Those who promised to create ‘Naya Pakistan’ and bring about a ‘revolution’ have ended up putting the country on an all too familiar way that leads to controlled democracy. Lust for power accompanied by impatience led the two leaders to act as pawns on behalf of the offstage players. The protest leaders were unscrupulous in the choice of the means for the achievement of their sordid ends. Use of women, children, and even infants as human shields was highly reprehensible.
Nowhere in a democracy are protesters allowed to storm the Parliament House or try to attack the Prime Minister’s official residence. It is inconceivable in Europe or the US for club-wielding and brick-batting crowds to go berserk. Whenever this happens the police takes recourse to highly repressive methods. Why did the Prime Minister agree to give the army the role of a facilitator? Both the Houses of Parliament had already pledged support for a constitutional resolution of the crisis and vowed not to yield to any unconstitutional demand of the protesters. The Wall Street Journal claims that the military had seized on Sharif’s weakened status during the political crisis to strike a deal in which the civilian leadership would cede control over foreign policy and other important areas to the military. Were the two marches, the sit-in and the storming of Parliament House meant to create grounds for a soft coup?
The completion of a full term by a democratically elected government followed by a peaceful transfer of power had given birth to an expectation that it would lead to a redefinition of relations between the army and the civilian government, with the elected administration taking key policy decisions and government departments, including the DoD, implementing these policies. The claim that the ‘referee’ was about to raise his finger and the glee on the face on Imran Khan when called by those who matter indicated that there was more to the affair than met the eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment