Multiple reasons exist for the military commanders to intervene at the level of domestic politics: the constitutional machinery is on the verge of breakdown primarily because of the federal government-parliament tussle with the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The conflict between two major political parties has the potential to turn violent. And in fact, the very institution of the military has been subjected to physical attacks after a prolonged anti-military campaign on media and social media.
All these events and developments lead to a situation which is conducive for a military takeover. In the past, the military has intervened to avert a situation of civil strife involving street fights between rival political groups (1977), to avert a situation where the political and economic interests of the then establishment were endangered by popular trends in politics (1958), and the conflict between political forces and the military high command. All these three situations or reasons exist in the country at different levels of the current political situation.
There is a real threat of fighting in the streets between activists of rival political groups, especially between the PML-N and PTI. The PTI’s narrative and political activism are threatening the political and economic interests of the military establishment. And last but not the least, the PTI is in direct confrontation with the institution of the military itself.
Still, I think that no military commander in his right mind would attempt to impose military rule in the country. Why? The reason being that the military commander would not find any international mentor which would be ready to foot the financial bill for his adventure.
In the next three-year period, Pakistan would default in case it fails to pay back $77.5 billion to the countries and international financial institutions from which it has taken loans over the past several years. In an attempt to read military commanders’ minds, one could easily present an analysis of what they would be thinking.
Firstly, the military commander would not like to preside over an impending economic meltdown. It would be better that the winner in the next elections take the blame for default on Pakistan’s financial commitments. A military commander who has displayed an overly sensitivity towards public opinion would not like to take the blame for default, especially the default would likely result in more hardships for common man.
One major obstacle in the way of any military commander deciding in favor of a military takeover is the absence of any viable international support from any major power who can foot the bill of possible or feared military adventure. The fact that in case of all three military takeovers in Pakistan’s history it was the US administration that footed the bill, doesn’t hide the fact that at the time of military takeover at least Zia and Musharraf were not sure that they would get financial backing from the US. It was much later in both these cases that the US started showering their financial favors on the military governments of Zia and Musharraf because of the situation in Afghanistan. Only in the case of Ayub Khan were the then military commanders sure that they would get a favorable response from Washington DC.
Does the US – or any other major power for that matter – have the kind of interest that can force it to become a mentor for any prospective adventurist military commander in Pakistan? It may be argued that when the US withdrew its last troops from Afghanistan, they were giving signals to all and sundry in the region that they don’t have any major interest in this region. For their part, the Russians are friends with the Pakistan military only to the extent they see the country’s armed forces as prospective buyers of their hardware. Maybe a little interest in counter terrorism will bring them closer to Pakistan – but not close enough to make them foot the bill for a domestic military adventure. As for the Chinese, the last thing that they expect from Pakistan is some kind of civil strife. A peaceful and stable Pakistan is in their interests.
It was the situation in Afghanistan in their respective eras that saved two military governments of Zia and Musharraf from imminent economic meltdown and possible dismantling. Today, Afghanistan hardly attracts Americans—they have realized that to protect the US mainland from terror attacks they don’t need to send their boys to a far-off land called Afghanistan. This can be done by investing in homeland security structures. One military expert (not any military officials retired or serving), however, pointed out that there still exists one possibility that could revive American and for that matter Chinese strategic interests in Pakistan and this region. That is the possibility of direct military confrontation between major powers.
It goes without saying that the liberal dream of a peaceful world sans warfare lies in tatters. The Ukraine conflict, China-India military tensions, nuclear sabre-rattling in the Korean peninsula and a myriad of other conflicts or impending potential conflicts have done away with the liberal ideal of a world without wars or without the possibility of war between major powers. Now this is no more a unipolar world. This is increasingly a bipolar – or maybe a multipolar – world, with the real possibility of conflict between major powers.
On the one hand, Russia and US forces could clash in the terrains of Central and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, a US-China conflict in the South China Sea is no longer a remote possibility. Russia-China strategic cooperation is likely to pit this combine against the US forces in a theatre of war, the location of which will be determined by events. However, the possibility of the expansion of the Ukraine conflict and US-China military tensions in South China Sea make these two regions the most likely location for major power wars. The growing possibility of war between major powers could revive the strategic value of Pakistan. The Chinese are already heavily investing in Pakistan militarily. Americans, of late, have shown little interests in Pakistani democracy. Such a conflict could ruin Pakistan but would likely complete the jigsaw puzzle of military takeover for prospective military commanders. My understanding is that in the absence of an international mentor no military commander in his right mind would attempt a military take over.
The best bet for our military top brass will be to facilitate the holding of fresh parliamentary elections and make sure that power is handed over to the winner, doesn’t matter who wins. Pakistan cannot afford any kind of civil strife. Any confrontation between military and political forces would not only be suicidal it could lead to complete collapse. The military commanders should make sure that there is no confrontation between military and popular political forces.
All these events and developments lead to a situation which is conducive for a military takeover. In the past, the military has intervened to avert a situation of civil strife involving street fights between rival political groups (1977), to avert a situation where the political and economic interests of the then establishment were endangered by popular trends in politics (1958), and the conflict between political forces and the military high command. All these three situations or reasons exist in the country at different levels of the current political situation.
There is a real threat of fighting in the streets between activists of rival political groups, especially between the PML-N and PTI. The PTI’s narrative and political activism are threatening the political and economic interests of the military establishment. And last but not the least, the PTI is in direct confrontation with the institution of the military itself.
Still, I think that no military commander in his right mind would attempt to impose military rule in the country. Why? The reason being that the military commander would not find any international mentor which would be ready to foot the financial bill for his adventure.
In the next three-year period, Pakistan would default in case it fails to pay back $77.5 billion to the countries and international financial institutions from which it has taken loans over the past several years. In an attempt to read military commanders’ minds, one could easily present an analysis of what they would be thinking.
Firstly, the military commander would not like to preside over an impending economic meltdown. It would be better that the winner in the next elections take the blame for default on Pakistan’s financial commitments. A military commander who has displayed an overly sensitivity towards public opinion would not like to take the blame for default, especially the default would likely result in more hardships for common man.
One major obstacle in the way of any military commander deciding in favor of a military takeover is the absence of any viable international support from any major power who can foot the bill of possible or feared military adventure. The fact that in case of all three military takeovers in Pakistan’s history it was the US administration that footed the bill, doesn’t hide the fact that at the time of military takeover at least Zia and Musharraf were not sure that they would get financial backing from the US. It was much later in both these cases that the US started showering their financial favors on the military governments of Zia and Musharraf because of the situation in Afghanistan. Only in the case of Ayub Khan were the then military commanders sure that they would get a favorable response from Washington DC.
Does the US – or any other major power for that matter – have the kind of interest that can force it to become a mentor for any prospective adventurist military commander in Pakistan? It may be argued that when the US withdrew its last troops from Afghanistan, they were giving signals to all and sundry in the region that they don’t have any major interest in this region. For their part, the Russians are friends with the Pakistan military only to the extent they see the country’s armed forces as prospective buyers of their hardware. Maybe a little interest in counter terrorism will bring them closer to Pakistan – but not close enough to make them foot the bill for a domestic military adventure. As for the Chinese, the last thing that they expect from Pakistan is some kind of civil strife. A peaceful and stable Pakistan is in their interests.
It was the situation in Afghanistan in their respective eras that saved two military governments of Zia and Musharraf from imminent economic meltdown and possible dismantling. Today, Afghanistan hardly attracts Americans—they have realized that to protect the US mainland from terror attacks they don’t need to send their boys to a far-off land called Afghanistan. This can be done by investing in homeland security structures. One military expert (not any military officials retired or serving), however, pointed out that there still exists one possibility that could revive American and for that matter Chinese strategic interests in Pakistan and this region. That is the possibility of direct military confrontation between major powers.
It goes without saying that the liberal dream of a peaceful world sans warfare lies in tatters. The Ukraine conflict, China-India military tensions, nuclear sabre-rattling in the Korean peninsula and a myriad of other conflicts or impending potential conflicts have done away with the liberal ideal of a world without wars or without the possibility of war between major powers. Now this is no more a unipolar world. This is increasingly a bipolar – or maybe a multipolar – world, with the real possibility of conflict between major powers.
On the one hand, Russia and US forces could clash in the terrains of Central and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, a US-China conflict in the South China Sea is no longer a remote possibility. Russia-China strategic cooperation is likely to pit this combine against the US forces in a theatre of war, the location of which will be determined by events. However, the possibility of the expansion of the Ukraine conflict and US-China military tensions in South China Sea make these two regions the most likely location for major power wars. The growing possibility of war between major powers could revive the strategic value of Pakistan. The Chinese are already heavily investing in Pakistan militarily. Americans, of late, have shown little interests in Pakistani democracy. Such a conflict could ruin Pakistan but would likely complete the jigsaw puzzle of military takeover for prospective military commanders. My understanding is that in the absence of an international mentor no military commander in his right mind would attempt a military take over.
The best bet for our military top brass will be to facilitate the holding of fresh parliamentary elections and make sure that power is handed over to the winner, doesn’t matter who wins. Pakistan cannot afford any kind of civil strife. Any confrontation between military and political forces would not only be suicidal it could lead to complete collapse. The military commanders should make sure that there is no confrontation between military and popular political forces.