Bush in trouble

GEORGE W. BUSH is not having an easy summer. One after another, a succession of setbacks and embarrassments are slowly eroding the impregnable position he has held within the United States since 9/11. As his approval ratings slide, he must be wondering if he is heading for the same fate as his father — the electorate’s rejection of him after just one term?

The trouble for the American president started with the very conspicuous failure to uncover any WMD in Iraq. (Until the suicide of government scientist David Kelly, this was staunch ally Tony Blair’s biggest problem too.) Having gone to war, defied the United Nations and international opinion, and made the American people pay a huge price in men and money — all to remove the ‘danger’ posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD, it is somewhat embarrassing (to say the least) when that danger proves to be a myth.

Even more embarrassing — and politically threatening — when the so-called WMD danger proves to be a deliberate fabrication. Huge question marks are now being raised over the (obviously defective) intelligence on which the Bush administration made its decision to go to war. As with Tony Blair across the Atlantic, people are asking if the intelligence was to blame, or the use of the intelligence? And as in Britain, the picture that is emerging is of an administration that was determined to go to war, and that interpreted its intelligence accordingly.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the astonishing confession recently that the US had no new intelligence about Iraqi WMD after 9/11 — it merely took another look at the material it already had. The claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger — included in President Bush’s State of the Union address this year — has since been retracted as being based on forged documents. The finger of blame has been pointed to British intelligence which supplied the documents, and to CIA Director George Tenet. He has sacrificially taken responsibility for its inclusion in the president’s speech.

Congressional leaders are pushing for a full investigation into the intelligence used to justify war. While some are only hinting at this, others are openly accusing the president of duping Congress into giving approval for war by grossly exaggerating the intelligence about Iraqi WMD. No one should be under any illusions about the seriousness of this charge.

Failure to find WMD could perhaps be forgiven — at least within America — if the other ‘war promises’ were being kept — namely, bringing freedom, security and democracy to the people of Iraq, improving their lives, increasing Iraqi oil production (part of the covert if not overt war agenda). Unfortunately for the president, none of this is happening either.

The humanitarian situation inside Iraq remains patently dire. If anything, it has deteriorated with the war and ouster of the old regime: there is no administration in place to provide basic services like water and electricity. Relief aid is not getting into the country in anything like the quantities needed. Law and order collapsed in the aftermath of the Baathists’ departure and has since been only partially restored. As for democracy, the Americans had to abandon their first (disastrous) attempt to set up an Iraqi interim administration. A 25-member Iraqi council has just been appointed, but running the country remains securely in the hands of non-Iraqi Paul Bremer.

As the situation inside Iraq continues to get worse rather than better, Iraqi frustration is mounting. Not surprisingly, it is being vented out on the occupying powers, America and Britain. In Najaf last week, ten thousand Shi’as staged an anti-American demonstration. There have been many such smaller-scale protests. More worrying for Washington (and London), attacks on their troops are becoming more frequent and more deadly.

To date over 150 American soldiers and other personnel have been killed in Iraq, making this the costliest conflict for the US in years. One quarter of them were killed after George Bush officially announced on May Day that the war was over. This second statistic reflects the growing resistance to US occupation among ordinary Iraqis. American commanders have been reluctant to acknowledge the popular roots of anti-US feeling in Iraq.

Desperately clinging to the myth of a populace welcoming the American-gifted ‘liberation’, they prefer to blame Saddam loyalists for the daily attacks on US personnel. But the scale of the problem is now so great that Centcom chief John Abizaid was forced to concede American forces are facing a ‘guerrilla-type campaign’ in Iraq.

The implications of a ‘guerrilla-type campaign’ are ominous: many more American deaths. Think of Vietnam, think of Afghanistan. In guerrilla warfare it is not numbers of troops, or their training, or the sophistication of their weapons that counts. What counts is the ability of the attackers to mount surprise, unpredictable offensives against the occupying force and to sap the morale of its men and women. In this, the Iraqis are already winning. US troops have publicly registered their unwillingness to remain deployed in Iraq for long periods. As their body bags pile up, unease among the American public back home is growing. All the Iraqis have to do to get rid of US forces is keep firing pot shots.

There is also a limit to the financial burden that American taxpayers are prepared to take on. To date Bush’s Iraq adventure has cost them $48 billion. The monthly bill to maintain the occupation is four billion dollars. Should more US troops need to be deployed — something hinted at by military commanders — it will be even bigger. All this is taking its toll on the American economy: the US is heading for a budget deficit of $350 billion. (A remarkable figure considering that just three years ago George Bush inherited a budget surplus in the region of $150 billion from his predecessor.)

As he contemplates the mess in Iraq, the president’s dilemma is that he has no obvious exit strategy to get America out of the quagmire. Bringing other nationals in to police Iraq could have eased the body bag issue — but only if there were some willing to comply. The Indians have just turned down Washington’s request to send troops, while President Musharraf is still weighing the pros and cons.

George Bush’s handling of the international community before the war has a lot to do with his current problems. Having made it clear then that America could go it alone, Bush is now being advised by the international community to continue to do just that. There is a natural reluctance on the part of others to clean up a mess entirely of America’s making. (Not to mention the equally natural temptation to gloat: ‘Told you so — serves you right’.)

The only other way out is to seek a UN mandate for an international peacekeeping force for Iraq. But aside from the massive loss of face this entails — recall the arrogance with which Bush challenged the UN to “prove its relevance” by backing his war — it would necessitate ceding control over Iraq to international bodies. Outside help comes at a price. Iraqi oil revenue, interim administration and transfer of power to an Iraqi administration, the length of occupation — George Bush would have to accept international ‘advice’ on these and other such issues. Whether he is prepared to pay this price is still unclear, but soon he will have no choice.

Amid all this the infamous Bush gaffes continue unchanged. His latest — that America had to go to war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein would not let UN weapons inspectors in — was a remarkable memory lapse even for him.

Questions over Iraq are leading to questions about the wider war against terror. Has this really achieved anything? Bearing in mind that neither of the principal targets of the war — Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein — has been captured, and that there has been a massive increase in anti-US feeling across the world, especially the Muslim world (something both Osama bin Laden and Hussein are encouraging), are Americans more or less safe? It is slowly (and very belatedly) beginning to dawn on some that the war on terror could be fuelling the terrorist menace they face — not containing it.

The war on terror is Bush’s trump card. Remove it, and he has nothing to sell himself to the American people (certainly not the economy). Next year he will be standing for re-election. Should the situation in Iraq remain a mess, and should the body bag and financial toll on America continue to rise, he will face a real contest. Democrats, for long silenced by the shock of 9/11, are beginning to sense that the Republicans are vulnerable. Slowly but inexorably, they are increasing the pressure on the Bush presidency. Come 2004, George could well be packing his bags.

What is bad news for the American president is good news for the rest of the world. Bush’s disastrous Iraq adventure has at least proven the limits of unilateralism and ‘superpower might’. Real power is the ability to win war and to win the peace after the war. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has been able to win the war but not the peace.

Its bruising experience in Iraq especially is the only guarantee that it will not attack Iran or Syria next. To date no outside force — not the UN, not the EU, not international law or opinion — has been able to stop America flexing its considerable muscle. But tomorrow should Bush be foolish enough to decide on another assault, the very powerful voice of the American people will be added to the ineffectual voice of the international community in opposing him.

George W. Bush deserves to be in the political trouble he is in today. Despite innumerable warnings from other leaders, academics, human rights activists, etc., of the disastrous consequences of his war on terror, he waged it anyway The American people too deserve their body bags and bills; they could and should have stopped their president but did not.

Making the Eco move fast

IF the extent of political cooperation among the Muslim states is not large enough the volume of trade and economic links among them is also too small. And that happens despite the fond wish of the Muslim Ummah for stronger economic relations and even formation of a Muslim commonwealth among the 50 countries.

But the governments of the Muslim states alone should not be blamed for it, for equally responsible have been the businessmen and consumers of Muslim states who prefer western brands marketed by the large multinational companies with their mightily advertising machinery. They have been there in the Muslim countries from the days of European colonial rule along with their deep commercial roots.

Naturally there is acute dissatisfaction over this negative state of affairs every time the leaders of the Muslim world meet together, and they issue passionate calls for larger economic relations. That happened last week at Islamabad too when the economic ministers of the ten member states of Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) met. But this time they have taken some positive and detailed decisions to ensure that the volume of trade among them really goes up and other forms of economic cooperation follow.

The ECO is a successor to the RCD (Regional Cooperation for Development) formed by three countries — Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. It became the ECO in 1985 and later it was joined by the six former Soviet republics with Muslim majority and Afghanistan. It was hoped that the ten states could achieve a good deal by way of economic cooperation in view of their large natural resources, particularly gas and oil, but they could not achieve much. It has been more like its larger political brother, the OIC, whose performance has also been insignificant compared to the rhetoric at its sessions.

Commerce minister Humayun Akhtar says the total inter-ECO trade of the ten states is only 1.3 per cent of the GDP of the world which shows how small it is or how large is the scope for its expansion. According to one report total trade creation in the ECO region comes to 816 million dollars, with 183 million dollars as Iran’s share, 166 million Uzbekistan’s and 146 million as Turkey’s share.

Now the ECO ministers in Islamabad have signed an agreement with considerable excitement under which they will bring their import tariff to 15 per cent within 8 years. The reduction will be at the rate of 10 per cent per year. Meanwhile, they would provide maximum access to the goods of other ECO member countries. They would also increase the volume of investment among their countries. The gas pipeline connecting Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan is an outstanding example of such large scale economic cooperation.

To enforce the ECO Trade Agreement (ECOTA) their ministers would meet once a year and review its implementation in detail and remove the roadblocks. The next conference would be in Turkey in 2003-04.

The committee to review the implementation of the agreement set up now is one of six committees. The other five would deal with other major impediments in the way of growth of trade. They will deal with tourism, transportation, agricultural development and exchanges, investment, and exploration of new areas to enhance cooperation among member states. An ECO data bank would also be set up to exchange information among the ECO members who do not know enough about other countries, and their potentials.

While forswearing any pre-eminence in the ECO on basis of its seniority Pakistan through its prime minister Zafarullah Jamali offered all possible help to the ECO to realise its vast potentials. The secretary general of ECO Sayed Mujtaba Voiced the hope the ECOTA would pave the way for an ECO Free trade Area. The ministers voiced the hope the experts would meet twice in a year to make a success of ECOTA and pave the way to a FTA.

Evidently Humayun Akhtar, who presided over the ECO ministers conference, realises the world is moving faster than the ECO countries. The WTO is moving faster and so is the Doha round of tariff cutting parleys. Globalisation, too, is moving faster despite the protest from the poor countries and the deprived peoples of the world. And the US itself is taking the lead in forming free trade areas with rich and poor countries, and even Middle Eastern states to bring them into its ever expanding economic orbit. So the Muslim countries have to move faster than the ECO states are ready to do.

He says the Organisation of Islamic Conference is now considering a proposal to enter into a preferential trade agreement for the promotion of trade among Muslim countries. The proposal would mature, he says, as soon as it is ready to be signed. At a time when the US and other countries are taking the lead in forming free trade areas, the minimum Islamic Conference should do is to give preferential treatment to the goods and services of other Muslim countries. If positive steps are being taken by the OIC members in this regard despite the fact they are spread all over the world, that is a welcome development.

Individually Pakistan itself is taking a decisive lead with other Muslim countries in this regard. Pakistan and Iran have agreed to start talks on FTA, particularly to promote border trade. And Iran has signed an enlarged and revised trade pact with Pakistan and will have continuous discussions for expanding trade between the two countries.

Iran and Turkey have agreed to enter into negotiations with Pakistan for forming a free trade area. President Musharraf during his visit to Maghreb states focused on larger trade with Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, and a trade agreement with Morocco was signed. These three countries as well as Indonesia have shown interest in starting negotiations on a free trade area pact with Pakistan.

When it comes to Turkey there is specific target of one billion dollars in bilateral trade between the two countries in the current financial year. Pakistan’s trade with many of these countries has been small as there has been little of tariff preference in trade with them. Compared to that, Western countries have been able to offer their production at competitive prices because of their sales tactics.

The goods of one Muslim country can be made familiar in other countries not only through exhibitions but also through tourism. One of the handicaps in promoting trade between Muslim countries is lack of shipping. But now the Iranian minister for trade says Iran has 125 ships which can be used between its port of Chahbahar and Pakistani ports. That is a welcome news.

Now that we have set the target of 12.1 billion dollar exports during the current year, further steps have to be taken to boost our exports, and make the exports more value-added, particularly the textiles where we should be shipping more of garments than fabrics and yarn.

The government has already taken a number of steps in this regard, particularly permission to import second hand machinery and allowing the industries to produce their own power. It has also raised the number of exports items on which duty drawback can be claimed to 56.

And now as a measure of Iran’s faith in the economic growth of Pakistan, Iran and Pakistan are to set up a joint investment bank with an initial capital of 10 million dollars each. If the bank has to play a significant role the capital of the bank has to be raised substantially.

At the same time it is interesting to note the Pak-Kuwait Investment Bank wants a seat in the Karachi Stock Exchange for Rs 34.7 million. The sustained boom in the Karachi Stock Exchange is attracting more and more foreigners, and now they want to be members of the KSE as well.

But there is bad news from a key sector of the country which continues to deteriorate. The United Nations Human Development Report says Pakistan’s ranking in the Human Development Index has gone down from 138 in 2001 to 144 among the 189 countries. Clearly, our position is not improving. We need a crash programme to improve the situation in the areas of education, public health, environment, etc. No progress in the modern style is sustainable without an educated and healthy manpower and a clean and safe environment. That, along with the poverty reduction, is the Achilles’ heels of our economic development.

But when our political leaders are at war with each other and so are the mullahs though temporarily united, they cannot focus on the problems of the poor. The masses in the cities without water and electricity and very expensive schools are asking whether the top priority of the Defence Housing Authority where land is allotted at nominal prices for resale at fancy prices should be the newly envisioned Creek City on the beach. From swanky clubs with fabulous admission fees it is moving towards the Creek city with its dream targets and promise of a heaven on earth. Surely the division between the poor and the ultra-rich is being widened.

The Defence Housing Authority should be focusing on desalination of water to meet its ever expanding water needs. That was what it was expected to do before the Creek Club, Marina Club and other clubs by the sea came up and the desalinisation was dropped.

With so much focus on Islam and its basic values to help the poor first, the army rulers should be getting their priorities right in a land in which 4 per cent of the people are living below the poverty line and any effective literacy is not more than 15 per cent in this age of globalization.

Massacre in Quetta

ON July 4, an armed attack took place at the Imambargah in the centre of Quetta city while people were offering their Juma prayers. Over 50 persons were killed on the spot and over 60 were wounded, some critically. This is the most serious case of killing in which Muslims were shot and killed while offering prayers.

The government has condemned this act of barbarism and vowed to punish the perpetrators of this heinous crime. A high-powered committee has been set up to investigate, some police officers have been transferred and two ministers have resigned. But experience shows that in the end nothing will be done. But the killing of such a large number of innocent people is a serious matter and cannot be ignored.

The Shia community of Quetta is small and law-abiding, yet it took the law in its own hand resulting in angry demonstrations and rioting in the city. A curfew had to be imposed and the army and the Frontier Corps called in out to maintain order. This peaceful community resorted to rioting because on the 8th of the previous month, 11 police trainees who were Shias from the Hazara tribe were killed in an attack on their bus, but the government failed to take any action.

In fact, after the Shia police trainees were killed the authorities should have taken added security precautions. But no police protection was provided to the Imambargah and only a private guard on duty fired back and killed one of the attackers. The provincial government failed the people yet again.

The massacre in Quetta was a clear case of the failure of the administration to maintain law and order. It must therefore be held fully responsible for the carnage that has taken place in the capital of the province.

There are always designated people in the administration and government whose duty it is to ensure the security of the people. Action must be taken against them first as they have failed in their duties and responsibilities. They are guilty of gross negligence in the performance of their duties which resulted in the slaughter of such a large number of innocent people. They must be held answerable for their lapses and failures. This is the only way to prevent the recurrence of such fatal failures. The government functionaries must be made aware of their duties and responsibilities.

The government of Balochistan is a coalition of the MMA and PML(Q), the former being in confrontation with the latter at the federal level. The killing of Shia worshippers in Quetta is a clear indication of the course of events that are likely to follow. The message is clear: religious parties would not accept any opinion or support any line of action that does not conform to their own religious views and notions. Can the federal government tolerate this approach which is detrimental to the country and its people.

The Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali was in Karachi when the killings in Quetta took place. Flew Quetta to asses the situation and give solace to the affected people and families. His visit was very appropriate and timely. It showed to the people of Balochistan that the Prime Minister of the country was with them in their hour of need. It was a gesture well appreciated by the public.

The President’s reaction was somewhat wanting. He heard the news of the massacre while in Paris. He returned home certainly over-flying the province of Balochistan on his way to Islamabad. He should have landed in Quetta and met the people. There such gestures by the head of state are important for the people. One remembers when President Yahya Khan was in power and on return from a visit to China did not stop at Dhaka where a major cyclone had taken a heavy toll of life. The people of the former East Pakistan never forgave Yahya Khan. Have the present set of Presidential Advisers faulted again and were unable to handle an emergency.

The president and the prime minister have both hinted at the possibility of a ‘foreign hand’ being behind the killings in Quetta. This may well be so, as there are forces at home and abroad who would like to destabilize Pakistan. Their efforts are discernible in other fields as well. But the fact remains that it is the duty of the government to protect the people from the machinations of forces — foreign or internal — inimical to the country.

Besides, there are groups and factions of religious militants within the country itself which have been killing people on sectarian grounds over the last many years just as there are forces of disorder which make their presence felt by resorting to acts of violence of subversion.

Balochistan is one of two sensitive provinces in the country in the context of the on-going war on terrorism. All those elements in the province who may still be sympathetic to the cause of the former Taliban regime in neighbouring Afghanistan are not likely to take kindly to Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on this score. Another complicating factor is the attitude and actions of the MMA-led government in the NWFP and part of the Balochistan government which are known to be opposed to Pakistan’s collaboration in the anti-terrorism campaign. Whether — and if so, to what extant — this factor is having an encouraging effect on the pro-Taliban elements in the two provinces is something for the federal government to watch out and take action when necessary.

Although the responsibility of maintaining law and order falls within the purview of the provincial governments, the federal government has to oversee the interests of the people. They cannot allow such large-scale killings to take place without taking firm action against those in positions of authority who may have failed to do their duty to prevent these or punish the culprits.

The writer is a retired Lt-Gen of the army and former governor of Balochistan.

The Iraqi stock market

IRAQ will never get on its feet unless it gets a stock market. Geoffrey Bottomly, an expert in finance, went over to Baghdad to give the Iraqis some advice.

“In order to have a democratic society, you have to have a stock market so people can invest in the future.”

“Yes,” said Adama Adama, “I understand that. The U.S. fought a war so we could become part of the capitalistic system. But how do we do this?”

“You have to have private companies that make goods for the global market. To do this, people have to own shares. The more shares you have, the richer you become.”

“I read something about it in the Wall Street Journal,” Adama said. “But aren’t some of the people in America who run these companies guilty of dirty tricks?”

“No. There are a few guys on top who dip into their company’s pension funds or skim money through Panama and Liechtenstein, but we don’t believe Iraq will do that because you are honest and law-abiding people. At least you will be after you get a police force.”

Adama said, “If anybody steals from our people, we cut off his hands.”

“Let me give you an example of Western capitalism. You are the president of Infidel Saddam Gas and Oil Co. Everyone wants your gas and oil, but Americans will give you the best price for it. Oil is not why we invaded your country — in spite of what the French say,” Bottomly tells Adama.

“What happens if my company loses money?” Adama asks.

“Your shareholders will be furious. And in order to placate them, you, as CEO, will fire half your workers and give yourself a raise.”

“You mean in America you don’t cut off the hand of the CEO?”

“You don’t have to. The more people you lay off, the more your stock will go up.”

“I’m a Shiite. Should I sell shares to the Sunnis and Kurds?”

“No, to prevent tribal war you can have a Shiite stock market, a Sunni market and a Kurdish market.”

Bottomly continued, “Now this is the interesting part — if your company goes belly up, the CEO resigns.”

“And that is when I cut off my own hand?” “No, instead when you resign you get a $20 million severance pay, thousands of stock options, bonuses, a house in Greenwich, Conn., and a helicopter twice the size of the Black Hawks that are flying all over Iraq.”

“Who gives me all this?”

“Your board of directors, who helped you bankrupt the company. It’s better to be a director than an investor.”

“Can we cut off the hands of the board directors?”

“No, the directors will still have jobs as consultants to advise how to get the company out of the mess they made in the first place.”

“That means no one goes to jail.”

Bottomly said, “The most important thing you must do when investing in the Iraq Stock Market is not pay taxes. We have shelters in the U.S. similar to the shelters in Baghdad. As soon as the Iraqi Tax Service comes sniffing around, you hide in one of your shelters.”

“When do I cut off someone’s hand?”

“We prefer to cut interest rates instead.”— Dawn/Tribune Media Services

The rot in NHA is symptomatic

THE not so startling disclosure by the federal communication minister that the National Highway Authority (NHA), headed by a serving major-general, refuses to share with him the authority’s financial details sheds light on the dangerous nature of authoritarianism that grips Pakistan today.

Besides, it exposes the widely held myth that military-run institutions are somehow more transparent than those managed by civilians. Unless the NHA bosses had something to hide, there was no reason to lock horns with the minister. According to the beleaguered minister, who must be credited for speaking out, the highway authority spends billions of rupees every year but maintains no balance sheet.

The ministry’s military-led vigilance cell, created with much fanfare in 2001 under Lieutenant-General Ashraf Qazi, then minister for communications, is also reportedly non-cooperative and dysfunctional. In theory, the communications minister is the ex-officio head of the National Highway Council which regulates the affairs of the NHA and approves its budget. In our military-dominated state, however, lines defining legitimate authority are all too often blurred.

This episode, along with other recent revelations, also refutes the military’s claim that the highest levels of government have been corruption-free since 1999. The political cronies of the then military regime, as well as impressionable foreign aid officials, loved to tout this achievement in defence of military rule. But corruption in Pakistan is still systemic and rampant. Putting an authoritarian band-aid on a festering wound may stop the blood flow for a while, but it is never a cure.

The lopsided and selective nature of accountability under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), that explicitly targets politicians and bureaucrats but leaves out military officers too stands exposed. The NAB chairman’s recent admission that military personnel in civil departments are under investigation for corruption, only further confirms the hollowness of the carefully constructed myth of military honesty.

It is worth recalling that the NHA, like many other public sector organizations, underwent a “uniformed’ overhaul in recent years to ensure transparency and efficiency in governmental operations. The results, as we now know, have been little short of failure. Under the direct command of the generals since 1999, the performance of the NHA has gone from bad to worse. It is still regarded as one of the most corrupt departments of the government. The country’s road network is still notable for its pathetic conditions, causing enormous losses to the transport sector.

This is not all. Other army-run public sector utilities like Wapda and the KESC are also going under. According to the National Electric Power Regulating Authority (Nepra), the KESC’s performance under its army-led management has seen a “marked deterioration” in the last five years. Since the army’s induction in 1999, the utility’s losses have “more than doubled” from seven billion to 16 billion rupees. Need more be said?

Beyond corruption and incompetence, the minister-NHA row highlights the dangers inherent in a hybrid political system. Spawned by a much-hyped democratic transition in October 2002, our current political dispensation is a curious mix of parliamentary democracy and presidential authoritarianism — one that involves a lot of authoritarianism but not much of democracy.

It is a system in which elections and parliaments are not wholly meaningless but where the principle of civilian supremacy and constitutionalism is observed only in name; where an elected prime minister and his cabinet are not completely powerless but where a military president enjoys veto powers over them and all other forms of civil authority.

Whatever may have been the shortcomings of the elective rule of the 1990s or of the PPP and PML-N as political parties, the nature of their electoral competition was gradually shaping political affiliations into fairly stable pro- and anti-PPP camps, with minor variations along regional, ethnic, and religious lines. In the medium to long run, it also provided the hope of democratic institutionalisation whereby consensual use and allocation of state power becomes the norm. Democratic values and practices then become the standard practice rather than the exception.

That, alas, was not to be. Since assuming power in 1999, the military has grossly distorted the rules of the electoral and political games. Using time-tested divide-and-rule tactics, “king’s parties” were created to provide civilian cover and non-partisan local bodies instituted to depoliticize governance. The logic was simple: weaken and scatter your adversaries to prolong your stay in power. The suppression of party loyalties has brought tribal, ethnic, linguistic, and sectarian affiliations to the fore. Party politics has given way, at least temporarily, to the easier-to-manage, personality-driven politics of patronage.

Why create this democratic facade in the first place? Dictators have fallen on hard times since the end of the cold war. The unmistakable international consensus on democracy as the most preferred form of government does not leave them much room. The generals know full well that the best way to preserve the military’s economic and political interests is to re-enact the drama of formally transferring power to a compromised civilian leadership, even as they retain their grip on state power.

Not unaware of the importance of keeping up democratic appearances for external reasons, the military has adroitly delegated the thankless task of running the day-to-day affairs of government to elected politicians without the requisite authority and resources. It is they who must take all public flak for their powerlessness as the military cloaks itself in the trappings of formal respectability and democratic compliance.

At the risk of stating the self-evident: in the absence of a full restructuring of civil-military relations, democratic transition will never stick in Pakistan. The military will remain above the law of the land. Its officials will continue to ignore ministers and parliamentarians with impunity. And Pakistan will continue to live under the shadow of the chronically disfigured pattern of governance and politics wrought by a politically ambitious and overbearing military.

The rot in our public sector entities is but one manifestation of this hybrid authoritarianism. That rot has reached a stage where quick fixes no longer work. In fact, they never have. All the more reason for the military to leave us civilians to sort things out. For all their tall claims, military officers neither have the skill nor the understanding of how the world works outside the confines of the garrison. It is simply not their calling.

A cursory look at the history of military forays into civil administration proves that point beyond any shadow of doubt. Instead of muddying the already polluted waters of civil governance and bringing a bad name to their own institution, the generals should admit their failure and go back to the barracks just as good soldiers often do.

The writer is a political analyst based in Islamabad.