Analysis: Military rulers have poor track record

As Pakistan's government continues to flounder in the floodwaters than have brought misery to vast numbers of its people, it should shock no-one that talk is turning to the now-familiar tune of a return to military rule.

Yet those who harbour such mischievous fantasies are doing Pakistan no favours, because for the majority of the country's 63 years of existence it has been the military, not democratic politicians, who have run the show. If so many Pakistanis are facing disaster today, the fault must at least partly be with mismanagement in its past.

But to be fair to Pakistan's army, "democratic" politicians have played their part in making a mockery of proper governance in the country. With the floods making in-roads into the wealthy southern Sindh province, we witness Altaf Hussain, a self-exiled London-based politician who leads the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) party — issuing the following incredible statement: "We will support any such move made by the patriotic generals of the army on the pattern of martial law to abolish the oppressive feudal and tribal political system of the country and rid the country of corrupt politicians."

The statement has ignited predictable criticism from other political parties, including the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP.) This is tragic, because right now all the attention should focus on flood relief efforts. What particularly boggles the mind is that MQM, which commands a strong following in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, is a coalition partner in the very same government it supposedly now seeks to have overthrown.

But it's not just the MQM; many of Pakistan's most prominent politicians — including two former prime ministers, the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and current opposition leader Nawaz Sharif — served in positions of prominence under military dictatorships. If Pakistan's politicians have proven themselves such incompetents, the military should accept its key role in nurturing them.

Interestingly the powerful role of the military in Pakistan's politics has at times led to comparisons with Turkey, given that country's painful experience with military coups. There are important lessons Pakistan can learn from the Turks — but also significant differences. In both countries the military enjoys a powerful reputation as a defender of national interest in the face of internal and external threats. The toppling of democratic governments has often been greeted with sighs of relief by a public tired of the squabbling antics of elected politicos.

So while the QMQ's Hussain was making his case for "patriotic" generals and "martial law" in Pakistan, in Ankara we had an altogether different situation. Prime minister Tayyip Ergodan won a significant victory over the military establishment by refusing its choice for head of land forces — and forcing it to blink first and select another candidate.

Turkey's military has traditionally been viewed as a defender of secular "Kemalism." But in Pakistan the military has a reputation of getting into bed with the Taleban and other Islamic militant outfits. Yet there is a common denominator linking Turkey's Kemalism and Pakistan's nationalist Islamist ideology - a kind of right-wing "we know best" mentality.

Sadly, president Asif Ali Zardari is not an ambitious statesman like Erdogan. It is extremely testing to argue a case in favour of democracy when you have a leader who acts out the role of the villain so perfectly. Zardari's tour of the UK and France in the midst of these epic floods left a bad taste even with his European hosts. The man reputedly has no university degree, is perceived as exceptionally corrupt in Pakistan and is a leader totally cut-off from the masses.

But does the failure of Zardari mean democracy has failed in Pakistan too? No. It does mean there is a lot of hard work still left to do — for the civilians, not the "patriotic" generals.