The Pakistani parliament is debating a controversial American bill, the Kerry Luger bill, which would provide Pakistan with US$ 1.5 billion per year over the next five years for democratic, economic and social development programmes. There are several conditions in the bill about military aid to check the involvement of state intelligence agencies in Islamic militancy and monitoring of nuclear proliferation through US mechanisms. The Bill was passed by the US Senate and Congress as well and now it is lying before the president for signature.
The Kerry Lugar bill was made public more than two months ago and opposition political parties and allied parties of the government of Pakistan were not happy with the conditions of the bill. The media was also very critical. There was a healthy debate in the media and other forums on the bill. However, when the bill was presented before President Obama for his final approval a statement from the sources in the Pakistan military circles aired on a television channel revealed that the army has reservations about the bill and was not happy with conditions pertaining to its intelligence agencies and non proliferation of nuclear technology. The mood of the debate, which had been healthy, changed and voices began to malign the government, saying that it had sold out the sovereignty of the country.
On the same day when the national assembly started their debate on the bill, which was a request by the leader of the opposition, the corps commanders of the Pakistan Army issued a statement showing its dismay about the Bill. The Pakistan Army, through a carefully drafted press statement, expressed their “serious concerns” on some of the clauses of the bill that they believed would affect “national security”. This statement was a clear message to the political forces that the army will not accept the Lugar bill in any shape or form. The statement has seriously dampened the debate and the army has once again shown its ability and willingness to interfere in the political issues of the country.
Prior to the army’s intervention, the debate on the proposed bill had been lively as the people themselves were voicing their opinions, which were mainly opposed to the Bill. But after the army’s statement the debate stopped abruptly and the people are now scared of hindrance in the development of the democratic way of dialogue and debate. According to the Constitution and the latest decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan the military has no right to usurp the constitutional rights of the people.
It is nothing new for the army to poke its nose in the political and democratic affairs of the country. In the country’s history Pakistan has been under direct military dictatorship for 32 years. Whenever political governments came in through free and fair elections the army chiefs never allowed the civilian governments to complete their constitutional terms. The statement from the army generals, that if the parliament does not adjust itself to the army’s point of view the whole system will be dismantled, is alarming
It is the time for the democratic and political forces to protect the country from the interference of the army in their affairs and take action against the army leadership, particularly corps commanders, for interfering in political issues so as to disallow elected representatives from performing their constitutional responsibilities. The Pakistan army should be contained through parliament to present their reactions through democratic and constitutional institutions and committees, not through their public statements.
The Asian Human Rights Commission urges the parliament and government of Pakistan to constitute a high powered judicial commission to probe the interference of the army generals in the politics of the country and take the generals to task for using extra constitutional methods to undermine and humiliate the democratic functioning of civilian rule. If the generals of the Pakistan army are not checked this time then there is the very real possibility of the derailment of the democratic way of governance.
