Nawaz Sharif will complete the first year of his five-year mandate of governing the country this month. Nothing new about this, of course. He’s done it twice before. What’s new -- and remarkable -- is that this will be the first six years of uninterrupted democratic rule in Pakistan’s history.

After Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Sharif is the first elected prime minister who had started off his innings with the expectation of completing five years in office despite having poorer luck twice before. Others, including Benazir Bhutto and Yousaf Raza Gilani, never had this luck.

For a moment, last month, it seemed the luck would run out again. The military had its latest tiff with the government -- the ‘dignity’ row -- over civilian assertions of supremacy articulated by ministers Khwaja Asif and Saad Rafique that put paid to carefully calibrated perceptions of the military and the Sharif administration being on the same page.

The government had barely survived the scare of the spectre of history repeating itself when an audacious attack on Hamid Mir snowballed into another one of Pakistan’s seemingly never-ending reinterpretations of the civil-military quarrel.

The protagonists of the squabble this time were not the government and the military but the media and the military. The trigger: an astonishing attack on that last-in-the-list of Pakistan’s holy cows to have been called out -- the ISI -- by Geo TV, the crown jewel of Jang Group, by far Pakistan’s largest media house. Geo ran an uninterrupted 8-hour long bout of nearly unchallenged allegation of ISI and its chief’s involvement in the attack on Hamid Mir, as contended by his family.

The last in line called out

By the time the military struck back -- through blistering public statements, a protocol-busting army chief’s visit to the ISI chief’s office in a strong optical signal of support and amalgamation of ranks, activation of hardline militant and religious groups, mobilising in active public shows of solidarity with ISI, goading Geo’s media rivals into a blitzkrieg of sound bites that continues unabated, and an acerbic written request to the media regulator to shut down Geo -- it was clear that the last of Pakistan’s great hitherto unaccountable forces were finally at war -- the media and the military.

Right up to 2007, when the judiciary’s patience snapped with Musharraf’s asphyxiating grip over it and right through to 2008 when the transition from the latest bout of direct military rule to democratic rule began, the script has largely remained unchanged. Political forces are manipulated and bludgeoned, usually at the pain of their leaders killed, jailed, or exiled. And even during periods of elected rule, political forces are stifled.

It all changed when the Charter of Democracy was sewn up and signed in the mid-2000s basically between Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N -- the two primary victims of the military establishment. By the time PPP came to power in 2008 the charter was quietly put into practice and despite severe civ-mil challenges held its place.

The result? This changed the script authored by the military establishment. The political forces started countering the establishment’s state-within-a-state machine that was the ISI with the constitution-within-a-constitution mechanism that was the Charter of Democracy. Hence, the super-smooth handover of power from the outgoing PPP to the incoming PML-N and the gracious dining out of President Zardari by Prime Minister Sharif. And the unconditional reciprocal assurance by PPP to PML-N that it would support the Sharif administration complete its full-five years as a means of consolidation of the political space enlarged for the political forces over the preceding five years by virtue of a steady understanding.

Lowering premium on adventurism

This larger political compact that has resulted in a pluralistic sharing of power in the federation and parties headed by different political parties is partly the reason that the premium on military adventurism has become lower. The gentle bridling of military’s traditional impulses to throw its weight around has not been easy coming. But did the efforts of the principal political protagonists to quietly push the military into its professional mandate achieve a modicum of success on their own? Hardly.

The judiciary and the media have had an equally important role in reining in the political impulses of the military. Even as the political forces have closed ranks, and even as the military establishment still reacts tersely on issues that impinge on its perceived radius of influence beyond military matters, the superior courts and relentless real-time media have helped dilute the middle ground of propaganda margins managed by the ISPR.

It is in this context that the attack on Hamid Mir and Geo’s subsequent decision to take on the ISI should be understood. The ISI’s swift mobilisation of the army’s support and the high-profile public defense it has mounted, especially the clear split in the media over counter-attacking Geo and Jang Group with charges of treason is breathtaking in its force and scale.

The ease with which the media has been split between basically Geo and the Rest-of the-Media is more a statement of capability of ISI to effect an operation of this nature than the bitter nature of hidden-from-public-view commercial rivalries between the media houses.

The apparently unplanned spat between two asymmetrical forces that are the military establishment and Geo has, for better or worse, woven round the inevitable framework of civ-mil equation. For better, because it throws up a rare opportunity to redefine the boundaries of accountability of some of the last bastions of unscrutinised power -- the ISI, and by that extension the nature of its controversial institutional nexus with the army. It also allows, should we be willing, to redefine the archaic concepts of patriotism and treason for the world of diluted boundaries of the real-time informed citizenry of the twenty-first century.

 Forced patriotism

Should the military application of definition of who is a traitor -- judging by the written complaint from the security forces to PEMRA it means anyone overtly criticising the army, ISI and the ISI chief -- be acceptable when past ‘traitors’ have been elected prime ministers, chief ministers, and governors? One should be able to be a patriot without being forced to love a certain political party or a certain security agency.

Should the proof of working for the enemy be confined to receiving money for public efforts like Geo is accused? In that case, don’t the army and the government receive funds from the same sources without their credentials questioned?

For worse, because if the security establishment wins this battle -- whether we call it the battle for narratives, or the battle for supremacy of messaging, or the ability to press strategic communications -- and however we may define a ‘win’ in this case, then this would constitute a slow but sure recapture of the political space created by the political forces to define the mission statement for the country.

The security establishment’s, ISI’s, and the ISI chief’s ire at being painted an alleged culprit and villain is completely understandable. By any stretch of the imagination, such accusations should primarily have been made in an FIR and a court of law and if they were to be aired, then it should not have been without a right to immediate reply.

 Imperatives of professionalism

Having said that, Geo’s mistake is not that it made an allegation that did not come from the accuser (Hamid Mir) or that it did not go to ISI for a response before making the allegation but that it chose this route because that’s what it does with others when allegations of various nature are made against persons, groups, and institutions such as parliament. Precisely because Geo has featured solitary guests in talk shows like Imran Khan who were allowed to make allegations against others without the right to immediate reply for the accused, it probably felt it could get away doing the same with ISI. And the mistake of non-Geo media is not that it is attacking Geo without giving it the right of reply -- indeed, Jang Group journalists can be seen defending their group in their talk shows. But that it follows Geo in being nonchalant with the imperatives of professionalism.

As for the security forces, it should not have escaped them that until five years ago people could not muster up the courage to speak about them in specific terms. "Establishment" was the generic term used to blame them for ills real and imagined. Then they started using the term "army" to blame them. And now the word "ISI" has lost the menace that denoted its mythical status of invincibility. If the ISI and the army do not abandon their practice of overt and covert intimidation as a communication mechanism -- a sure case of being trapped in a time warp of the 1980s and 90s -- they will lose respect that many still accord it, later if not sooner but for sure.

Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif, is on the right track when he says, "The armed forces are committed to ensuring the stability of democracy and supremacy of the constitution….. The media has played a key role in rallying public opinion on matters of national security. We support the freedom of the press and responsible journalism and appreciate journalists’ sacrifices."

The win-win in this crisis would be professionalism -- both from the media and the military.