One Way To Perform Constitutional Roles

Is it the indelibly etched, lingering, and haunting memory of the ubiquitous military boots in the corridors of civilian power for thirty years (out of the total sixty of Pakistan's life) that makes the Pakistani nation pay more attention to what the army chief is saying than it should deserve otherwise under normal circumstances?

Or is it the aggrandized power the occupiers of this post over the long, dark years have gained at the expense of the civilian rule that makes them jittery and jumpy?

Whatever the case may be, the way every Pakistani is dwelling on every single word of Ashfaq Kayani's latest statement to figure out the exact meaning of his statement and the intention behind it shows the abnormal level of fear and uncertainty a few words from that quarter can generate in their minds and hearts.

I am talking about the speech the army chief made on Thursday at a Corps Commanders’ conference.

He rejected suggestions of any rift between the military and his ex-boss, retired general and embattled President Pervez Musharraf. He pointed out that any kind of schism, at any level, under the circumstances would not be in the "larger interest" of the nation.

In other words he is standing behind his man.

At the same time he insisted that the armed forces would stay out of politics and they should not be "dragged into any unnecessary controversy".

Is he preempting any such effort or he is publicly warning someone who is already doing so? Is there any unnecessary controversy going on somewhere we don't know of?

Is he talking about the controversy of Musharraf egging on his Q-MQM cronies to stay put and wait for their soon-coming-turn? And it is being done, of all places, in the occupied Army House that actually belongs to Kayani and not to Musharraf.

Is he talking about the support Musharraf is giving to his trounced Q-MQM friends by giving them hope that it won't be long before there will be rift between Zardari and Nawaz Sharif?

Kayani also "reaffirmed that the army stands fully behind the democratic process and is committed to playing its constitutional role in support of the elected government". He also called for a "harmonised relationship between various pillars of the state, as provided in the constitution, in order to maximize national effort."

How he can "stand fully the democratic process" and play his "constitutional role in support of the elected government" by standing behind Musharraf? He did not elaborate. But isn't it oxymoron to stand behind two opposing poles?

Is he inclining towards assuming the wrongly established "constitutional role" of a referee and a power broker as chief of staff?

Is he telling the victor parties to stay away from his man? Is that the only way, in his mind, to bring harmony between various pillars of state?

If that is the case then it is very very dangerous path to take and does not bode well for Pakistan and its people. I don't blame them if they feel jittery and jumpy.

One way he can stay out of politics and let the politicians do their job without him breathing over their necks is to stop releasing the statements about what he is being said and done in top commanders meetings.