Moving towards greater political instability?

Reported civil–military wrangling

The prime minister’s Office has issued a ‘press statement’ and a ‘revised press statement’ Thursday evening (Oct 6) to clarify the situation arising after a scoop by Cyril Almeida, published in a daily paper earlier in the day that sent ripples across the country. The exclusive report titled, ‘Act against militants or face international isolation, civilians tell military’ claimed that an unannounced meeting between high level civil and military officials took place on Monday. It said that the foreign secretary informed that Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation was growing and that the recent initiatives by the government regarding Kashmir were met with indifference in major word capitals.

In his exclusive briefing to the small but important civil and military group, the foreign secretary further said that the country’s relations with the US were on a downward spiral.  And all this was because of Pakistan (read, army) not taking effective measures against domestic and foreign terrorist/militant leaders and groups. The report claimed that fuel was added to the fire when Punjab Chief Minister, Shahbaz Sharif complained, in the presence of DG ISI that whenever action was taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment worked behind the scenes to set the arrested free.

Political observers attach great importance to the development. If what is claimed in the report is even partially true then the country is bound to see both its long and short-term implications. If not anything else, there will be greater political uncertainty and instability in the days to come.

Civil-military relations and an unnatural imbalance between the two sides are the topics of discussion for a long time. It is generally believed that key foreign and security matters are decided and run by the military side, with the civilian side playing as a junior partner. Different governments have tried to regain the political territory that has been ‘occupied’ by the military establishment, but to no avail.

1. A. Bhutto during the 70s, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir during the 90s and Asif Zardari during 2008-13 tried their luck and adopted different tactics to establish civilian supremacy in the decision-making process. But all of them faced bitter consequences for it.

There is no single reason for this predominance of the military in the country’s political affairs. There are many. But the most prominent among these are; 1) the country’s ideological (religious) orientation and the consequent use of religion as an alternative to democracy and democratically elected representatives, 2) Pakistan’s evolution over time (and as a result of military rules) as a security state rather than a social welfare state, 3) discontinuity of the democratic process time and again, and 4) politicians’ incompetence, their corruption and lack of vision.

Combined together, all these factors discredited political class and democracy to the extent that the civilian side lost control of core national issues with little say in foreign and security policies’ domain.

But coming to the present situation, if what has been reported in the DAWN story is true then it will have far reaching consequences for the political system of Pakistan. It clearly indicates an effort by the civilian side to wrest the initiative in crucial policy-making areas. It is not likely to go away without creating some impact, whether it is in favour of the army, or the civilian side succeeds in reclaiming some of its lost political space. A political turmoil or heightened political temperature in the country is likely to be seen during the coming days and weeks.

When we look at the content of the story and try to connect the dots, it seems we have already started seeing some of its immediate repercussions.  Political observers were speculating about Imran Khan’s decision to boycott the parliament joint session and call into question its legitimacy at the most unlikely of time when Kashmir issue was hot and Pakistan and India were apparently on the brink of a war. They will now see in it the reason of his unexpected summersault and his decision to take the government head-on.

As about its timing, it seems to be a calculated and calibrated move by NS. Gen Raheel Sharif is retiring at the end of November. So, if this matter is going to mature, it will take some time. By then, the incumbent chief will be leaving the office and a new one coming in to take charge – who will need some time to settle down and take control. That will be the best time to assert itself and tilt the balance in favour of the civilian side, or this is what NS thinks.

In the Pak-India-Kashmir context, the move has all the potential to backfire as the matter will be taken up in the Indian media and exploited by the Modi government to the maximum possible extent to prove that there is support for the non-state actors at some level within the Pakistani state. That effort may turn the tide against the ruling party internally. It may even result in serious harm to the current democratic dispensation; but again, if all this is true.

Nawaz Sharif is also faced with a political crisis created by Imran Khan who seems determined this time to bring Nawaz down come what may. Add to it the country’s media and one can imagine very well how ugly the situation can turn for the government.

As for the clarification from the Prime Minister’s Office, and a ‘revised press statement’, suffice it to say that it has muddied the water further rather than clarifying anything; 1) it gives the impression that ‘something’ had taken place even if it was not exactly how it was reported in the story, and 2) the army is displeased, hence change of words – ‘half-truth’ in the original statement to ‘fabrication’ in the revised one, and addition of a paragraph regarding the role of the army and ISI in war against terrorism.

Future prospects are difficult to predict. However, likely scenarios are comparatively easy to draw.

At the moment, Nawaz Sharif is vulnerable in the face of growing challenges to him in the shape of Panama Papers and PTI’s resolve to dislodge him through street agitation. Also, there is a historical, real and perceived, baggage against the civilian rulers – including NS – that makes him weaker vis-à-vis the army as an institution. And if we surmise what is said in the report than it is obvious that there will be an antagonist establishment, supporting or encouraging every move towards a change of face or a change of government.

On the other hand, there are some factors which suggest that NS can win the day or be partially successful. First is the timing which NS has chosen. Second is the support that he can win from the political parties, except PTI and, may be, JI. Third is that the nature of the initiative is pre-emptive which mean the army may not have a readymade plan to counter it. Fourth, it will be difficult to devise and execute a plan, say within one and a half month. Fifth, any organised move by the army to dislodge the government after allegations which cast aspersions on its performance in the larger war against terrorism, cannot win any international support, approval or acceptance.

And that may give Nawaz Sharif a reason to smile, for at least as long as something bad actually doesn’t happen to him or his government.