M A Hossain 25/4/2018
There is no room for adopting any self- styled democracy by replacing the theory of Abraham Lincoln’s democracy. In today’s world, we hear from some rulers that development is more important than democracy. As if the so-called development is unimpeded and not subject to any retardation; and as if nothing can hold back any country’s growth and development despite corruption and violation of human rights. Those who are trying to replace democracy with the so-called development or self-styled democracy are pushing the nation under a brutal autocracy.
If we look into Myanmar, for example, Aung San Suu Kyi may pretend as an ‘icon’ of democracy, but in reality, what she has established is simply hypocrisy, mixed with uncontrolled rogue governance. Under the fake democracy of Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s natural and mineral resources are already offered to foreign vested groups, ignoring the national interest. In fact, she has transformed Myanmar into a political brothel, where any global power can take undue advantages simply by assuring so-called support to Suu Kyi and her team. By doing so, she is, in reality, putting the very sovereignty of the country into an auction. People may argue with me saying, Myanmar’s military junta had in fact isolated the country from rest of the world. They [military junta] were corrupted and cruel.
Partially true! Myanmar’s military junta l were corrupt and cruel; because they were not purely military rulers. It was a kind of pseudo-military rule combined with socialism, religious extremism [Buddhism] and even so-called democracy. In the end, it turns into a complete mess. Any true military ruler can neither be corrupt nor cruel. Instead, they are core ideologist in upholding sovereignty and dignity of their nation.
We have heard of corruption of the politicians in Thailand. In fact, the army had to intervene every time to save Thailand from the grips of corrupt politicians. Naturally, politicians are the main rivals of the Thai army. The question is – when corruption allegations had been almost regularly brought against most of the Thai politicians, why the politicians never could bring any corruption charges against military rulers? The answer is – military officers in Thailand, by and large, are honest.
Now let me look into Egypt’s Abdel Fatah al Sisi. He may be a cruel ruler but can anyone bring a single corruption allegation against him?
How about South Korea’s military dictator General Park Chung Hee or Singapore’s military dictator Lee Kuan Yew? Should there be no military rule in South Korea or Singapore – these countries would have remained as poor nations. But again, there is no corruption allegation against either of them.
In Pakistan, if we look into the military rule of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, General Muhammad Zia-ul Haq or General Pervez Musharraf; Ayub and Zia were pure military rulers. While Musharraf was an over-ambitious individual under the military uniform. Musharraf wanted to become a politician, while Ayub and Zia were soldiers. Naturally, corruption allegations could be brought against Musharraf – but not against Ayub or Zia.
There is a distinctive difference between an army and a politician. No one can question the patriotism of any real military personnel; but patriotism of a politician, unfortunately, can mostly be put in doubt. A military person cannot overtake any country’s rule out of greed or out of over-ambition. A man in uniform remains a man in uniform throughout the life – even after his retirement. To him or her, the only priority is the country. Not anything else. But, when the desire of becoming a politician gets into the mind of any military personnel s/he will automatically turn polluted. They will either indulge in corruption, or nepotism, or mockery, or abuse of the rule of law, or everything combined. Military personnel can never be a good politician. Because politics and defense are different worlds.
The question is – why and when the army should interfere into any country’s governance. They should not; unless the country goes into the wrong hands of corrupt politicians, and country’s sovereignty are put at stake. If any such situation occurs anywhere in the world, the army will have no alternative but to seize power thus save the nation as part of their sacred oath.
If the patriotic army is compelled in seizing power anywhere in the world, they must exhibit total neutrality. And for the sake of nation’s interest, sometimes they need to be cruel to the enemies of the country. They must realize, corrupt politicians, are the major enemies of any country. Accepting this fact, they must deal with this matter militarily. Instead of creating an exit for the corrupt politicians in fleeing the country and seeking asylum aboard – army should put them under trial – for corruption, nepotism, and even treason. And of course, these corrupt politicians must face gallows – not garlands.