This is concluding article of a two-part series. To read the first part click here.

Pakistan underwent disintegration in 1971 and then a democratic experiment under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto till 1977. Bhutto had been the right-hand man of General Ayub and was now the prime minister of a ‘new’ Pakistan. He did give the country a new constitution but then launched an offensive against his own constitution by mutilating it and suppressing the opposition. By 1977, Bhutto had alienated both the right and the left forces that craved for his removal.

In 1971, Turkey saw another army revolt and then their favourite technocrats were brought in who are always ready to help the usurpers in countries such as Pakistan and Turkey. The army in Turkey sidelined political leaders such as Demirel and Ecivet; introduced a professor, Nihat Erim, as the new prime minister who formed a technocratic cabinet that had no political background. That’s how in both Turkey and Pakistan the army kept using civilian faces but Egypt was different in the sense that it always had a one-party rule eliminating the possibility of any legal opposition.

Though Turkey and Pakistan banned political activities on and off and dissolved political parties at will, at least they continued with a veneer of a multi-party system. In Turkey even after the 1971 coup, political instability continued because when you derail democracy you can create a kind of hush present in a graveyard, but you cannot eliminate people’s desire to be governed by their elected representatives no matter how bad they appear to the generals. People want to make their own decisions and do not like it when army or judiciary tries to outsmart them by shortchanging.

In Pakistan we had the third martial law in 1977 and Turkey had its third in 1980. This time around General Kenan Evren staged a coup and within two years created a loyal group headed by Turgut Özal that presented another civilian face while Evren continued as self-appointed president almost throughout 1980s. He gave another new constitution making sure that he would remain president till 1989. The new constitution once again made the army supreme in almost all matters from the mundane to the sublime. Özal was reelected as prime minister in 1987 and took over as president in 1989 after Evren’s term ended.

Now compare this with the Pakistan of 1980s, here General Zia was doing almost the same with the constitution and had his own Özal in the person of Muhammad Khan Junejo; and then in similar fashion a loyal establishment servant Ghulam Ishaq Khan was almost forcibly imposed on the people of Pakistan as their president.

In 1991, Turkey allowed the use of its land and air space to be used by American forces against Iraq and the same year Özal’s party lost elections and Demirel once again got elected. It has a striking similarity with the situation in Pakistan where Benazir Bhutto kept coming back to power despite intense efforts of the establishment not to allow her a comeback.

In 1993, Benazir Bhutto got Farooq Leghari elected as president, and in Turkey Demiral became the head of state. But at this stage once again political instability surfaced in both the countries and the religious right became overactive. In 1996, Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan tried to change the course of Turkish secular politics and a government with overtly religious inclination came to power but that gave the army another excuse to intervene; within a year he was forced to resign and barred from taking part in politics for the next five years. Ostensibly, the army acted to safeguard Kemalist principles.

That was the time when in Pakistan the judiciary was siding with the establishment by approving of every dismissal of elected government barring just one in 1993. In Turkey, Erbekan’s party was banned in 2001, but within a year it emerged with a new name and in 2002 Abdullah Gul won the elections and became the prime minister because Recep Erdğoan was not allowed to contest elections. The new assembly introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Erdoğan to contest a by-election through which he ultimately became the prime minister in 2003.

During all this period, Egypt was going through political stagnation and Hosni Mubarak kept getting himself elected with the help from his army. Pakistan witnessed yet another coup in 1999 and General Musharraf removed the elected government and appointed himself the chief executive, a corporate-sounding designation never heard of in politics. Most of the judiciary sided with the army -- just as it had been the case in Turkey -- and even granted the army chief the right to amend the constitution.

In 2000s, both Pakistan and Egypt remained under military rulers and in Egypt finally the curtain fell for Hosni Mubarak in 2011 when his 30-year-rule came to an end with a popular uprising. Hosni Mubarak ended up in a cage but Musharraf enjoyed his home confinement.

In Turkey, the table turned when Kenan Evren had to appear in court at the age of 94 along with 86-year-old Air Marshal Tehsin. The 1980 constitution given by the Turkish generals had protected them against any legal proceedings but the referendum in 2010 -- exactly 30 years after the last direct military intervention -- introduced a constitutional amendment that allowed the civilian government to prosecute the coup makers.

In Egypt, the newly-elected president, Morsi, removed Marshal Tantavi and appointed General Sisi as commander-in-chief. This generated a false hope that in Egypt too the Turkish model will be followed.

In all, the Turkish army removed the elected governments four times i.e. in 1960, 1971, 1980, and in 1997. In Pakistan, the army directly took over in 1958, 1969, 1977, and 1999. In Egypt army remained in power all along with just a brief interlude with Morsi. So, where do things stand right now?

During the past five years, the three countries have seen dramatic changes. In Egypt, for the first time fair and free elections were held and there was a peaceful transfer of power to Mohammad Morsi. After becoming president, he acted hastily and annoyed the army. Ultimately, his own choice as the commander-in-chief, General Sisi removed Morsi and got himself elected as president in a traditional reenactment of a page taken from a play staged by Pakistan or Turkish usurpers so many times during the past seven decades. After Menderes and ZA Bhutto have climbed the gallows, Morsi has also been sentenced to death in a highly controversial trial reminiscent of similar mockery of justice in Pakistan and Turkey.

So in our analysis, Egypt stands at the bottom of the democratic ladder at the moment.

Turkey has also seen interesting developments since 2010; the most important being the court proceedings against the generals -- both coup makers and the aspiring ones. Interestingly, the democratically elected prime minister and then president, Erdoğan, has tried to accumulate all powers in his own hands and has almost become an autocrat. This is not very different from such efforts by ZA Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan.

Pakistan is perched precariously somewhere in between Egypt and Turkey. Here for the first time a democratically elected government has peacefully transferred power to the next elected one. But the sinister shadow of the knights once again appears to be keen on devouring the democratic gains. The last usurper general has had to face charges in the court for the first time in history, but the stakes are too high if Pakistan tries to follow the Turkish path where it took 30 years after the coup staged by General Evren before he was sentenced.

Nawaz Sharif can follow the Erdoğan path by building metros and concentrating municipal powers in his hands, but if he tries to follow the Turkish leader in matters more serious such as locking horns with the bulls, he might end up as Morsi.

If there is no coup in Pakistan for the next 15 years and at least another three democratically elected governments are able to complete their terms, one might hope that around 2030, Pakistan may stand where Turkey is right now. Otherwise, an Egyptian-like disaster will be in store for the country.