I have developed the hypothesis that every civilian government, over the last fifty years of our turbulent history, had been removed by the military, never through a political process. But the irony is that highly professional 500,000 troops were never consulted nor had anything to do with any of these military interventions. All interventions were solely by the Chief of Army Staff, checks on whose personal authority had ended ever since the disastrous appointment of Gen. Ayub Khan as Defense Minister while simultaneously holding the office of Army Chief. The Defense Ministry had thereafter ceased to be a supervisory body and had become a Ministry for facilitating the decisions of the Army Chief, primarily through the appointment of serving and retired generals at top jobs in the Ministry.

Every intervention was always in response to immense pressure put on the Chiefs by impatient, out-of-power politicians and misguided self proclaimed well-wishers urging him on to " save the country" readily picking up crumbs of power he was willing to throw their way. This is not a recent phenomenon. Altaf Gauhar in his biography of Ayub Khan states that as long ago as the 1950's eminent people like the Aga Khan and Begum Liaqat Ali were urging Ayub to "do something to save this country". Legitmacy was provided by a corrupt and self-serving higher judiciary. As for the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, his office exercised no control over the Army Chief and remained merely an irrelevant decoration. The penultimate irony was the foolishness of Parliament, which surrendered over-sight of the military by giving up its right to debate the defense budget, leave alone exercising control over the military, thereby creating an all-powerful Army Chief. Professional officers elevated to command the army suddenly acquired awesome authority, unheard-of in any civilised country in the world, with no civilian, military or political control, a situation for which they had never been trained. This one condition, above all else, has stifled democracy. As long as this situation exists democracy is not an option, no matter what other constitutional, judicial or administrative reforms are introduced.

Now, to business. How is this highly desirable (and, of course, eventually inevitable) change in the present arrangement to be brought about. An incredible set of circumstances have today, for the first time in 50 years, opened a unique window of opportunity. The President is also the Army Chief. He has repeatedly asserted his firm commitment to democracy. There can be no reason to doubt this commitment, given that "enlightened moderation" and "good governance" cannot exist outside a democracy. The President should be lauded for having already implemented some measures to bring about a liberal democracy. Permitting a totally free media since the very first day he assumed power was a courageous step. But many things did go wrong. Local bodies elections, the referendum and general elections were all badly tarnished. The nation certainly deserves fair elections in future, along with the Rule of Law and Protection of Citizens rights. Reforms in this regard should be fully supported. But they pale in comparison to the more vital reforms needed for supervision of the military. As a powerful Army Chief himself the President is in the best position to introduce immediate legislative and administrative measures whereby parliament regains its constitutional authority to monitor the armed forces and their budget; the Defense Ministry resumes its genuine supervisory role, rather than its current facilitation role, over all functions of the military establishment; and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee , at long last assumes its rightful place in the defense establishment.

With regard to Parliament, immediate action is not only required but is very do-able. Simple measures can be introduced right away ---today, this week, this month---so that when the budget is presented in about three months time Parliament can debate defense allocations. Confidential matters can be referred to relevant Committees to debate in camera. Defense, Intelligence and other Committees of both the Senate and the House should have the right to call ministry officials, services chiefs and other officers to discus all routine subjects, excluding operational deployments and specific sensitive matters. If the President so desires, this bold and revolutionary action could well become the first genuine step towards a liberal democracy in Pakistan.

Where the Defense Ministry is concerned the solution is even simpler. Existing rules of business quite correctly require all acts of the service Chiefs to be approved by the ministry. But because it is currently only a facilitating body, approvals of the Chiefs' requirements are automatic. With simple administrative changes such automatic approvals will end. A healthy culture of routine, daily administrative checks and balances over the Chiefs will emerge. The first step is for all senior appointments in the Ministry to be restricted to civilian bureaucrats, except junior technical officers below Grade 20. Secondly, Joint Chiefs meetings should by chaired by the Defense Secretary. Thirdly, out of power politicians should be banned from Army House. Fourthly, whenever the Chief meets the President or the Prime Minister, he must be accompanied by one of his superiors, The Secretary or the Minister. These changes are so simple and effective, requiring no funding, no seminars, no consultants, that they themselves will make future military interventions next to impossible.

The role of the Joint Staff is another matter altogether. Even the so-called top inter-services organisation, the ISI, does not come under the Chairman Joint Chiefs, nor indeed does anything else of substance. Reform of the Joints Chiefs is a technical matter. It requires re-evaluating the current scenario and reforming the higher formations to reflect the needs of the 21st Century. More so because Pakistan is the only nuclear power today where there is only one finger on the nuclear button---that of the Army Chief ---all existing so-called checks and balances being appointees of, and subordinate to, the Army Chief. They obviously cannot check their own boss. This is an unacceptable arrangement for the world, leave alone for Pakistan.

Were the President personally to be convinced of the need to place checks and balances on future Army Chiefs as a pre-requisite of democracy, he would find the entire nation ready to back him. If ever there can be total cohesion and unity amongst all political parties, surely it would be on this one issue alone. It is inconceivable that any political party would raise a hue and cry against it. They all want democracy. The people want democracy. The President wants democracy. Everybody wants democracy. This one measure alone is indispensable for democracy. It is now a simple question of the political will. It could well become his lasting legacy to a grateful nation.

But if for some unfathomable reason or unknown compulsion the President is unwilling or unable to take the initiative, all is not lost. Major political parties themselves have a unique alternative. For the first time ever both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif are on the same side of the fence. If they can agree to this one reform which restricts the power of only one man--- and that also of only one unidentified man in the future---- democracy will become possible. If not, whenever they come into power they will meet the same inevitable fate and be (jack) booted out at regular intervals of a couple of years.

The choice is simple. Either the President himself can introduce the reforms and earn a lasting place of honour in the country's history. Or else Ms Bhutto and Mr. Sharif can jointly commit to introduce them, irrespective of who wins the next elections. Only then can they expect to complete their constitutionally guaranteed tenures in government. Only then will democracy have a chance. Otherwise, they will not have to wait for long for another "Charge of the 111 Brigade".