On 14th of October 1999, Pakistani troops stormed the PM house and placed Nawaz Sharif under house arrest. Two days later, a state of emergency was declared and the Pakistani constitution was was placed in abeyance. Thus, for the fourth time in Pakistani history, Pakistan came under direct military rule.
The events of that fateful day beg the question: Why does Pakistan so frequently finds itself under military rule?
Some argue that in a country like Pakistan which frequently finds itself being intimidated by its larger eastern neighbour, military ends up justifying huge expenditures at the expense of other government commitments. This has led to Pakistani Army being the only stable institution in the country and thus finds itself unable to resist the temptation to save the country from the incompetence of its politicians during difficult times. This temptation becomes even more difficult when certain politicians try to get the military involved in political matters to serve their own ends.
This classical interpretation of military coups only tells us half the story. In a country like Pakistan where blood relations often carry more weight than merit, the country's civilian ruling elite often fails to legitimize its rule. After all didn't Benazir get elected on the slogan of jiye Bhutto? The military, however, emanates a different perception altogether. Military advancement is based solely on merit: after all General Kayani was the son of a petty officer. This perception of meritocracy, fuels the perception of efficiency and by extension competence.
Thus, when a person or entity derives his legitimacy based solely on merit he tends to stay for a long time.
1 comment:
Rather than being satisfied with military being legitimate, we should focus on voting and electing a more legitimate democratic government. Democracy should be strengthened rather than resorting to military takeovers.
Post a Comment