Cover Story 
 

Cover Story

The Challenge

At this crucial juncture when Pakistan needs political stability and single-mindedness at the top decision-making levels more than ever, there’s a need to demarcate the scope as well as limitations of civil-military relations without running the risk of unconstitutional intervention or institutional trespassing.

By Lt. Gen. (R) Talat Masood | November 2022

In Pakistan the appointment of the Chief of Army Staff has always aroused considerable interest for obvious reasons. The army, ever since the creation of Pakistan, apart from ensuring the integrity and defence of the country, has played a vital role in influencing national politics. It has been deeply involved in politics directly during the four martial laws and indirectly during civilian rule and to date is a dominant political influencer. As the time for retirement of Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa is only a few weeks away, the interest in his successor is far greater and not confined merely to the elite but has become a part of national discourse in the media, at public forums and watched with great interest by the diplomatic community. Another factor in the present context that has added greater significance to the appointment of the next chief is the infighting and extreme confrontation between the major political parties coupled with the insistence of former prime minister Imran Khan that the Opposition be taken into confidence in the selection process. Interestingly, the concept of having a chief of the army of one’s choice has seldom worked in favour of the civilian leadership that had been responsible for selecting them. Late PM Z. A. Bhutto had picked up General Zia despite his not being among the senior most. Similarly, Nawaz Sharif thought that General Musharraf would be a safe bet, only to realize later that it is the collective decision of the military command that is the overriding factor in the civil-military relations.

It was expected that Pakistan’s politics in the last seventy-five years has matured to a level wherein the civil-military relations will conform to the boundaries defined by the Constitution. But regrettably, it is far from it. The bitter rivalry and deep hostility between the major political parties has facilitated the army leadership’s vested interests in retaining political (and economic) power. To expect the army leadership to stay away from politics in the present scenario seems a remote possibility, much that it is in the country’s vital interest. Likewise, if only the political leadership would conduct itself responsibly, realizing that the country is going through one of its most difficult periods. Pakistan has recently experienced one of the worst floods with one-third of the country submerged and nearly thirty-three million people displaced and living in makeshift shelters or in the open. To add to woes of the masses, the Russia-Ukraine war has seriously impacted on the global economy and Pakistan is one of the worst affected countries. It was not surprising in these adverse circumstances for the COAS to give a clear warning that it will not allow anyone to destabilize the country. Obviously, the message was meant for Imran Khan to reconsider his threat of a long march.

Shoaib Suddle

Under the French philosopher Montesquieu’s separation of powers theory there is division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of the government. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch implements the laws and the judiciary decides whether the laws framed by the legislature are in conformity of the Constitution and whether these laws are correctly applied by the executive branch. The purpose of separation of powers is to create a system of check and balance.

In Pakistan, the executive branch – which includes the military – the legislature and the judiciary have over time carved out a role which is over and above their mandated functions. The result is that the military and the judiciary at times tend to intrude into the domain of the civilian executive. When the executive is seen to be working against national security, it is perceived to be too corrupt, incompetent, or it fails to govern the country fairly, justly, and effectively, while the military’s role, with or without the backing of the judiciary, becomes dominant as a key power broker.

The political elite needs to fundamentally transform the way it performs its mandated functions. While the military’s periodic return to political primacy is to the detriment of both democracy and judicial independence, the recalcitrant politicians’ abject failure to govern in accordance with the constitutional order does have a role in inviting the military to ‘intervene’. Whether the military in such a scenario can or should continue to look the other way, I’m not sure.

So, the question arises as to how the country would move towards political stability in these adverse circumstances when the power dynamics between the civil and military relationship is heavily tilted in favour of the army leadership. The politics and its ethos have drifted far away from what the founding fathers of the country had originally visualized. And the civil society is too weak and in no position to bring pressure on the political or military leaders to stay on the democratic path and maintain sanity.

In essence, the overall situation in Pakistan has become too complex and this model of governance is dysfunctional and pulling the country down in every respect, be it politics, the economy, internal peace or international image. The country has drifted away from the constitutional boundaries to a point that unless there is a concerted attempt by the civil and military leadership to correct their own conduct to conform to it, the situation would further deteriorate.

And are we not seeing that already happen. In fact, the differences between the political parties have strengthened the army leadership to maintain their upper hand. The situation, however, could change dramatically if the next Chief of Army Staff and the senior Corp Commanders decide as a deliberate policy to stay away from politics. This is not going to be easy but is in the realm of possibility if the political leadership itself decides not to lean or use it to leverage its position against their political opponents. Most of the top political leadership having a reputation of being corrupt and political parties internally pursuing democratic practices, more to conform to legal requirements than holding genuine party elections, are neither willing nor capable of pursuing politics without leaning on the army leadership.

There are major security and foreign policy challenges that have raised the importance and profile of the military. The inimical relations with India compel Pakistan to maintain large and well-equipped armed forces. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy not to engage with Pakistan is to deliberately keep pressure on Pakistan to further weaken its economy and indirectly its politics. The government should avoid falling in this trap by balancing defence with development. India, despite facing a two-front situation against China and Pakistan, has maintained a robust economy. While major economies were faltering, India in 2021 recorded a seven percent GDP. The rise of Hindutva and BJP’s gross discrimination against Muslims has affected its politics yet democratic institutions remain largely functional.

In recent years the uncertain conditions in Afghanistan and rise of the militancy within Pakistan requires deploying army and paramilitary forces on the Western border. The emergence of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the erstwhile tribal areas and Swat pose an additional security issue for Pakistan. The security of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is another major responsibility of the armed forces they are performing commendably. These multiple security challenges demand substantial resources, and a high proportion of the national budget is apportioned for the three services. The military’s stature would rise even more if it were to stay away from politics and remain within the constitutional boundaries.

Sooner rather than later, the government should announce a firm date of national elections. This is not only to allay the anxiety or to fulfil the demand of the PTI leadership but elections are an important component of governance and provide credibility to the system. And in our context, these will make a significant contribution in harmonizing civil-military relations.

Enver Beg
(Former Senator)

Pakistan Armed Forces ever since the country’s independence in 1947 have been in power directly or indirectly.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed tried to get out of the clutches but he was tried for murder in courts and was hanged, while one of the judges on that bench later admitting that that was a judicial murder. In later years, a fake democracy and corrupt leadership was put in place with total control on all major domestic and international affairs. Presently, the tussle is between Imran Khan’s PTI and Rawalpindi, with Imran Khan now realising that Pakistani people need to elect their people and go for independent domestic and foreign policies. Given that Imran Khan is currently drawing mammoth crowds in his public rallies, it has now become a tough battle. Let’s wait and see who wins. Interesting times ahead!

Read More