Did he really mean it?
“Pakistan Army is a great institution. I don’t believe in extension and will retire on the due date,” DG ISPR, Asim Bajwa tweeted, quoting Chief of Army Staff, Raheel Sharif.
The announcement, which came only five days after the deadly attack on Bacha Khan University, ended months of speculation in the media and political circles.
Welcomed by most, the decision is expected to further consolidate the professional image of the army.
“The military has asserted itself as an institution and regained the lost ground under Musharraf and Kayani. Gen Raheel restored that for the institution and his retirement on time is part of that effort to reiterate the ‘professional’ image i.e., as the most organised and functional institution,” said journalist and academic Raza Rumi.
But, the primary question here is; will his timely retirement help empower democracy?
Often described as a ‘soft coup’, the military has asserted itself powerfully since April 2014, when a statement by Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif invited the wrath of top military men in the Corps Commanders Conference.
Shut down by the stern response from the army, that was the first moment the civilian government experienced the might of the new chief.
It was again seen after Geo News’ coverage when Hamid Mir was shot in Karachi. Quoting Mir’s letters to his family and management, the TV channel reported then ISI chief, Lt-General Zaheer-ul-Islam could be behind the incident. This led to a nationwide boycott of Geo, as most of the cable operators lifted it off their bandwidth.
The defining moment between civil-military imbalance came during PTI’s dharna in Islamabad when General Raheel Sharif acted as a mediator to end the stand-off between protesters and the PML-N government.
Many in the media believe that that was the defining moment of civil-military relations, as the army came out to be the most powerful institution, bypassing the civilian government.
“On Raheel Sharif’s watch the intelligence agencies shook the civilian government down through dharna politics. The idea was to fully secure the army’s tutelary position and they succeeded in it. They were able to squeeze civilians into completely sure ending the national security and foreign policies,” said columnist Dr Muhammad Taqi.
Since then, be it APS Peshawar attack or Zarb-e-Azb, General Raheel Sharif, with the help of powerful PR machinery, seems to have led from the front.
“In a state of war there is always an operational and security lead by militaries on the frontline, but in this case the federal government has clearly ceded space by leaving a vacuum,” said PPP Senator Sherry Rehman.
The power tilt towards the military has been evident in more than one case.
PM Nawaz Sharif met his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, in July last year at Ufa. They both agreed a meeting between the two countries’ national security advisers to discuss all issues connected to terrorism.
As the date of the meeting approached, Pakistan, reportedly due to the pressure by its military, demanded Kashmir to be added to the agenda of the NSA talks – against what was actually agreed at Ufa.
This hardcore stance led to the cancellation of the talks.
The fiasco led to the government appointing retired Lieutenant-General, Naseer Khan Janjua, as the National Security Advisor of the country, signalling the growing military influence on the country’s security affairs.
“The civil military relations are static. The military controls the foreign and security policies. The working relationship between Nawaz and Raheel also developed when the former accepted the de facto role of the army and ceded them all the space required,” added Raza Rumi.
Criticising the role of the civilian government, Sherry Rehman said, “Both at the policy execution level, the planning and later messaging stage, the federal government is egregiously missing in action. In one of the world’s largest inland wars on terrorism, Pakistan’s current civilian government seems to have outsourced the entire effort to the military.”
Many, otherwise, believe that it is the military asserting its power over civilian government, disabling the latter’s ability to call the shots in importance issues.
“Raheel Sharif’s phone call to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani post Charsadda attack is emblematic of how the military goes over the head of an elected prime minister to conduct Afghan policy,” said Dr Taqi.
The timing of this announcement, which is 10 months prior to his retirement date, has come under criticism.
“The purpose of this announcement could have been to end the speculation but it has created more controversy – as in, it is the prerogative of the prime minister. Does he want to decide for himself if he wants to him stay on or not?” asks Zahid Hussain, a prominent journalist and author.
“It is an irrational decision to announce it publicly because it has become a political issue now,” he continued.
Raza Rumi welcomed the decision, saying as a fighting force, the army has to maintain its professional image and instil confidence within.
“It is hoped that the next chief will reform the strategic thinking and limited view of national security which has impeded Pakistan’s progress.”
A Karachi-based journalist, Ali Arqam, who keeps a keen eye on the country’s affairs, is of the opinion that a general having so much fanfare won’t vanish from the scene easily.
“I think he is looking beyond working as the army chief. He may get some official position the way General Naseer Janjua was appointed as NSA after retiring from serving at Baluchistan,” he said.
“While I see no overt military intervention in Pakistan, Raheel Sharif’s successor will build upon his massive encroachment on civil powers,” Dr Taqi concluded.
