The ever-tilting civil-military balance
The current civil-military balance, or rather imbalance, in Pakistan is fairly worrying for any democracy enthusiast. Yes, the Pakistan army, with its lion’s share of both brains and brawns, never fails to make us proud. However, it being on the steering wheel all the time is not an ideal situation. Does the picture seem balanced? You don’t have to be a genius to figure this one out.
While writing such an article generally leads to our youth fuming with the feeling that there is some sort of blasphemy going on, it is fairly important to clarify certain things. The success of democracy depends on the balanced functioning of institutions, rather than the military set up going beyond its call of duty. One can reasonably proceed to argue that there is no other choice in Pakistan. However, it is prudent to sit and figure out where we need to head from here. All the intellectuals and even not-so-intellectuals of the country need to pull their socks up.
What is extremely worrying is the presence of military rank and file on meetings where the civilian government needs to have the entire spotlight. What signal are we sending to the world? Aren’t we ready for democracy even now?
“I don’t see the role of the army diminishing in the near future,” said Zahid Hussain, an eminent journalist, while talking to DNA. “I don’t think it will change.”
There has not been any martial law imposed yet, a hard coup per se. But given the precarious security situation of the country and army acting as the figurehead, one cannot really deny the presence of a soft coup.
Khakis all over the place
The khakis happen to be visible everywhere in Pakistan. There is some important development in foreign policy. Army should be on board. Visiting Afghanistan after APS? Of course it should be the army chief. National Action Plan (NAP) coming out? It can’t be possible without the army on board. Yes, please be aware.
Of course, no patriotic citizen would doubt the valour of Pakistan’s army and its role in keeping us safe, but encroaching upon civilian space is something highly undesirable in a democracy.
“The country appears to be technically under a quasi-martial law,” Bushra Gohar, prominent stateswoman and ANP leader, commented.
“There is a growing public perception that the elected government is paralysed and is not able or allowed to make policy decisions without an approval from the military establishment.”
This is exactly what was mentioned in the opening passages. Building on what Bushra thinks, such military assertiveness not only generates an internal perception. Rather it sends out a signal to the world that Pakistan is nestling into the hold of its military establishment. Can’t we generate a more democratically mature image of ours, rather than projecting ourselves as a state that cannot even breathe without the army hovering around? Are not we a free nation, aiming for and upholding democratic values? Yes, we are in the midst of a security crisis, but what are we projecting? ABC of Impression management, anyone?
Zahid thinks this has become very prominent in the recent years, especially in the wake of APS and North Waziristan.
“This has gained more prominence after APS,” he analysed.
“The initiative is clearly in the hands of the army now, and the civilian government has taken the back seat. Rather they do not have any position. Similarly, even before APS, the North Waziristan Operation was largely the domain of the army. The civilian government was reluctant to carry any operation of this sort. Again, after APS, the military has taken charge. Civilians will was not to be seen anywhere. All this has made the army more assertive.”
He further specified certain examples.
“General Raheel Sharif has been on many meetings. This sends out the signal that the army is in the driving seat. As an example, there was definitely no need for the army chief to be present when the National Action Plan (NAP) was presented”, he said.
There is no point arguing about it. The problem over here is not with the military. The problem is the overall structural and institutional imbalance that we are currently faced with. This needs to be dealt with now. Otherwise, such a tilted balance will become the new normal, and eventually our army, our strongest asset so far, might drift away from its real role.
But why?
Nothing happens without a reason. The same goes for the prevalent civil-military imbalance. Why we are unerringly faced with this situation? Is it because of our security crisis or is it because of inefficiencies of the civilian set up?
Brig (R) Saad Muhammad thinks a plethora of reasons is responsible for it.
“Well this imbalance does exist,” he acknowledged, adding that “it has been so for quite a while now due to many reasons.”
He then went on explaining the reasons to DNA.
“If you look at history, you will see that when Pakistan came into being, there were threats from India and even from Afghanistan,” he began his analysis. “Whether these threats were real or perceived is a matter worth debating, however there was threat perception. The army had to gain a prominent position due to this.”
And again, it was not just the security threats, and our troubled neighbourhood, rather we had our own house in trouble as well.
“Secondly, the government of Muslim League was more or less elitist,” Brig (R) Saad explained further. “They were not much connected to the masses. Then there were these religious-political groups that first opposed the creation of Pakistan and then became elitist later. So a vacuum was created. Even elections were not conducted in Pakistan. So military somehow gained prominence. And this became more pronounced in 1958 with the rise of Ayub Khan.”
India gained independence with us, but our twin has somehow become a democracy while we still debate whether democracy or dictatorship is the lesser evil. Ironic, isn’t it?
Brig (R) Saad highlighted this fact as well.
“Things were different in India. Their government was not elitist. They surpassed us in constitution making as well. Our constitution was enforced in 1956 and theirs in January 1950.”
As per his opinion, it is not just the military; rather the civilian government’s failures have always led the military to go beyond its mandate and make up for what the civilians are missing out on.
“Civilian governments in Pakistan have always been incapable of decision making,” he lamented. “Therefore the army had to compensate for it directly or indirectly.”
Even Bushra thinks we need to thank the civilians for making the army so prominent and all over the place.
“It is unfortunate that PM Sharif’s federal government has abdicated all its responsibilities vis-à-vis defence and foreign policies,” she said.
“There is no change in the self-destructive foreign and security policies, which has increased the country’s vulnerability. The critical space gained by the previous elected government to strengthen the democratic process and institutions has slipped back. Parliament has been rendered nearly irrelevant. In such dire circumstances we can expect chaos and security crisis to increase.”
This policy is more pronounced in recent years. Policy direction is totally lacking, and civilian government simply has not laid out any policy on important matters like defence, national security and foreign policy.
Zahid pointed these facts out.
“If you look at Nawaz Sharif’s persona, it is his third term. He is an experienced person, but he is confined to certain things, development projects for instance.”
Foreign policy is a prominent flaw in the PM’s profile. Yes, he is very open to reach out to other countries, but where exactly are we heading? An average Pakistan has no clue.
“One example of things not getting enough attention is foreign policy,” said Zahid. “He always strives for friendly relations with India. But he has not given any clear policy direction. In fact, there is not a foreign minister even. Till now, he has been incapable of giving out a certain policy. Similarly, a clear position on Afghanistan is not really visible. The same goes for our national security policy.”
So with lack of clear policies on the part of the civilian set up, with the precarious security situation added, it seems hardly possible that we ever see equilibrium in the near future.
Are things changing?
It appears not. One may argue that after the retirement of the COAS, there is a strong chance that the successor will not be this much of a figurehead. But Zahid thinks this is not a good enough reason.
“Whoever comes in will continue, unless and until the civilian government tries to assert its authority,” he opined. “It lacks the decision-making ability, and is not institutional at all; rather it is individual and person-based.”
The army, on the other hand, is institutionally strong. It is not dependent on just one specific general. Rather it is held in high esteem in the hearts of Pakistanis.
“Yes, General Sharif’s imprint has been more visible,” Zahid explained. “But I do not think this would change. Even when he is not there, the successor will be from the top three generals, so probably he will be a part of the continuity. It will be some senior person, who has already been involved in the decision making process.”
He thinks the main reason is the army’s assertiveness being more institutional rather than individual-based. It’s not about the current COAS, or any other for that matter.
“The army’s assertiveness in Pakistan is more institutional rather than individual,” he commented. “Secondly, space that is left by the civilian set up in generally filled by the army. So the assertiveness that we see is dependent on civilian government as well.”
Bushra too thinks that it is high time the government wakes up. “The government has to come out of its state of paralysis and accept responsibility and ownership of important policies and decisions. The National Action Plan must be implemented in letter and spirit.”
So a lot of factors need to be controlled before any real transition happens.
“I don’t see any change in the near future,” Zahid said thoughtfully.
All the hype about COAS’ retirement
The COAS has refused to take an extension and intends to retire on the right time. But why has this announcement come in January when he is to retire at the end of the year?
Bushra does not seem happy about it.
“In my opinion, the COAS’ public announcement not to take an extension was unnecessary and premature, especially at a time when the nation was in a state of shock because of the brutal attack on Bacha Khan University,” she said.
She thinks that rather than lauding and applauding, the media should have been more thoughtful about the whole affair.
“The public debate and laudatory statements showed the insensitivity of the media and those at the helm of affairs,” she added. “I wonder why the COAS felt the need to make a public statement when the matter was not yet under consideration. He could have made his intentions known through official channels if and when required. It is unfortunate that at a time of extreme security challenges an unnecessary statement was made to divert the public’s attention.”
Brig (R) Saad however thinks that the general has his reasons and he just aims to clarify his intentions of an honourable retirement.
“As far as the extension is concerned, controversies were being built and rumours were being floated that General Sharif is being offered an extension,” Saad explained. “He is a fairly honourable man, and the image he had built could somehow be tarnished due to these rumours. Therefore, he did not want any arguments left and clarified things.”
Whatever the intentions and reasons, it is time that we Pakistanis set our priorities right. Rather than swinging between democracy and military rule, let us single out one model that works for us and stick true to it. The democracy we have is absolutely tarnished and ineffective. But that does not mean we cede space to the army rather than making the civilian set up take responsibility. Rather than stretching our army and distracting it, let us keep it focused on its constitutional role.