REMEMBER the early days of the Musharraf era when some of us were earnestly suggesting exit strategies that would allow the army to return to the barracks?

How the generals must have laughed at our naive assumption that they actually wanted to bring military rule to an end as early as possible. In our foolish innocence, we believed Musharraf when he said he wanted to hand power back to elected representatives of the people and restore democracy.

Six years and many disillusionments later, we cannot see an end to the current bout of military rule. In fact, the longer it goes on, the less likely it seems the generals will release their grip on the nation’s jugular. With a divided opposition and a supportive White House, there is no reason for the army to return power to the people. For the foreseeable future, our warlords are masters of all they survey.

In the military mind, a foe who is easily defeated is not worthy of respect. And while it may be stretching the point to see politicians as the enemy from GHQ’s perspective, the fact is that the officer class of the army has been trained to distrust and despise politicians. In the military academy at Kakul, ‘bloody civvies’ are supposed to be the root cause of all our problems.

Given this mindset, it should come as no surprise that the army sees itself as saviours who have come to clear the mess created by corrupt and incompetent civilians. From this assumption, it is a short step to taking over all positions of power and authority. Just as the British placed their own people in top slots in the colonies, so too has Musharraf sent serving and retired army officers to run civilian departments and organizations ranging from health to education.

Taken together with the impressive portfolio of lucrative enterprises the army is engaged in, there is now an interlocking network of commercial and professional interests in place that requires the army to rule. Real estate is the cornerstone of the military enterprise, and officers are entitled to plots of premium urban and rural land at heavily subsidized rates.

In older, more law-abiding days, whenever the army required state land, the government would transfer it to the Military Land and Cantonment Service with the explicit understanding that the land would revert to the government when the army no longer needed it for the purpose for which it was transferred. Now, generals refer to this as ‘army land’ that can be sold to their officers at a fraction of its commercial rate.

While I think it is absolutely right and proper for the government to help military and civil officers to have a house by the time they retire, it is scandalous that they should dabble in several choice pieces of real estate while in service.

In her forthcoming book on the business interests of the army, the noted defence analyst Ayesha Siddiqa Agha estimates that by the time a full general retires, he is worth around Rs 500 million, while a lieutenant-general’s net worth is in the region of 300 million. And all this from perfectly legal sources. When you add this to perks like servants and staff for their lifetime, you begin wondering why on earth they would want to relinquish power.

According to figures published in the press from time to time and never denied, there are currently a thousand serving and retired military officers in a wide range of civilian jobs. Supporters of the army argue that this is a good thing, given the inefficiency and corruption rife among bureaucrats. Had this systematic militarization of the civil services resulted in greater efficiency and less corruption, I would have agreed. But unfortunately, once military personnel enter the civilian arena, they are just as incompetent and crooked.

How could it be otherwise? People from the same background doing the same jobs tend to react similarly. Thus, whether a general or a civilian is running Wapda, we get the same inefficiency and the same ‘leakage’ from revenues. Ditto PNSC, PIA, Pakistan Steel or any other government organization.

Alas, the army itself is not free from this kind of national malady. While we cannot subject it to the same kind of cost-benefit analysis commercial operations are judged by, we can certainly look at its successes and failures in the military arena. Unfortunately, our army has not exactly covered itself with glory on any of the battlefields it has fought on. Despite the medals and the promotions hundreds of officers have benefited from over the years, and the billions upon billions we have lavished on it, the army has not distinguished itself as a professional fighting machine.

And now, after becoming so deeply enmeshed in the nation’s bureaucratic and business life, it is questionable whether our top brass have the desire to fight if the need does arise. This can be seen as a good thing: if the army’s corporate needs now dictate that peace is a desirable goal, then we can hope to find a solution to our differences with India. Without the army being onside, this was never possible for civilian leaders.

The issue is not about plots of land or civilian slots the army has grabbed. It is about whose country this is. We should all be stakeholders, civilians and military officers alike. But more and more, the army’s interests are diverging from the nation’s, and we need to put things back on even keel.

The army’s supporters will argue that many countries have put up with military rule for many years. Yes, but look at what happened to them. Burma and Chile are just two examples. The bottom line is that the military is not trained or equipped to deal with the grey areas of civilian life. Until the GHQ itself realizes that its repeated interventions have been devastating for the country, and it must resist the temptations offered by inept civilian rule, this cycle will continue, and Pakistan’s institutional development will remain stunted.