The Right Balance

Traditionally, Armed Forces have been part of the troika from the mid 1950s. General Ayub Khan’s tenure was extended and he was inducted as Defence Minister in the cabinet of Mohammad Ali Bogra, Pakistan's third prime minister. In 1958, Gen. Ayub declared Martial Law in the country. Judiciary gave legitimacy to the military takeover under Doctrine of Necessity, while the civil administration also co-operated. The army hierarchy gradually became accustomed to the taste of power and started believing that they have a genuine role in the administrative affairs of the country and politicians are not competent to carry this burden. Hence, the country’s political parties and civil institutions never developed to provide effective leadership.

As time went by, the agencies became very active in civil affairs to the extent of micromanagement on the supposition that their involvement is necessary for political stability.

The army has now publicly announced that it will not interfere in the civil-political domain and let the politicians and civil administration to manage the affairs of the country. This is a positive policy statement by the army.

Let us hope that the politicians can now take essential reforms, hold fair and transparent elections, heal the ailing economy and bring a long-term political and economic stability in the country. Hopefully, an independent judiciary can oversee the smooth transition, stop corrupt practices and ensure rule of law and meritocracy. The Armed Forces now can fully concentrate on enhancing an effective security system.

Good governance plays a vital role in uplifting and ameliorating the livelihood, lifestyle and living standard of citizens. But the current political governance system is determined to polarise society on extreme lines. These political parties also lead towards a rift in civil-military relationship where it is hard to either maintain neutrality or intervene in state affairs. While taking oath, all the chiefs of the armed forces agree that they will protect the country both from within and outside. They also agree that they will establish a protection force to counter any threats to the polity. While providing protection they also conduct their strategic affairs in such a manner as not to destroy or prey on civil society. But the current political environment is begging for military intervention. The political leadership in power are facing severe corruption charges and almost 60% of the current political leadership is on bail. So, on this unstable political stage, what should the armed forces do? Should they remain neutral and let the country become unstable or should they play their due role and help the country get on track? This is a big question that both the army as an institution and the civil sector as the administration are struggling with. But what role can the judiciary play to minimize the threat of rising instability and deep polarization in the country?

Under Article 232 of the 1973 Constitution, the President of Pakistan has the power to proclaim an emergency on account of war, internal disturbance, etc. provided that if the President acts on his own, the Proclamation of Emergency shall be placed before both Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for approval by each House within ten days. But is that what happens? In case of an emergency imposed forcefully, the judiciary can use its powers to declare the outcome null and void and issue an interim order against the action. The judiciary has practiced it in the past during General Musharraf’s term of emergency in 2007. But can the judiciary exercise its prime responsibility for sabotaging the equity of civil-military relations in Pakistan by legitimizing and justifying the unconstitutional interventions of the security apparatus in matters of state governance at this stage? It becomes highly debatable for a number of reasons:

1) The current political leadership faces serious corruption charges.
2) The governance mechanism is becoming a serious challenge for the bureaucracy, the law-abiding sector, the political sphere, and all other key stakeholders.
3) The economy of the country has been destabilized due to higher global oil prices and dollar price imbalance.
4) The public is highly polarized.
5) Political instability is causing larger instability in the country.
6) The state’s soft and hard image is being tarnished.

In all of the above crises, can we afford further civil-military disengagement? Along with the afore-stated challenges, Pakistan faces immense challenges from the eastern and western borders. It also faces militant threats, presence of foreign instigators involved in destabilizing Pakistan, political instability, economic hardships, etc.

What needs to be investigated is whether Pakistan can afford a rift in civil-military relations? The simple answer is NO! Another alarming question: Can Pakistan afford foreign intervention to interfere in its internal affairs and ask its armed forces to keep looking after the borders only? This expectation is highly unjustified. The armed forces will also look inside if the state’s security and stability is threatened. Hence, it would be better if we mend the civil-military relationship now or is it too late already?

Strong Armed Forces, judiciary and civilian administration are the three basic pillars, vital for safety, security and prosperity of any country.
Even in developed countries with strong democracies, it is vital that these three pillars work in cohesion and keep each other accountable.
In many European countries, for example, men are required to join the Armed Forces and serve them for a considerable period of time.

Conflict among the three pillars can cause mistrust and chaos. That is why it is important that all three aforementioned institutions operate interdependently and earn trust of people they serve. Interdependency does not mean any conflict of interest. In fact, if it is done the right way it will strengthen the social and economic conditions and also improve law and order of the country.