Who Actually Rules Over The Country?

During the last three decades, some politicians, journalists and the former army officers had been indirectly talking about the role of the Army in the Pakistani politics. According to them, there was a parallel rule of the Military establishment without whose consent or involvement no political government could be formed and removed. These so “well-aware” people made their revelations or confessions not in the courts, but only in the news paper interviews and in the books they wrote. This shows that they were not bringing to light the hidden facts for the general people, but just wanted to give the expression that they knew much more about the Pakistani politics. The most surprising element of all these was that none of the political parties and relevant authorities either endorsed their revelations or rejected them at all.   

These things were not taken up by anyone until the difference of opinion between then President Pervez Musharaf and the Chief Justice Iftekhar Chudhry took place. Later on, this dissent brought about the movement for restoration of judiciary against the President. That was the stage where the alleged involvement of the army in the politics was discussed and condemned openly. Moreover, when the judiciary was restored, it was termed as the revolution against the military establishment and it was further claimed not only by the political parties, but also by the judges that the doors of any unconstitutional act had been closed for ever.

However, the attention catching statement of the Chief of Army Staff Gen. Kiyani created much confusion in the country. Whatever ambiguity was remaining in its interpretation, was thoroughly clarified very soon by the former COAS Gen. (R) Mirza Aslam Baig, and the Chief Justice Mr. Iftekhar Choudhry too very correctly perceived the conveyed message which was evident by his remarks in the hearing of a case. Due to all these, once again there has emerged a very valid question, i.e., whether the military establishment still exists. If yes, then who did the revolution take place against in 2007? Was that just Pervez Musharaf who, as an individual, was targeted in the name of a revolution against the military establishment? Furthermore, if the military establishment persisted, how did the judges including the CJP get restored? Could all that happen without the approval and/or consultation of the Army?

While discussing the exchange of comments by the Gen. Kiyani and the Chief Justice Muhammda Iftekhar Choudhry, the famous political analyst Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami in his program “Nuqta-e-Nazr” said, “The judiciary should not forget that it was Gen. Kiyani who got involved in the matter and telephoned to restore the judges.” Similarly, the ex-DG ISI Gen. (R) Hamed Gul also made the claim in an interview that CJP was restored with the involvement of the Army. It shows that even the restoration of the judiciary became possible with the help of the military establishment.

Taking into all these facts, can we still claim that the military establishment was ever defeated and that the judiciary as well as the democracy got independence from its influence? In my opinion, we cannot do so, nor could we even in 2007. However, almost all the political parties, anchorpersons, columnists, political analysts, lawyers` community gave the impression, especially after the restoration of the deposed judges and the departure of Pervez Musharaf, that they had overcome the establishment. But, the present scenario has shred this impression altogether.

According many political analysts, Gen.Kiyani had to speak up because of the reason that some military officers including the former COAS Gen. Mirza Asalm Baig had come under the judicial trial and this was not liked by the establishment at all. Here, there emerges one more important question that is, why did Gen. Pervez Musharaf have to resign and leave the country despite the persisting influence of the military establishment? Why did Gen. Pervez Kiyani not convey any similar message on behalf Gen. (R) Pervez Musharaf? Why did the military establishment keep silence on in that case? Does it mean that the military establishment also had agreed to sacrifice Pervez Musharaf that time? Whatever the reason would be, at least the relevant situation indicates the same.    

To tell the truth, the on-going situation in Pakistan has brought about a turmoil which is creating much confusion in the general people. They are getting very much disappointed to see all these things. The present tense situation has raised very important questions in respect of the constitutional validity of roles being played by different institutions in the politics. All the institutions must not ignore the universally accepted principal that says authority creates responsibility. It means whoever has the authority and power to do something, he or she will also be asked for all its inherent responsibilities.

Thus, whichever institution actually rules over the country, is principally responsible for anything going illegal, unconstitutional, unethical and non-Islamic. That is what they will have to keep in mind. In fact, the image of all these institutions is at stake. They should sit together and settle the matters by redefining their constitutional roles. Otherwise, if the people`s expectations are not taken care of, they would not trust them again, and this will not certainly strengthen the country. May Allah give them the wisdom to reform themselves…Aameen!