Even after the withdrawal of Martial Law, President Zia-ul-Haq retained his post as the Chief of Army Staff till his accidental death in an air crash on August 17, 1988. General Musharraf’s takeover on October 12, 1999 was different as he did not impose Martial Law but, till the time he resigned from the Presidency in August 2008, the military retained control over the mode of governance. Therefore, in the 72 years of the history of Pakistan, the military and not the civilian authority mattered. Even during the era of Z. A. Bhutto and PPP-PML (N) governments from 1988-1999 and 2008-2018, the military retained its influence in matters of state and the so-called civilian governments remained insecure and vulnerable in front of the military’s power ambitions. The Memogate scandal of May 2011 is a case in point. The reality of the fragile political process and weak political parties also cannot be disregarded. Given the fact that Pakistan has not been able to replace its authoritarian political culture with democratic civilian institutions, has enabled the military, the most organized and disciplined institution in the country, an opportunity to seize power. The feudal and tribal structures in Pakistan, along with the conservative clergy and the bureaucratic and military elite, have caused irreparable damage to the nascent democratic process. When political parties have failed to emerge as a cogent force and have reflected dynastic politics, it has been literally impossible to develop a mature and prudent political leadership.
Illiteracy, social backwardness, corruption, nepotism and bad governance have been witnessed not only during civilian governments but such evils have also remained a stark reality in times of military and semi-military rule. In essence, political parties have never allowed democracy to permeate their own ranks and have promoted a culture of nepotism, which has weakened democracy and political pluralism. Since the early 1950s, Pakistan’s military and security establishment has used every opportunity to weaken the political parties and the already fragile democratic process. Political manipulation on their part to make and break political parties has caused political instability and chaos. The military and security establishment in Pakistan, along with their junior partners in the bureaucracy, have used various tactics to discredit political parties, terming civilian governments as corrupt and inefficient. The military and security establishment are also credited with forming various political alliances comprising political forces supported by them, like the Pakistan National Alliance in early 1977 against the government of Prime Minister Z. A. Bhutto and the Islamic Democratic Alliance against Benazir Bhutto’s PPPP in late 1988.
Later, the security and military establishment changed their tactics and began to sponsor various Islamic extremist religious and ethnic groups. They are also credited with forming the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) some months before the July 2018 general elections in order to counter the mainstream political parties in Balochistan and the Baloch nationalist groups. As a result, a policy of ‘divide and rule’ has been used by the security and military establishment to marginalize non-conformist and popular political groups and parties. Unfortunately, the mainstream political parties like the PPP, PML (N) PTI, Awami National Party (ANP) Jamaat-e-Islamic (JI) and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUI) have lacked the capability, skills and expertise to prevent break-ups in their own ranks masterminded by the security and military establishment. When the issue of Dawn Leaks emerged in late 2016 and the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) rejected the position of the government on the matter, the PML (N) regime failed to establish its writ on its subordinate state organ and asked for the resignation of the Federal Information Minister and the Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs. This reflected insecurity and vulnerability of the civilian government vis-a-vis the military, which is a subordinate organ.
The reality of the military’s supremacy on civilian matters also cannot be ruled out in the area of foreign policy. There are certain ‘no-go areas’ in foreign affairs like India, Afghanistan, the United States and China, where the ascendency of the military on civilian authority is paramount. Pakistan’s nuclear program is another subject where the limitations of the civilian government are obvious. The only way civilian governments can assert their position vis-a-vis the security and military establishment is when they put their own house in order, abolish dynastic rule, focus on socio-economic development of the people, establish democratic order in their own ranks and promote a culture of accountability. Those political parties that do not practice democracy in letter and spirit, do not ascribe to accountability and the rule of law, do not follow the justice system and do not adhere to merit, can never prevent the military’s domination in politics.
It is also a reality that all mainstream political parties have been nourished and patronized by the security and military establishment and lack the capability and credibility to challenge those who promoted them and brought them to power in the first place. This is true in the case of the PPP, PML (N), PML (Q), PTI and BAP. The military and security establishment has, over the years, succeeded in inducting their people in the ranks of such political parties. If PTI is blamed by its rival political parties like the PPP, PML (N) and JUI (F), of being imposed by the establishment, their own track record is no better.
A constitutional amendment is not required to give a pivotal role to the military in statecraft; the former Turkish model of accepting the military as a senior partner in the mode of governance also does not need to be considered. In a democratic setup, the military needs to be subservient to the government and the political parties whether they belong to the opposition or are in power. The political rulers must be professional, accountable, efficient and have a visionary outlook so that they can ensure good governance, rule of law and a better justice system.
Leave a Reply