If PPP Senator Farhatullah Babar is to be believed, then the current protest outside parliament is not a genuine protest movement, but is indicative of “a deeper malaise involving the distorted relationship” between the civilian government and the ‘establishment’. In Senator Babar’s view, expressed in a speech to the joint session of parliament on Monday, the protests are not being held at the behest of the public or even Imran Khan. He suggests that in fact a script is being played out to force the elected government’s hand in certain policy areas, or perhaps to weaken the government and allow the military to pull strings behind the scenes. This theory has gained traction both in the parliament and in the media, particularly following the revelations of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) President Javed Hashmi, who rocked his party’s boat and shocked members of the parliament when he said that he had warned Imran Khan he was being manipulated and that Imran decided to join Tahirul Qadri’s march on parliament against the majority consensus in his party. Javed Hashmi alleged that a script written in Rawalpindi was being played out that he could not participate in. If true, Senator Babar suggested, the solution he proposed was to engage in “serious and meaningful dialogue with military leaders about simmering issues”. Both these veteran parliamentarians have strong memories of the 1990s when civilian governments were routinely dismissed or ousted through behind the scenes manipulation by the ‘establishment’, by which they usually mean the military and its associated bureaucratic support structure. It was the realisation of this that led to the 2006 Charter of Democracy (CoD), which among other things said that security and espionage agencies should be brought under the control of the civilian government. Senator Babar raised this point when he said that implementing Articles 32 to 36 of the COD was necessary, the relevant articles dealing primarily with correcting the civilian-military imbalance in policy making. That such an imbalance exists is not truly under debate, as shown by Pakistan’s history. However, if the military did attempt to destabilise the government by using legitimate political agitation as a tool, then his proposal, while well intentioned, is also destined to go nowhere because so far the military has shown no sign that it is interested in such a dialogue, even if it believes one is necessary. There are in fact a lot of ‘ifs’ around what Senator Babar suggested and they point more to a desire to end the current protest than to redress the civil-military balance of power, such as when he asked the ‘script writers’ to “wrap up this circus”. Based on his thinking, the idea is why argue with front men when it is better to directly negotiate with the people allegedly behind everything. This could be taken as part of his assertion that the political leadership has “come of age” while the ‘establishment’ has realised that ousting civilian governments as it chooses is no longer possible. The question is, are these assertions true? Based on his logic, the military is powerful enough that it can ignore such outreach and not worry about the consequences. As far as it is concerned, then, it is only in the civilian government’s interest to engage in this kind of dialogue, and it does not have a great deal of trust in elected politicians based on their perceived corruption and ineptitude. However, Senator Babar’s suggestions, utopian as they might seem, are more credible than some may realise if the narrative of events he suggests is true. In the twenty first century, states dominated by military policy have become increasingly unsustainable. The shift globally is towards more open and accountable government, with non-compliant countries forced into pariah status and economic degradation. Increasingly countries are bound by international agreements and multilateral conventions that limit the powers of the state with regard to the citizenry. Even countries powerful enough to ignore conventions risk de-legitimising themselves at home. Senator Babar then should be complimented for his good idea, but whether it is based in reality remains to be seen. *