Maryam Fazal
An attempt was made on July 15 to topple the elected government of President
Erdogan. The momentum of this military coup was so slow that it was put down
promptly by huge crowd of unarmed masses. Ill-planned, poorly coordinated and
unintelligently conducted, without the full military organs involvement,
especially the secret services, it was doomed to failure. President Erdogan did
steal the show by timely reaching to the people of his constituency through
social media, thanks to his good governance and sustained economy. The masses
there do admire the armed forces but the resistance they showed was more for
democracy to continue than President Erdogan who has already proved, during the
last 14 years of rule that a democratic government under an able leadership can
deliver better.
Pakistani media since then, and the sitting government politicians, are
cautiously drawing lessons as to what happens if a similar coup is made in
Pakistan. In my view such a comparison cannot be made as the situation in
Pakistan is far more different from that of Turkey and no comparison can be made
between the armed forces of both the countries. There is a difference in how the
Turkish coup was carried out, and how martial law is usually implemented in
Pakistan. As per past experiences, the Pakistan Army has never attempted to
damage the government or public property, destabilize the political structure of
government and deform the constitutional setup. It is only when the civil
leaders invite the military to run government affairs. The Pakistan military has
always remained united under its command without seeing an iota of difference.
The era of martial laws has long gone. The experience draws the conclusion that
toppling democratically elected governments is no longer in national interest,
despite provocations from inimical quarters and the masses. Top military
hierarchy now makes it clear, time and again, that the elected leaderships need
to concentrate on good governance and providing replacements to the space
created through the military operations. In international arena particularly
western stakes in Afghanistan and Syria are quite different. Establishment of
National Security Council in Pakistan is also an important variable.
In the past military interventions took place for a number of reasons. Firstly,
Pakistan Army never turned over a politically stable government. Gen Ayub Khan
was invited by Iskandar Mirza himself due to deteriorating political conditions
of the state. Gen Yahya took over when the political parties in East Pakistan
and West Pakistan failed to show any maturity. Gen Zia was invited by the
political forces after 1977 election results. Gen Musharraf took over when the
Prime Minister tried to forcefully change the army high command. The situation
today is different from those scenarios in the past. Democracy for first time
seems stable in Pakistan. First time in the history of the country, the PPP
completed five years in office. Despite dharna insinuations and umpire
intervention signalling, PTI and PAT had to go back.
Secondly, there has never been any sign of division in the ranks of armed
forces. The only discrepancy was Operation Midnight Jackals carried out in early
90s where a Brigadier and a Major wished to topple the Benazir government
without the consent of higher command. The way the military dealt with the
officers set a precedence that the institution would show no leniency to anyone
involved in such activities on its own. Another precedent was set in case of Gen
Zia-ud-Din. The success of Zarb-e-Azb, continuation of Karachi operation and
frequent visits of Chief of Army Staff to the front lines clearly indicate not
only the strength of Gen Raheel Sharif but also the admiration he enjoys in the
ranks and files, as well as amongst the civilian strata.
Thirdly, not only by words but also by actions the military hierarchy has made
clear that they are not interested in any kind of coup. Military on external
front is actively guarding against the hostile eastern and western neighbours.
Within the boundary of State the military is engaged in conducting various
operations on the call of the government. This includes Zarb-e-Azb, operation in
Karachi, and various intelligence based operations across Pakistan. With the
nation at the back of the army, people are widely appreciating military’s
accomplishments as well as its leadership. This has helped bring in national
cohesion and unity against the common enemy and common challenges to country’s
security and solidarity.
Fourthly, if we see from the international politics lens, then the situation in
Pakistan is different from the prevalent environment in Syria and Afghanistan.
Although foreign actors are present in both the states, yet their interests
vary. Syria a bordering state of Turkey has become a tussle ground for regional
and global powers. Apparently Turkey is the US ally as well as a NATO member
country, but it has a democratic government where President Erdogan has his own
interests too. The United States would like to have either a puppet or “one man
show” government in Turkey which would follow the US diktats without
questioning.
There has been an internal political rivalry in Turkey between secularists and
Islamists. Erdogan was all set to introduce Islamic reforms in the state which
are not favoured by the followers of secular thoughts of Kamal Atta Turk.
Seculars are said to have a good strength in various institutions and military
is one of such state organ. So, internal and external conditions of Turkey are
completely different from those of Pakistan. Afghanistan which is a bordering
state of Pakistan also has presence of US and NATO but here conditions are
different. Additionally the government and military leadership of Pakistan is on
one page regarding the state ideology.
All these factors indicate that there are other lessons in the failed attempt of
coup in Turkey. We can’t compare the circumstances, trends and civil military
relations in both countries. Creation of National Security Council in Pakistan
is another milestone in the political history of country. It is an important
confidence building measure which will lead to a stable Pakistan. Military is an
important institution of state and so is the political government. Leadership of
both important institutions sits together and takes decisions on important
national and internal matters, which is an indication of a stable future for the
country.
(Maryam is the DDS scholar at FJWU, Rawalpindi)