The theory of leadership teaches us that there are formal leaders who are officially vested with power, and those who are the unofficial movers and shakers. A lot of the time, this works in very subtle ways -- and for good reason. Every system is based on certain pretences and people are expected to play along. However, every once in a while, someone will call out the person exercising power behind the scenes for engaging in foul-play. This upsets everyone who benefits from a charade that all is well with the system.

Case in point: Asif Ali Zardari’s speech last week.

Zardari is no stranger to controversy -- and that is not necessarily a bad thing. A political party needs to remain relevant and news is relevance. Last week he made an impassioned speech that has prompted apologies from everyone but Zardari and his party. The content of the speech is not as important as the reaction it generated. The reaction is what tells you what is wrong with Pakistan.

The speech lays out the usual grievances: issues of civil-military imbalance, military controlled forces (conventional and otherwise) overstepping their bounds and politicians feeling victimised. The content of the speech was not revolutionary but it broke past pretences that this system hinges on. Such a move, without prejudice to its merits otherwise, is always courageous. But we must not forget the element of self-interest here either. Indeed, Zardari and his party, during the PPP’s reign of power, crafted a skill out of deftly negotiating with the real power brokers. Hence, the real power brokers are called out on alleged foul-play not on principle but (almost always) out of self-interest. And again, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Such a speech was meant to generate a reaction. Let’s make no mistake about that. The tragedy, however, is that the reaction to Zardari’s speech completely misses the point: thereby reaffirming the charade that Zardari pointed to. The speech made a clear distinction between the constitutional role of the military and its other practices. The politicians, particularly the PML and PTI, opposing the speech seem to have completely missed this distinction. Their argument, as hollow as it is, focuses on the premise that since we are fighting a war Zardari’s speech was irresponsible.

But no disservice was done to the sacrifices rendered by the Pakistani military while defending the country. The fact that we are in a war should not make us blind to our history and the clear-as-day abuses of power by the military in the past. And if a political party, rightly or wrongly, feels aggrieved then it must have the space to air its views -- without being asked to apologise. We do not shy away from criticising abuses of power or corruption by politicians so why should the less than flattering history of military interventions merit a different treatment?

There is another irony at play here. The discourse in this country, shaped in no small part by the civil-military imbalance, has always used corruption by politicians as an argument against democracy. Democracy is vilified because of the acts of individual politicians. Our newspapers and social media newsfeeds/timelines provide clear evidence of it every day. Yet when it comes to the military, no amount of abuse of power by military dictators has been seen as the damning evidence. That it is our biggest problem: civil-military imbalance and a reluctance to trust the elected representatives of the people.

The actions of Ziaul Haq, whenever criticised, are painted as those of a lone man. The institution is always treated as distinct from the individuals heading or abusing the institution’s power base. Why has the same benefit of doubt never been extended to politicians? And politicians do not help their cause when they buy into the discourse of treating the military as a sacred cow during war-time.

The war that our brave men and women are fighting is completely distinct from the issue discussed by Zardari: abuse of power by a state actor while circumventing civilian authority. He could be wrong in his apprehensions but that is not an argument against airing a genuine grievance.

All institutions must be forced, from time to time, to take a good look in the mirror -- no matter how uncomfortable it may be. I use the word ‘forced’ for good reason since, as evident from the promise of democracy, it is only pressure from the outside that will ensure a real examination of all that is wrong within. Ideally, we should all have, what Adam Smith called, a "moral looking-glass". But it does not always work so well. As Smith presciently noted: "But there is not in the world such a smoother of wrinkles as is every man’s imagination, with regard to the blemishes of his own character."

Yes, Zardari may not have been driven by principle alone. But that is how political arguments work. Selfish motives provoke much needed debates just as much as principled stances. The political parties condemning Zardari’s speech would do well to remember this.

All political parties have an interest in a robust democracy. All benefit from a system in which an actor as powerful as the military is held accountable by civilian leaders. This is not going to be easy to accomplish.

Generation after generation in Pakistan has grown up treating politicians as ‘dirty’ while seeing the military as ‘the only institution that works’.But if you control the purse, the lucrative territory and the gates of the housing complex you live in, of course you will be an organisation that works. At least you should be. And if you keep kicking a student (i.e. our politicians) out of college (read government) every few months without letting him take the actual exam (elections) then you can’t cry that the student never ‘performed’.

No one in Pakistan will question or has ever questioned the heroic sacrifices of the brave men and women of our military. The same goes for the men and women of all our law enforcement agencies. But when a country has a history where four-star generals have, from time to time, seen the title of ‘President’ as their next promotion then something is indeed awry. Nothing, and I mean nothing, justified any military coup in Pakistan or its validation. And nothing, and I mean nothing, can justify a military not being accountable to civilian leaders. If you do not like that bargain, change it, write it down in the Constitution.

Zardari’s accusations may not be entirely true but they are not unfounded either -- keeping in view our national history. Instead of demonising him and asking him to apologise, we must all engage with the basic message: civil-military imbalance must be addressed. The worst that you can do is emotionally blackmail an entire nation over criticism of a state institution. And if you blackmail those engaged in discourse by twisting the narrative, then do realise that there can be no greater disservice to the sacrifices of our military’s men and women.