A matter of concern

We admit that for a nation state to survive, and thrive on, national security is very important, because national security is essentially about national sovereignty – territorial, political, economic and cultural – and, above all, human security. It follows then that any move to form a national security council will entail detailed and pervasive discussions in every section of the population since the people are the ultimate stakeholders of national security and sovereignty. Evidently, the government deems such consultations unnecessary and has reposed in itself the authority to make decisions on an issue that pertains to the interest of the people at large. In the first place, such authority has not been bestowed in the unelected incumbents of the day either by the people or the constitution. We also have doubts about the incumbents’ understanding of and commitment to the concept of national sovereignty, especially after we saw the military backers of the Fakhruddin administration allowing certain foreign missions to have their say on our political courses right inside the military headquarters – the physical symbol of our hardware national security. The state of emergency, in other words the state of undemocarcy on the part of the people, followed those meetings. After the emergency was promulgated, we have seen these diplomats trumpeting the support of their respective countries to the unelected government and its self-proclaimed open-ended tenure. Moreover, the civilian incumbents and their military mentors have been displaying enormous enthusiasm to garner the support and sympathy of those foreign missions – a tendency displayed by a section of politicians whom we have always criticised on nationalist grounds. In such circumstances, we have valid reasons to suspect that the government’s perception of national security may at best be incongruous with and at worst contradictory to the very concept of national sovereignty. In a democratic dispensation, the army should be kept at an arm’s length from governance of the state and under tight control of elected representatives. However, in countries where democracy is yet to take a firm root, the national security council has been used as a conduit for the army to meddle with the affairs of the state whenever it wishes; Pakistan comes to mind as an obvious example. Thus, it may not be illogical to suspect that the formation of the national security council is just a way of institutionalising the army’s role in governance. The protagonists of the proposed national security council reportedly argue that such a body is required as an effective safeguard against the elected governments’ failure to rise above crude partisanship. There is no denying that crude power struggle between the mainstream political parties did push the country to an unbearable stage. But, its solution does not lie in institutionalisation of the army into politics but in streamlining the political process and politically forcing them into committing themselves to protection and promotion of national interest. Finally, we are aware of the fact national security cannot be ensured by the military alone, or with the support of foreign diplomats; rather it primary requires politically conscious people. Most importantly, it requires governance by people’s representative, an elected and patriotic government that is committed to enhancing people’s rights, ensuring pervasive economic developments, spreading education, increasing food productions, ensuring health for all, etc.