Please note that this is not an anti-military article, and mostly when I use the word ‘’military’’ or ‘’generals’’ shall be deemed as military rulers. Criticizing a ruler doesn’t equate to being called a traitor.
Before pointing out 5 reasons why the military is not that serious to aid KHAN’s government in accountability I would like to highlight the overall political strength of KHAN. KHAN is the most powerful Prime Minister so far in Pakistan’s history. Mainstream Opposition parties are busy bashing the military’s political role and KHAN has nothing to worry about that. He must be happy as he is somehow independent to make his own decisions: as the military is under pressure by opposition’s anti-military propaganda, and corrupt PDM leaders have already lost their credibility and are facing KHAN’S accountability wrath.
So everything looks fine for KHAN. But, that’s not all: there is something to worry about!
First reason:
The very first reason why the military will hinder the accountability efforts of Imran khan is that the top leadership of the military is itself a historic stakeholder and custodian of corruption. If real accountability is done it will subsequently affect top generals in many aspects. Consequently, they may have to curtail their super remunerations, and many generals may have to face corruption charges as well. It is a matter of truth that in the past there were very crucial opportunities for military rulers to eradicate corrupt practices in Pakistan but they preferred joining hands with corrupt capitalist mafias just to prolong their rule? Pakistani’s would never have bad views about past military regimes if they were aimed at real accountability. All NROs and all sorts of capitalist-specific immunities were authored by military rulers.
Second reason:
If Khan is let free to punish corrupt capitalist mafias and he succeeds, he would certainly become more and more popular, and this popularity may end making KHAN more powerful. And consequently, when this power gets uncontrolled this may lead to totalitarianism, where a ruler’s power becomes unlimited. And we know ‘’power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’’. Certainly, the military would not love unlimited power in the hands of a civilian. The military doesn’t like an imbalance between civil and military power: It likes to hold the balance in its hands.
Third:
Accountability is a general term and every citizen and political party even it is itself the most corrupt has a slogan against it. I mean accountability is not just a Khan’s trademark and the military would not be happy to let KHAN take all the credit. Speaking truly most important decisions by the establishment against corrupt practices were taken about 8 years ago when Khan was not yet in power. Hundreds of auditors, tax inspectors, revenue inspectors, and NAB officers (also many cross-functional intelligence officials) were recruited as a part of these decisions.
Fourth:
The fourth reason is also indirectly related to the second reason i.e. khan becoming more powerful. The military would also have some reservations over the ever-increasing popularity of KHAN and it may think that a popular prime minister may compromise some inherent functions and international motives of the military. Note that our military is part of many global games and it has its self-defined agenda of international relations, relation with neighbors, superpowers, and regional powers. Please note that this is not a Pakistan specific phenomenon; militaries of all countries do such things and have such agendas.
Fifth:
Moreover, the military establishment wants everything (including accountability) to happen in a rational manner avoiding unnecessary rush or irrationality. What is rationality, it’s only the military that can define it? Remember 2007, when the whole nation wanted the restoration of chief justice in an irrational manner but the establishment never let it happen that way. Instead of rush, an intelligent, slow, and steady way was adopted. And no political party was allowed to get full credit for it.
Moreover, the military’s or state agencies’ role in politics is a common practice in almost all countries of the world including the developed nations like the USA, etc. So such role should be deemed as a natural role and must not be criticized traitorously, however, if such a role goes against societal interest then it must be condemned.
In the end, I would say, ‘’ hanging a few is better than killing millions of poverty, hunger, crime, and unemployment. It’s better to try a few than to spy millions.’’
Writer: Ch Fakhar Gul
FAKHAR BLOGS 