Politics is a complex game. The loss of one person or party or institution is not necessarily the gain of the other. If the Pakistan military and intelligence establishment has faced two embarrassments in May 2011, this does not inevitably give an upper hand to the civilian political leadership.
Individuals and parties can demoralise the military by their sharp and repeated criticism. However, this approach will neither contribute to understanding the full dynamics of the current crisis nor ensure civilian control of the military. The current crisis of Pakistani state and society is so deep and multifaceted that the blame has to be shared both by the civilian elite and the military leadership. They need to work together to address it. A cool-headed and dispassionate analysis will show that there is a need to pool all civilian and military resources and talent to address the current problems.
The military is the most powerful institution in Pakistan but power is a relative term and it is context bound. The military’s current predicament shows that a powerful institution may not be powerful in all contexts. One has to learn to work with other sectors of the society in order to exercise power in a responsible manner and stay goal-oriented.
The military has made an earnest effort to reorient its disposition towards the people and the society in view of the experience of the movement for the restoration of the judges of the superior courts removed by General Pervez Musharraf in 2007. The lawyers and other sections of the society bitterly criticised the military, especially the top commanders. Therefore, when General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani assumed the command of the army on November 28, 2007, he focused on, among other things, improvement of the image at the common person level.
The army in the post-Musharraf period developed a populist style, keeping an eye on what is popular with the people and building goodwill with the society as a whole. Such a support was needed as the army, the air force and the paramilitary forces became active in counter-terrorism and undertook security operations in Swat and the tribal areas.
Unfortunately, only three political parties offered unconditional support to the army on countering terrorism: Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Mutahida Quami Movement (MQM) and Awami National Party (ANP). Others, including the PML(N), shied away from public support. Islamic parties openly sympathised with the militant groups and demanded an end to military operations in the tribal areas.
The military gave a detailed briefing on the US military raid in Abbottabad to the joint session of the parliament on May 13, hoping that they will be able to gain political support for addressing the professional deficiencies. This hope did not realise because the PML(N) and Islamic parties decided to show their political clout to the military. The military received another professional setback when the militants attacked the Mehran Naval base in Karachi.
The military is now facing sharper than ever criticism from its traditional sympathisers, i.e. Islamic parties and politically far-right groups. Pakistan’s Islamic parties generally maintained a friendly posture towards the military until the latter engaged in countering militancy and terrorism. In the past the military/ISI invoked Islamic groups and the political far-right for countering international and domestic pressures. It also did not mind some anti-Americanism by these groups because it helped the military in its interaction with the civilian government in 2009-2010 and the US. The PML(N) generally obliged the military with some support in 2009-2011, although a section of the PML(N) had strong views against the military top brass.
Now, all these groups have virtually declared war on the military, although they claim that they criticise the top commanders rather than the ordinary personnel or institution as a whole because, in their view, these top generals are responsible for recent setbacks and that they are pursuing American agenda in the region.
The PML(N) has its own grievance against the military. Its top leadership, especially Nawaz Sharif, has not been able to overcome the trauma of losing power to the military in October 1999. The May 2011 military setbacks have provided the PML(N) with an opportunity to get even with the top commanders, although all those who removed Nawaz Sharif from power have retired by now. Nevertheless, the PML(N) leadership thinks that the time has come to cow-down the top brass.
It is rather surprising that the PML(N) has opened three fronts at the same time: the PPP-led federal government, the military, especially the army, and the US. Its leaders are making the sharpest ever criticism of the army. The Punjab chief minister declared that his government would no longer accept foreign economic assistance. Later, he modified his statement by saying that embargo would apply only to the aid from the US. In a typical Islamist parlance, the PML(N) leaders are arguing that Pakistan’s current counter-terrorism serves American agenda in the region.
The army top brass must have been perturbed by the Supreme Court direction to transfer the DG Rangers, Karachi, a two-star General, when it took suo-motu notice of killing of a citizen by the Ranger personnel in Karachi, apparently against the backdrop of anti-military sentiments prevailing the society.
The civilian elite cannot assert their primacy only by resorting to propaganda barrage against the military. They need to take concrete steps to address two crucial issues. First, create a consensus-based credible civilian alternative to the military’s role in policy making. The current confrontation between the PPP and the PML(N) minimises the chances of any credible civilian alternative emerging on the political scene in the near future.
Second, the civilian leaders should redefine Pakistan’s security profile. They should work towards peace and cordial relations with India, develop a relationship of trust with Afghanistan and all political forces should join together to put an end to religious extremism and terrorism through sustained multi-pronged efforts. Unfortunately, the very political forces that want to “contain” the military want to turn Pakistan into an assertive and militarily powerful state in the region.
If Pakistan’s security disposition does not change and Pakistan continues to face internal security problems, the military will stay important in domestic politics and foreign policy. The PML(N) and other political leaders need to seek enduring solutions by creating a credible civilian framework for governance and political management and redefine the future of Pakistan.
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst.