Truth is Bitter

By Lt. Gen. Naeem Khalid Lodhi (R) | March 2020

We have all heard the story of the four blind men who, after touching an elephant, described how the huge animal looked. Naturally, the one touching the trunk had a very different story as compared to the one who had felt the tail. I have seen the situation in Pakistan from more than one angle, as I have been part of both the armed forces and the government. Though the case is already built against military interventions but it is important to remember the strength of the political culture that resists such interventions.

When Francis Yokuhama was proclaiming the end of history and crowning democracy and capitalism as the ultimate panacea for the ailments of the human race, Samuel Huntington, his senior, was cautioning us about the clash of civilisations, which meant that other competing systems do exist and they might rise and pose a challenge.

There is no single model of a political system that fits all social paradigms. Even democracy has different shades and hues. Putin was elected as president, Xi Jinping got overwhelming votes from the Grand National Congress, Mullah Umar was elected by a jirga. But how many of us will accept these as democratic processes? Simply because we have a fixed definition and perception of the term. And anything lying outside our understanding of the process would be non-democratic? We have a right to persist with our beliefs, but then so is the right of others.

What is the state of relations between the civilians and the military in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even the USA? The Capitol Hill and the Pentagon quarrel with each other on various issues. President Trump was genuinely interested in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, both before and immediately after the elections. But he could not and his desire has morphed into a sluggish match with the deep state.

What does civilian mean? (Assuming that the military is the only non-civil institution). The judiciary, police, bureaucracy, government and the people are all civilian institutions. People can have problems with the police. The government can have problems with the judiciary. There can be problems in civil-to-civil relations as well. In Pakistan, the quest is for an ideal form of democracy and any incursions by the military in the civilian domain is highly abhorrent. It is true that the judiciary, the executive, the media and the legislature are interfering and encroaching on each others’ jurisdictions. Because that is civil-to-civil relations and they do not disturb the democratic norms to a large extent. It is also not necessary to ascertain what ‘the government of the people by the people’ is doing or not doing ‘for the people.’ If the members of the armed forces, including the military leadership, were robots and not made of the same flesh and bones as civil society, then they would remain oblivious of whatever happened to the people of the country. Since it is not like that, they express their concerns and because truth is bitter, it bites. There may be an uproar from within and outside the country but from a purely democratic point of view, the objection against military intervention is very well-justified and no one can defend such interference in theory. The main reason is that they have guns provided by the nation for their defence and these are not supposed to be used against the nation’s own people.

The unfinished agenda of the subcontinent’s division became the first misfortune for the people of India and Pakistan and ushered the two nations into perpetual animosity. The Kashmir freedom struggle started right away, and Pakistan, being much smaller in resources, started looking for support and military alliances. This affected the very nature of the state, converting it into a security-conscious country rather than a welfare-based state. Pakistan was born as a security state and was not converted into one. This also led to carving out a larger than legitimate or reasonable space for the military and its leadership.

The early demise of strong political leaders also created a vacuum that needed some time to be filled by the next tier of political leaders. Unfortunately, this unstable period, instead of being protected by the civil and military bureaucracy, was exploited by the same institutions that were supposed to defend them. Because military units are cellular in nature, the army institution was comparatively in good shape at the time of partition.

It also needs to be kept in mind that the British employed a strong combination of the bureaucracy and the armed forces to control the subcontinent. Strong political leadership in India controlled the armed forces right away. This unfortunately could not be done in Pakistan. Whenever the military took over in Pakistan, the initial response of the general public was normally positive, but every time they left the situation in a worse condition than before.

Ayub Khan’s era brought development and prosperity, but the alienation of the erstwhile East Pakistan and the importance of a smooth political transition when his position became untenable, was not perceived by him and the junta. Military dictators, critically short of political insight, allowed the country to be sucked into the vortex of the Cold War, resulting in some mortal blows for the people and society.

Intermittent political dispensations also did not show enough acumen to steer the country into mainstream democratic traditions, or were hemmed in for political space. A mixture of these factors kept Pakistan in a hybrid zone that was neither pure democracy nor pure dictatorship. The nation still continues to tread that path and is in the grey zone though the journey seems to be gradually moving towards more democracy and less military interference.

However, with the prevailing external and internal political military situation of the region, along with sluggish delivery of other institutions in Pakistan, the influence of the military is likely to stay for some time. The frequency of civil-military stand-offs is likely to reduce as long as the platform of the National Security Committee remains active and the suggestions put forth by the military are not taken as dictations but considered on merit and logic.

To keep the military out of politics, they must be kept on board in major national decision-making. The size of the armed forces, and their strong footprint in non-professional fields is also a matter of concern. But this must be weighed against the fact that the best public schools, hospitals and housing schemes were introduced by the armed forces in Pakistan. Though the Fauji Foundation comprises some best performing companies with no uniformed personnel, and is properly listed in the stock exchanges and amongst the highest tax payers, yet it remains a whipping opportunity for some who tend to be ideologues of democracy, an elusive commodity found only in well-educated and affluent societies.

In the triumvirate - the government, the people and the armed forces - whenever a political government wins the hearts and minds of civil society by delivering in education, health, justice and economic opportunities, the armed forces automatically get marginalized and lose their influence beyond their desired role. On the other hand, if the armed forces are called upon to play roles that are not their basic responsibility, and if they also do better in those roles, then their political ambitions get stronger. An effective foreign policy that reduces the number of enemies and thus minimises the probability of conflict, will also preclude the role of the armed forces in affairs of the state.

Before attaining these two conditions, that is drastic improvement in social indicators and reduction in internal and external conflicts, any attempts to reduce the role of the military in Pakistan may not completely succeed. In my view, there is a tapering down of military interjections, with only occasional spikes (as is perceived presently) on some highly controversial issues. The military leadership, from General Kiyani onwards realised their own shortcomings in the fields of non-kinetic affairs, and changes in the world conscience, and outrightly rejected military interventions in civil affairs.

The frequency of civil-military stand-offs is likely to reduce as long as the platform of the National Security Committee remains active.

It is a common perception that certain foreign policy decisions in Pakistan are taken at the behest of military leadership. It is argued that all countries, while taking important foreign policy decisions that impact the security situation, do consult the military establishment. Once the Pakistan Army Headquarters received instructions from the government that foreign delegations of a pure political and non-military nature should not be encouraged by the armed forces to call on their senior leadership. The Army Chief agreed and asked the foreign office that they should decide on the programmes of visiting dignitaries. But it was realized that many important delegations or foreign dignitaries would insist on calling on the COAS, etc., and thus the routine continued and has continued to this day.

The main allegations against the armed forces in Pakistan are that they dictate national interests and don’t want peace with India. This means that the armed forces, instead of enjoying the peaceful life of cantonments and messes, would prefer the hardships of trenches, sweat and blood. This is twisted logic. It is also said that a perpetual conflict-like situation allows the armed forces to justify their size and existence. The armed forces, unlike some political parties in Pakistan, do not belong to any family in which the generals want their sons to keep presiding over the armed forces. In fact, statistics would prove that, in Pakistan, very few sons and wards of senior officers make it to the senior ranks.The top armed forces leadership is concerned about their main mission of defending the country and they definitely demand a certain size of force and equipment to accomplish their duties. As far as the supreme national interest is concerned, that happens to be the welfare and prosperity of the people, irrespective of whosoever decides.

It needs to be understood that, in Pakistan, the situation has not yet reached a threshold like in Turkey, where Tayyip Erdogan was successful in cutting the military to size. This happened due to two factors. One, the Turkish government was delivering in the socio-economic sectors and two, the Erdogan government has a religious leaning that is closer to public aspirations as compared to the Turkish armed forces, that had assigned to themselves the role of the defenders of secularism. In the trio -the government, the people and the armed forces - the balance was heavily tilted in favour of the Turkish political government. In Pakistan, both these factors are yet missing and a recent overt attempt to malign the armed forces by some political entities, ably supported by their media friends, backfired due to lack of public support.

The world is not a level playing field, where every nation is playing honestly by the rules. The internal socio-economic environment is not identical. No system fits all societies and countries. However, the stronger nations keep harassing the smaller ones in the name of democracy, human rights, terrorism, etc. All moves, whether geo-strategic or geo-political, will attain prominence in the geo-economics. Countries like Pakistan should look inwards to improve the social indicators and should look outwards to reduce conflicts. At the same time, they should keep pursuing their generally agreed interests. External unsolicited consultants and advisors with regard to our political systems, economic framework and inter-institutional relations, may be listened to, but we need to proceed according to our own needs and interests and for that we have enough expertise at home. With the help of Allah and the people of Pakistan, we can carve out a system and institutions that would suit our own needs. However, I am not recommending reinventing the wheel as it is not necessary to focus only on western democracy. There are some other practical systems that have succeeded around the world.

I have alluded to the factors that, in my opinion, have led us on the path we are treading today. I am optimistic that we are gradually moving towards the right direction. To ensure that we do not waver from the right path, a relentless critique will always help. It needs to be understood that political power does not grow out of the barrels of guns anymore. It is moral authority and legitimacy that is the ultimate power.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Update