THE rif t was unnecessary, making sensibly handled closure all the more welcome. Eleven days af ter DG ISPR Maj-Gen Asif Ghafoor tweeted a rejection of a prime ministerial directive a move that even at the time appeared hasty and ill-thought-out the civil and military leadership have choreographed the end of a wrenching saga that at the very outset, some seven months ago, seemed vastly overblown. Gratifyingly, the military leadership has now not just publicly reiterated its support for democracy, but also embraced core principles of a democratic state: respect for the Constitution and acceptance of legitimately issued prime ministerial orders. History will judge the current military leadership kindly for its willingness to admit a mistake and stand on the side of principles against expediency and cynically manipulated populism. Both Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa deserve praise for pulling back from the brink. Hopefully, the democratic project will continue without further setbacks.

If the end is sensible, the beginning was anything but. Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the saga has been why the previous military leadership created a national frenzy over a report in this newspaper in the first place. Given the veil of secrecy that the military throws over ongoing internal debates and the self-aggrandising speculation in sections of the media, it is difficult to ascertain in the present tense what may be motivating certain decisions by the military leadership. However, with the exit of former army chief Gen Raheel Sharif and the dismantling of his small but powerful coterie of advisers, it does appear that a desire to seek a full-term extension by him may have tainted the response by the military leadership last October. While that is now history and Gen Sharif has secured for himself a sinecure in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the military leadership needs to address what has emerged as a problem since the transition to democracy began nearly a decade ago: the old rule of military chiefs retiring on time and not seeking an extension needs to be made a norm once again. For reasons of democracy, but also for reasons of the institutional strength and dynamism of the military, regular change at the very top is necessary and desirable.

For the civilians, the lesson remains the same: unless decisionmaking is institutionalised, civil-military dialogue formalised and the institutions of democracy strengthened, democracy here will remain vulnerable to attack. The prime minister and his cabinet are too experienced to justify a whimsical, desultory and closed decision-making process. There is also no room for ego and a sense of victimhood at the very apex of the national policymaking process if the civilians believe they can carve a better path, why not try and work with the military to do so?