Army is an integral part of government
Friday, 2 November 2007
M Zakiul Islam
The phrase 'military-backed government' was probably used first by 'The Economist' of London to describe the present system of Government in Bangladesh. They always love to put a label, especially if it has to do something with the third world.
Unfortunately, the local media also got the wind and we now see a myriad race of connotation of the above both in the English and in the mother tongue, print and electronic media alike. But is there any such thing as 'a military-backed government' or the opposite of it?
Military is like any other integral part of the modern state machinery. The Government and military are mutually inclusive and they "back" each other. Isn't it the same in London, Washington and Beijing ? Can a Government afford to have a military which does not support it, conversely can a military justify its existence without enjoying the support of the Government! A government without active support of the military will suffer from hypoxia ( call it OQ syndrome ! ) and a military without support from the government will probably fall victim to asphyxia.
Having said that, a question might arise whether the present Caretaker Government is enjoying a bit more support than the usual. To me, the answer is both yes and no. Yes, because in the absence of an elected, constitutional authority some "extra- celestial" power is needed to propel things. And No, because although the uniformed personnel might be a bit more visible nowadays than at normal times, they are not directly running the day to day affairs of the state. Our military of today are well educated, highly disciplined and internationally acclaimed, having exposure to international environment. It's a matter of pride. Yet, the military is aware of its limitations and remains respectful of the limits under a democratic government. What happened in January was in response to a higher calling ! And such sacred and divine duty is a matter, better to be perceived and understood than fit for open discussion. The military acted with prudence and resilience. See the way some desk officers in the home monetary have been alternately requesting them to "Stand by" and "rest" as the ministry prefers to issue press releases, military pride and prestige notwithstanding. We ought to salute the restraint and resilience of our military. One should also note the quick response of the Army to dismantle its camp in the campus displaying genuine sincerity.
Sun Tzu had listed five dangerous faults which may affect a commander. Two among those are: if quick-tempered, he can be provoked to rage and make a fool of himself; if he has too delicate a sense of honour, he is liable to fall into a trap because of an insult. Wise sayings indeed!
We all know and believe that there will be elections by the end of 2008. What we don't know is what would be the composition of the coming parliament. Known unknowns. But what we don't know at this stage is that we don't know how things would shape up before the next elections. Unknown unknowns. Thanks to Ronald Rumsfeld !
The phrase 'military-backed government' was probably used first by 'The Economist' of London to describe the present system of Government in Bangladesh. They always love to put a label, especially if it has to do something with the third world.
Unfortunately, the local media also got the wind and we now see a myriad race of connotation of the above both in the English and in the mother tongue, print and electronic media alike. But is there any such thing as 'a military-backed government' or the opposite of it?
Military is like any other integral part of the modern state machinery. The Government and military are mutually inclusive and they "back" each other. Isn't it the same in London, Washington and Beijing ? Can a Government afford to have a military which does not support it, conversely can a military justify its existence without enjoying the support of the Government! A government without active support of the military will suffer from hypoxia ( call it OQ syndrome ! ) and a military without support from the government will probably fall victim to asphyxia.
Having said that, a question might arise whether the present Caretaker Government is enjoying a bit more support than the usual. To me, the answer is both yes and no. Yes, because in the absence of an elected, constitutional authority some "extra- celestial" power is needed to propel things. And No, because although the uniformed personnel might be a bit more visible nowadays than at normal times, they are not directly running the day to day affairs of the state. Our military of today are well educated, highly disciplined and internationally acclaimed, having exposure to international environment. It's a matter of pride. Yet, the military is aware of its limitations and remains respectful of the limits under a democratic government. What happened in January was in response to a higher calling ! And such sacred and divine duty is a matter, better to be perceived and understood than fit for open discussion. The military acted with prudence and resilience. See the way some desk officers in the home monetary have been alternately requesting them to "Stand by" and "rest" as the ministry prefers to issue press releases, military pride and prestige notwithstanding. We ought to salute the restraint and resilience of our military. One should also note the quick response of the Army to dismantle its camp in the campus displaying genuine sincerity.
Sun Tzu had listed five dangerous faults which may affect a commander. Two among those are: if quick-tempered, he can be provoked to rage and make a fool of himself; if he has too delicate a sense of honour, he is liable to fall into a trap because of an insult. Wise sayings indeed!
We all know and believe that there will be elections by the end of 2008. What we don't know is what would be the composition of the coming parliament. Known unknowns. But what we don't know at this stage is that we don't know how things would shape up before the next elections. Unknown unknowns. Thanks to Ronald Rumsfeld !