army Staff did not intervene once, but several times, in what was essentially a political matter, which should have been settled between politicians.
It remains a pity that the two major parties of the country have signed a Charter of Democracy, of which the cornerstone was the stopping of the way of all future intervention by the military in politics, but when it comes to a crisis, and that too involving as non-military an institution as the judiciary, it is the military to which politicians turn. In a 'Spearhead Analysis' in this newspaper, former COAS and Ambassador to USA Gen (retd) Jehangir Karamat has spoken of the military following the 'Kiyani Model', whereby it did not take over, but remained "invisible but around, fully informed and acting through well timed and effective influence in the right quarter." This is the portrayal of a military which chose not to take over, not one which could not, as is supposed to be the case in democracies and countries under constitutional rule.
However, as General Karamat noted, a precedent has been set, one of non-intervention, that should be followed in future to the extent that in future crises, political parties will deal with each other without any interlocutors, and the military will find itself with no other role but the one that other institutions of state had in this one: spectators. No doubt, spectators are uncomfortable, and this role sits ill on those trained to be men of action. But constitutional rule requires that state institutions should obey, and not be as anxious to save the state as our military professes itself to be. Pakistan has as much of a history of military intervention as the other examples General Karamat mentioned, Thailand and Bangladesh, but its military has this time proved that it does not seek to intervene until the political breakdown is irretrievable.
Another deadly attack
THE suicide attack in Rawalpindi at Pirwadhai intersection on Peshawar Road on Monday, that killed 12 people and wounded many others, once again reflects lax security arrangements. PM's Interior Adviser Rehman Malik, who warned the public some time back that militants had entered the twin cities, seems to be only good at giving warnings, as more often than not his Ministry fails to stop them from carrying out their deadly missions. One should have thought that his real job is to ensure the safety and security of citizens, which requires disabling such elements before they could create any trouble.
The wave of bomb blasts in different parts of the country points to the fact that the law enforcement agencies have been careless in performing their duties. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team was a security lapse. Worse still, after the shootout the police could not arrest the attackers and as of now they remain at large. In the case of suicide bombings, it has been a constant refrain on the part of the security officials that it is virtually impossible to stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself up, but attacks of the kind could be prevented by cracking down on the networks through effective intelligence. It bears pointing out that the terrorists have been unable to carry out any major attack in the US after 9/11.
According to a private TV channel, the PM's Interior Adviser said that there could be a series of blasts and that the people should stay alert. But this is not going to help them in any way. They would rather look to him to make proper arrangements for their safety, instead of keeping himself busy in devising schemes to undo political opponents. Keeping in view the sensitive security situation, he ought to work with single-minded determination to bring the militants to book. A better mode of coordination between the different intelligence agencies, in close liaison with the police, might prove to be effective.
Source:
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/Editorials