AS we pass through yet another fraught period in civilian-military relations, it would be instructive to look at another country where such tensions have prevailed for decades.

In Turkey, the military called the shots until the turn of this century when the tide turned, and gradually, the civilian AKP government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan forced the country’s powerful armed forces back to their barracks. The recent attempted coup was probably the last effort of some generals to grab power.

So how did Erdogan succeed when our civilian leaders have failed time and again to assert themselves over the military? Firstly, Turkey’s long-pending application to join the European Union provided the then Turkish prime minister (now president) the leverage he needed to convince the generals to stay away from politics. EU rules insist on civilian supremacy.

####Our civilian leaders cannot replicate Turkey’s example.

Secondly, Erdogan has presided over an unprecedented period of economic development, with GDP per capita reaching $11,500 last year. Before the AKP’s election victory in 2002, the country was ruled by a tacit partnership between the military and the Westernised elites. Conservative Turks, mostly in Anatolia, were marginalised, and it was unusual to see a woman with a scarf in fashionable parts of Istanbul.

Although resented by the secular generals and the more sophisticated Turks for his espousal of strict Islamic values, Erdogan remains hugely popular with his core constituency of deeply religious voters. This popularity gives him a solid base when he speaks to his generals. As we saw when the recent coup was put down, ordinary people were willing to stand up to armed soldiers in tanks in the defence of an elected government.

In Pakistan, none of these conditions apply. Our military has acquired its legitimacy by being seen as a defender of the nation against an ever-present threat from India. Then, it is viewed as an Islamic force, as against the secular Turkish military. Finally, our civilian governments have been constantly dogged by perceptions of corruption and incompetence.

All these factors ensure the lasting popularity of our military, even though it has proved time and again that it has no answers to our many economic and social problems. The fact that it is still widely viewed as a welcome alternative to elected governments is a sad reflection on our political awareness, as well as the performance of our politicians.

But while in Turkey, the military’s natural partners have been the secular elites, in Pakistan the defence establishment tends to reach out to the religious parties. The latter have no chance of winning power through elections, and thus seek to gain influence by riding on the army’s coattails.

Another parallel between the two countries is the precarious position of the press. Pakistan is placed 147th on the Press Freedom Index, while Turkey follows closely at 151st. Of course, this index was compiled before the ongoing anti-Gulenist purge in Turkey. Now, with scores of media houses shut down and dozens of journalists in jail, I have no doubt it will slip even lower.

A major difference between the two militaries has been the generally pro-American position taken by the Turkish generals as against the ambivalent stance of our military leadership. For years, Washington was happy to work with military dictators, and comfortable with repeated coups. But increasingly, American legislators have indicated their distaste for military dictatorships, and placed greater emphasis on human rights.

Clearly, our civilian leaders cannot replicate the Turkish example in Pakistan, much as they would like to. For one, their deep divisions and rivalries do not permit a united front to uphold democracy in the face of military incursion. As an example, just listen to the loud and repeated rumours that Imran Khan is seeking covert military support for his current campaign to topple an elected government.

Next, we must accept that unlike Turkey, Pakistan is a soft state where the rule of law is almost nonexistent. Thus, banned militias operate openly, collecting donations, appealing for volunteers and distributing their poisonous literature and DVDs. And whenever a fresh ban is imposed, they merely change their names. Known militant leaders like Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed address rallies without let or hindrance.

In Turkey, the laws are enforced far more zealously. And while it has suffered a spate of terrorist attacks in the last few months, clerics are not free to preach whatever they please in mosques. The Friday sermon is faxed to every mosque from Ankara, and prayer leaders are employees of the state. In Pakistan, we have been unable to even regulate the curricula taught in the thousands of madressahs that have mushroomed over the last four decades or so.

Above all, poverty, hunger and illiteracy continue to haunt the land. Despite all their rhetoric, civilian leaders have done little to address these issues. Until they do, their right to govern will be challenged by Bonapartists and the suffering public.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, October 15th, 2016