The difference between Pakistan and Turkey is that while disillusionment in Turkey is with one party's agenda vs the alternatives, in Pakistan, it is with perceptions of corruption of political classes vs decisiveness of soldering fraternity
Similarities between Pakistan and Turkey are eerie — both were borne of Islamic lands that portended an aspired identity of modernism and secularism, afforded genealogically by Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Pakistan and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey. Both nations have seen the sparring oscillation of rule between the Armed Forces and the civilian leadership. Both are continuously trying to rationalise and nuance their inherent religious tendencies, alongwith the post-modern necessities of integrating in the global order. Both have had bloody histories of managing the minorities, one with the Kurds and the other with its myriad sectarian trysts.
They are, the only two Islamic countries with nuclear weapons on their soil (Pakistan has its own arsenal, while the Incirlik airbase in South-East Turkey is North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s largest nuclear weapons storage facility).One has a ‘Bangladesh’ to its behavioural infamy, and the other, an ‘Armenia’ to its blotted history. Between themselves, they are undoubtedly the two most powerful militaries in the Islamic world, with standing Armed Forces that are professional and revered in popular perception and culture.
The commonality of the multiple strains, instincts, institutions and compulsions have afforded them a unique relationship and partnership between themselves, that held its own, in the most trying times — India-Pakistan war of 1971, saw rare and active Turkish support for the Pakistani’s, that was both, diplomatic and military.
It was not just the Pakistani Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah who looked up to the Turkish revolutionary Atatürk as a role model, it is said, Gen Pervez Musharraf, who spent close to 10 years of his childhood in Turkey and spoke fluent Turkish, modelled himself to be the modern avatar of Kemalism. Fittingly, in 2009, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was honoured with the highest civilian award in recognition of “the highest service degree of service to the country and nation of Pakistan”, the Nishan-e-Pakistan.
At the face of it, Pakistan is like Turkey, today also — the civilian rule is in place but the brooding shadow of the Generals, looms in the background, an uneasy truce and unsaid looking over the epaulettes on the shoulders, continues. However, the recent failed attempt of the Turkish coup d'état attempt has thrown some stark questions on the popular perceptions of the Turkish Armed Forces.
While it is true that the military putsch was not a unified attempt and it lacked the grounds well of the uniformed fraternity — however, unprecedented scenes of civilians hauling out uniformed soldiers from their armoured vehicles and publically flogging them on the streets, was an unimaginable specter for a country that is known to cherish, revere and hero-worship their soldiers.
Adding to the insult was the veritable joining-of-hands by people of all political affiliations — from Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) to the Opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Nationalist Action Party (MHP). Irrespective of the bitter politics and bad blood amongst the various political entities, the combined angst and disgust at the prospects of a military take-over was overwhelming.
Clearly, the popular democratic impulses and frameworks that have been nurtured assiduously by President Erdogan’s efforts since 2003, have taken deeproutes — also the simultaneous neutering and defanging of the military top brass with the gradual chipping away of powers and purging the barracks of the ‘non-compliant’ cadres, has literally saved the long night for Erdogan and participative democracy in Turkey.
The current landscape in Pakistan is markedly different, the ruling politicos are losing the reigns of state controls and popular perceptions vis-à-vis the Pakistani Army. The dominant role in Pakistan has shifted from the National Assembly in Islamabad to the General Head Quarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. It is General Raheel Sharif and not his less imposing namesake, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who is perceived as the savior from the prospects of self-imploding — not just from the military threats or the security imperatives, but also from sure-shot economic degradation.
The ongoing turf-war on controlling the ‘game-changing’ hype-infrastructure project of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or managing international affairs and diplomacy — the ‘Army house’ has emerged as the must-stop-port-of-call for any foreign dignitary, and the frequent dashes of the Army Chief to discuss strategic affairs in Riyadh, Kabul or Washington, DC, is reflective of the real boss in Pakistan, ensconced in the GHQ Rawalpindi.
The chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan stirred the hornet’s nest by stating that, “People will celebrate a military takeover in Pakistan. The democracy here is threatened by Nawaz Sharif’s monarchy, not military”, he went to say that the Pakistanis would, “celebrate and distribute sweets”!
Undoubtedly, General Raheel Sharif is the alpha-male in Pakistan and in an foreboding move, an obscure political party called ‘Move on Pakistan’ put up posters on the main streets of the big cities with a commanding photo of General Raheel Sharif and a singular message, “For god’s sake, take over”.
The popular perceptions of the Army to be the only institution that is selfless, patriotic and can get things done, is at an all-time high. Aiding the image is the visible ‘fight-back’ by the Pakistani Army in the form of Operation Zarb-e-Azb in the north-west Pakistan, operations in Baluchistan and even on the trigger-happy streets of Karachi. Even from a sub-continental proclivity towards sentiments of ‘anti-incumbency’, the timing augurs well for the military (the last Military Government was of General Musharraf’s in 2008).
like in Turkey, all political parties slammed the Turkish coup attempt in Pakistan. Understandably, the nervous Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif demonstrated his finest democratic beliefs with “We deeply admire the resolve of the brave and resilient Turkish people, who stood up against the forces of darkness and anarchy to express their support and commitment to democracy”.
Further, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chief, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari added for good measure, “The people of Turkey deserve to be complimented for coming out into the streets and face military tanks and artillery with bare hands to force the coup makers run”. Truth is, even with the combined numbers of all the political party members in unison, the average Pakistani’s perception towards a potential takeover by the military cannot be safely imagined or likened to the ground reality in Turkey.
The fundamental difference is that while the popular disillusionment in Turkey is with one party’s ideological mooring and agenda versus the alternative’s, the popular disenchantment in Pakistan is with the composite perceptions of ineptitude, corruption and inabilities of the political classes, versus the solidity and decisiveness of the soldering fraternity. Pakistan is not Turkey, and all eyes are on General Raheel Sharif with his supposed retirement in September.
(The writer is a former lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and Puducherry, and a military veteran)