The relationship between the military and the elected civilian governments in Pakistan has always been one of intense intrigue and is as old as the country itself. In truly democratic countries, all state institutions are supposed to conform to legitimate democratic authorities, with elected parliament – as the supreme body – exercising oversight over the military and all aspects of defense policy. But in our country, civil-military relations have remained fraught. Pakistan’s history is marked by an expanded role of armed forces in political affairs and subsequently their increasing involvement in business and commercial activities.
At the core of the imbalance in civil-military relations, lies the inability of the political process to gain maturity due to a leadership void after the untimely death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1948. The collective failure of incompetent ruling elite and weak political parties to foster political culture based on healthy democratic traditions gradually enabled the military to gain ascendency, becoming disproportionately assertive at the expense of civilian authorities. In addition, the exaggerated military threats from its bigger neighbor on the eastern border and petty tensions on the Western border starting from mid-1970s converted Pakistan into a security state which thwarted the country’s march towards a democratic welfare state.
[quote]The military continues to pursue parallel security and foreign policies [/quote]
After 2007, when Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was sacked by military ruler of the day triggering nationwide resistance by the lawyers community, the configuration of civil-military relations underwent a dramatic transformation, with judiciary and media emerging as alternative power centers courageous enough to challenge the status quo largely dominated by corrupt politicians and power hungry military generals. There seems a general consensus among the intelligentsia that courts are no longer pliant to the military’s demands and will put up a strong resistance to any future military intervention in the country. Also, in the recent past, major political forces have learned to play at a more mature level where they are always very cautious not to allow their mutual differences to be exploited by non-democratic forces. Despite this positive transformation, civil-military imbalance remains a pre-occupying concern because extended military rule in the country has resulted in a highly political fragmented society where vested interests continue to support non-democratic political arrangements.
Since the revival of democracy after the 2008 elections, mistrust between civilians and soldiers has remained the defining characteristic of national politics. Although the leadership of armed forces has, thus far, shown unwillingness to directly topple the government, the military continues to pursue parallel security and foreign policies on both domestic and external fronts. GHQ has jealously guarded its position as a formidable actor in the political arena of the country. On many issues, from FATA to relations with the United States and India, military generals have maintained their strong grip over all affairs. Pakistan is perhaps the only nuclear power in the world where civilian leadership has absolutely no practical control over country’s nuclear policy. A ceremonial body, National Command Authority, has been formed to show the outside world that civilians are in-charge of nuclear affairs but, in reality, generals have reserved with themselves the sole right to make all critical choices.
[quote]Our politicians clearly lack the maturity and sincerity of purpose required to counter the dominance of the military[/quote]
The government led by Asif Ali Zardari had openly surrendered to GHQ on almost every count. Ambassador Haqqani’s resignation in the wake of ‘memo scandal’ in 2011 was a clear manifestation of the over-reach of military in state affairs. The present government of PML-N has tried to assert its authority particularly with respect to relations with India but he had to backtrack because the generals are not in a mood to let civilians be in charge of foreign policy. Whenever our civilian governments have tried to take bold steps towards peace with India or Afghanistan, such moves were strongly resisted by the security establishment in the name of “national interest.”
The current Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif, has left no opportunity to express his ‘total support’ for the continuation of democratic process in the country but, it seems that the military has chosen to shift its emphasis from overt ‘rule’ to a more subtle, but still ubiquitous ‘role’. The reality that the GHQ is real wielder of power in Pakistan’s security state has also given rise to a sense of infallibility among armed forces. Therefore the military leadership regards even a fair criticism on its corporate interests rapidly expanding through its welfare foundations, as a deliberate campaign to malign the military and hence treasonous.
Military establishment should give its input in framing of security policy but they have no right to exercise a veto power. Pakistan’s armed forces have made innumerable sacrifices in the war against militancy after 2004 but such commendable role of our soldiers does not give military generals sitting in GHQ the right to intervene in political matters. Our military generals will have to realize that the times of intervening in politics have long passed and keeping the armed forces within their constitutionally set limits is the only way to restore their respect in the country. But civilian ruling elite in Pakistan will also have to deliver on governance issues before they could successfully challenge the military’s decade old dominance. According to Huntington, the most important causes of military interventions are not ‘military’ but ‘political’ and reflect the political and institutional structure of the society. The political institutions in the country have a long way to go before they demonstrate high level of maturity to correct this imbalance. Presently the maturity and sincerity of purpose required to counter the dominance of military is clearly lacking in our politicians.
The writer is a research scholar and a former visiting fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California. He can be reached at rizwanasghar7@hotmail.com
At the core of the imbalance in civil-military relations, lies the inability of the political process to gain maturity due to a leadership void after the untimely death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1948. The collective failure of incompetent ruling elite and weak political parties to foster political culture based on healthy democratic traditions gradually enabled the military to gain ascendency, becoming disproportionately assertive at the expense of civilian authorities. In addition, the exaggerated military threats from its bigger neighbor on the eastern border and petty tensions on the Western border starting from mid-1970s converted Pakistan into a security state which thwarted the country’s march towards a democratic welfare state.
[quote]The military continues to pursue parallel security and foreign policies [/quote]
After 2007, when Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was sacked by military ruler of the day triggering nationwide resistance by the lawyers community, the configuration of civil-military relations underwent a dramatic transformation, with judiciary and media emerging as alternative power centers courageous enough to challenge the status quo largely dominated by corrupt politicians and power hungry military generals. There seems a general consensus among the intelligentsia that courts are no longer pliant to the military’s demands and will put up a strong resistance to any future military intervention in the country. Also, in the recent past, major political forces have learned to play at a more mature level where they are always very cautious not to allow their mutual differences to be exploited by non-democratic forces. Despite this positive transformation, civil-military imbalance remains a pre-occupying concern because extended military rule in the country has resulted in a highly political fragmented society where vested interests continue to support non-democratic political arrangements.
Since the revival of democracy after the 2008 elections, mistrust between civilians and soldiers has remained the defining characteristic of national politics. Although the leadership of armed forces has, thus far, shown unwillingness to directly topple the government, the military continues to pursue parallel security and foreign policies on both domestic and external fronts. GHQ has jealously guarded its position as a formidable actor in the political arena of the country. On many issues, from FATA to relations with the United States and India, military generals have maintained their strong grip over all affairs. Pakistan is perhaps the only nuclear power in the world where civilian leadership has absolutely no practical control over country’s nuclear policy. A ceremonial body, National Command Authority, has been formed to show the outside world that civilians are in-charge of nuclear affairs but, in reality, generals have reserved with themselves the sole right to make all critical choices.
[quote]Our politicians clearly lack the maturity and sincerity of purpose required to counter the dominance of the military[/quote]
The government led by Asif Ali Zardari had openly surrendered to GHQ on almost every count. Ambassador Haqqani’s resignation in the wake of ‘memo scandal’ in 2011 was a clear manifestation of the over-reach of military in state affairs. The present government of PML-N has tried to assert its authority particularly with respect to relations with India but he had to backtrack because the generals are not in a mood to let civilians be in charge of foreign policy. Whenever our civilian governments have tried to take bold steps towards peace with India or Afghanistan, such moves were strongly resisted by the security establishment in the name of “national interest.”
The current Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif, has left no opportunity to express his ‘total support’ for the continuation of democratic process in the country but, it seems that the military has chosen to shift its emphasis from overt ‘rule’ to a more subtle, but still ubiquitous ‘role’. The reality that the GHQ is real wielder of power in Pakistan’s security state has also given rise to a sense of infallibility among armed forces. Therefore the military leadership regards even a fair criticism on its corporate interests rapidly expanding through its welfare foundations, as a deliberate campaign to malign the military and hence treasonous.
Military establishment should give its input in framing of security policy but they have no right to exercise a veto power. Pakistan’s armed forces have made innumerable sacrifices in the war against militancy after 2004 but such commendable role of our soldiers does not give military generals sitting in GHQ the right to intervene in political matters. Our military generals will have to realize that the times of intervening in politics have long passed and keeping the armed forces within their constitutionally set limits is the only way to restore their respect in the country. But civilian ruling elite in Pakistan will also have to deliver on governance issues before they could successfully challenge the military’s decade old dominance. According to Huntington, the most important causes of military interventions are not ‘military’ but ‘political’ and reflect the political and institutional structure of the society. The political institutions in the country have a long way to go before they demonstrate high level of maturity to correct this imbalance. Presently the maturity and sincerity of purpose required to counter the dominance of military is clearly lacking in our politicians.
The writer is a research scholar and a former visiting fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California. He can be reached at rizwanasghar7@hotmail.com