Even in the 68th year of its existence, Pakistan seems rudderless unsure whether to be a genuine democracy or continue to remain a pseudo-military state. The unfortunate debate emanates from the vast gulf between the rulers and the ruled.
While the public is cognizant of the need to curb terrorism, striking at the very roots of the country, it is simultaneously apprehensive of the army’s intentions. What the future has in store for the country remains a mystery. This uneasiness is mainly caused due to the military’s role in Pakistan’s politics since the country’s inception.
The government’s move to provide the military courts with a constitutional cover has elicited mixed response from the public. Some describe it as an important step to fight terrorism while others fear a return of the military to the political arena.
It was indeed a tough decision so much so that Pakistan People’s Party leader Reza Rabbani wept openly while casting his vote in the Senate, saying he was ashamed of himself. And leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Syed Khurshid Shah had to “swallow a bitter pill” by agreeing to support the decision. Lawyers and human rights activists were opposed to allowing the army to try civilians in military courts.
Public fears are not entirely unfounded. The government has forcefully argued against the injustice done to the innocent but the army by nature and training is averse to the idea of sharing power. Amendments to the Constitution and the Army Act of 1952 vests limited powers to men in uniform, but the safeguards are merely on paper.
No matter how secure is the law to guard erring politicians from prosecution, the mechanism to stop it can always be misused. That has happened in the past and may also happen now. The army knows now that it has been vested with unchallengeable authority for two years and it is aware of the fact that after getting its act together, if it decided to lay hands on looters and plunderers of the national wealth, public will instantly support its decision.
Hatred against corruption and malpractices has risen to a level where the difference between elected despots and straightforward military rule, will no longer be an issue. Man on the street is least bothered about human rights. For him two square meals a day are more important, than bookish principles. Whether the coming days will be good or bad for the country remains to be seen and is hard to predict. But Pakistan, founded in the name of Islamic principles of justice and fair play, has failed to provide the kind of relief a common man has been yearning for. Any change in the system of government, would therefore hardly matter him.
