The recall of 311 army officers holding civilian jobs was a good omen on the eve of general elections. It may not be enough to meet the oppositions demand that the Army should forthwith ‘return to the barracks’, but hopefully it should be seen as the beginning of the army’s disengagement from areas of direct governances. The army had over the years arrogated to itself the right to grab some prize jobs in the civil administration, causing discontent among the bureaucrats who couldn’t do anything about the chosen lateral entrants since their appointments did not follow any rules of business. A much larger number of retired army personnel have also been beneficiaries of ‘more equal than others’ approach of whoever were responsible for doling out prestigious jobs. And almost all ministries, departments, public corporations, or autonomous bodies have been packed with men with a ‘khaki’ linkage regardless of any consideration for merit, experience, or suitability for the job. The joke was taken a little too far when retired generals were appointed vice-chancellors of universities and directors of research institutes. The process of recalling in-service army officers must therefore, be followed up reviewing the cases of all ex-army personnel holding civilian positions, in particular those who have bypassed open competition or the rules for recruitment.
The army’s overbearing presence in areas of governance and civil administration has needless to say brought disrepute to the army’s image. And critics were prone to alleging that the army was engaged in anything and everything except professional soldiery. It was even accused of making money and raising business empires in the name of army welfare. If the army chief who is a full time professional soldiers with no direct linkage with politics means business he should set for himself the task of a comprehensive, role reversal for the army --- from an omnipotent presence to a low profile, so that the army should hence forth be seen as only one of the organs of state power subordinate to political authority, and not a panacea for anything that goes wrong. One hopes the media and other segments of civil society would also desist from overprotecting the army chief and not give him wrong ideas about his public rating which is one reason for facilitating Bonapartist tendencies. Let him in due course of time pave way for a situation when the COAS would be, as the protocol warrants, actually subordinate to defence secretary, and not the god father overseeing the functioning of the entire governmental apparatus.
President Musharraf doffing his uniform after more than eight years of holding two offices was the first step towards separating the military leadership from the political office. His successor as COAS has hitherto been honest to his mandate, as his first directive to his officers was not to have any truck with politicians. Now that a new political government is poised to take over power, it is all the more necessary that the process of army’s return to barracks is speeded up. The success of transition to a genuine democratic order hinges on how well the army leadership manages to withdraw from politics. On the face of it we now have a civilian president and an army chief who is committed to staying away from politics, but given the chequered history of democracy in the country, one cannot with certainty say ‘which way the wind blows’ in the days to come. But the onus of safeguarding the infantile political order is on the co-sharers of political power --- the president and the prime minister, while it would be in the fitness of things that no attempt is made to resurrect the so called ‘troika’, leaving the COAS out of the power hierarchy. If the president and the prime minister can manage to establish a working relationship, both strictly adhering to a policy of non-interference in each others domain of authority, and despite whatever differences they may have consciously avoiding a conflict situation which could lead to a political crisis, or a destabilisation of the political system, one would hope to give a lie to predictions by prophets of doom the cohabitation will not work.
Some leaders from the opposition have been urging the COAS to quit the National Security Council to mark the army’s open disengagement from governance. Opinions are divided on the advisability of such course of action, as political pundits argue that a total and immediate withdrawal of army from all decision-making bodies is neither possible nor desirable. The ‘role reversal’ process should be smooth and gradual so that an abrupt change does not create a vacuum in the constitutional arrangement. The army should immediately return to the barracks is indeed a catchy ‘mantra’ for rhetoric, but a pragmatic approach to politics calls for taking into account the ground realities of power contention in the country.