By Amjad Mehmood
— During the era of a cold war between the United States and USSR, the term
‘co-existence’ evolved suggesting a theme where two or more groups can live together while respecting their differences and resolving their conflicts nonviolently. This useful policy offers a recipe to end aggression and reframe the mutual relationships between two powers.
Eugene Weiner (1998) in his book “Coexistence Work: A New Profession” stated that in the late 80s, the policy of peaceful coexistence included principles such as “non-aggression, respect for sovereignty, national independence, and non-interference in internal affairs. Mutual tolerance, respect, recognition of differences for living together, non-intention of harming each other, and silent agreement to settle the conflicts without using violence are various pragmatic ways of coexistence. Based on diversity, equality, and interdependence between different groups, a society can derive the benefits of
co-existence. The most valuable attribute of‘co-existence’ is it lets people work in a shared environment and grow smoothly without collision. The policy of co-existence is even helpful in times of global political polarization and stalemate on various conflicts between the governments.
Apparently, the phenomenon of co-existence is discussed when two different countries are engaged in hostile affairs. To safeguard the politics, public, economy, and overall peace in society, the policy of political co-existence helps the governments to mitigate their conflicts and find the way forward to socio-economic prosperity in the larger interest of their masses.
Pakistan is facing an entirely different situation and the need to espouse the philosophy of ‘co-existence’ is not proposed to deal with any external disputes. Rather, this lesson is imperative for Pakistani politicians and military so they accept the existence of each other in a respectable manner and operate within their constitutional trajectories. Historically, politicians and the military establishment in Pakistan equally share the legacy of toxic relationships which resulted in political, economic, and geographical devastations for the country. The public remained ultimate loser in the war of establishing supremacy between politicians and the military.
This tale of hate and romance has a very old history between politicians and the military in Pakistan. Putting aside the element of honesty, both politicians and the military establishment utterly used mala fide tactics to institute their hegemony in the country. Courtesy of structured organization, the military remained united in achieving their set goals. They played smartly the canon of ‘divide & rule’ learned from their peers. While on the other hand, the lack of political maturity and lust for power never allowed the politicians to address their dissonance for the sake of country. Their short-term union on a common platform is either credited to military intervention or safeguarding their joint miseries.
A commonly established fact is that the military in Pakistan has a parallel state with an inevitable role in make and break of governments, aligning Pakistan’s foreign policy, and coaching politicians. Their empires, resources, influence, and command are daylight facts. In parallel, with a global outlook as a ‘democratic state’, the role of politicians is equally momentous to demonstrate an aura of democracy in Pakistan. This ‘compulsion’ gives democratic rights to politicians to form a government by registering their majority of public support. Politicians and the military in Pakistan are currently seen as two power centers with a long history of strained ties. The duet of Bhutto-General Ayub, Nawaz Sharif-General Zia, Chaurdry Brothers-General Musharraf, and Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi- General QamarJavedBajwa was not blissful for the country except offering them to enjoy their monarchy as the conqueror.
Due to their standing as two distinct powers, Pakistani politicians and the military establishment are essentially required to learn the art of “co-existence.” They may devise the power-sharing formula by fixing their dedicated domains and boundaries of ‘no-go areas’ for each other. They may jointly develop a consensus to safeguard Pakistan from external detriment by all means. Although the constitution of Pakistan has already established the legitimate roles of government, judiciary, and military, however, history is full of maltreatment with the constitution therefore, the mantra of the constitution has absolutely failed for all practical reasons. The policy of co-existence can teach politicians and military the lessons of mutual respect, non-violent behavior, and re-framing their relationship for the sake of country.
Historically, the judiciary’s role remained very crucial in Pakistan and they did everything except justice. Rather, the Pakistani judiciary has proactively played a puppet role to serve the power elites. Mainly the judiciary bowed its head before the military establishment instead of following the constitution, however, in recent years judges opted to join the caravan of popularity. Since 2007, Pakistani judges are passionately loving their remarks during court proceedings and feel contentment by watching their names on TV screens and other media platforms.
The dream of civilian supremacy has no fate in Pakistan. Military alone also has no solution to address the heaps of troubles stacked by making various adventures under self-assertion. Both politicians and the military establishment should put a full stop to all ventures and re-calculate their muscles. This tug-of-war is dragging the country into a more chaotic situation. They can categorize their expertise to serve the country within their agreed domains after signing a “charter of co-existence”.
Currently, the season of revelations is in full swing when the former premier and military boss have much to tell the nation about each other. Both have a rationale for their deeds but nothing was beneficial for the country. The newly placed political setup in the form of Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition government and military establishment under the command of General AsimMunir are beneficiaries of power and privileges. The politicians and military have a golden opportunity to design and execute a treaty of ‘co-existence’ by accepting the role and necessity of each other. They should admit their past mistakes and pledge to make all-out efforts for betterment of the country.
The recent incidents of 9th May are the total outcome of a ‘one-page’ romance between a political party and the military. The countermeasures are even depressing. This is an unpredictable launch of a rogue future if both forces remain in a standoff position. Pakistan’s overall socio-political and economic situations cannot afford any further adventure orchestrated by the military against the will of nation. The remnant option for politicians and the military is to accept and respect each other’s mandate by following the rule of “co-existence”.