Cover Story 
 

Cover Story

Beyond Democracy and Stratocracy

The militarisation of governance and public affairs can never be conceived as an ideal remedy. However, a democratic dispensation can learn a lot from the military leadership, particularly in the areas of good administration and sound stewardship.

By Syed Jawaid Iqbal | December 2023


One would not be in the wrong if one dares to refer to Pakistan as a land of possibilities as well as impossibilities. The sarcastic yet harsh reality is often deemed true when it is mainly seen through the prism of governance, public administration, and state control.

In the comity of nations, much to our chagrin, Pakistan is an exception, that too for all the wrong reasons. Thanks to the country’s sustained, nay chequered, track record in matters of governance, Pakistan is still struggling in the search for an honest, competent, and sound leadership that could advance the nation on the path of economic development, sustainable progress, and financial prosperity. Though the subject in question cannot be implied on the grounds of leadership alone, this stands as an absolute truth when things are scrutinised within the perspective of good governance and the smooth functioning of state matters.

To some people, it may sound theoretically wrong. Still, in practical terms, there is no denying the fact that the role of the Armed Forces in Pakistani politics has mostly led to exciting outcomes for the country in the shape of its phenomenal progress, coupled with a considerable pace of development and intermittent economic growth. Sarcastically speaking, the men in khaki, when in power, have always fared better than their civilian counterparts when it comes to economic revival and development in particular. In the given scenario, the question arises: is it the proven competence of the Armed Forces that leads the country to significant growth, or is it the incompetence of a democratically-elected leadership that keeps failing Pakistan, again and again, both on the socio-economic and policy-making fronts?

Much to one’s surprise, the dictatorial eras of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq, and General Pervez Musharraf are still cited as textbook examples of the most progressive periods the country has ever witnessed in its over 75-year history since its inception as an independent nation. In marked contrast, the regimes by civilian governments have all been characterized by scores of poor indicators, of them massive corruption, gross mismanagement, rampant nepotism, the lack of accountability, and poor governance records, to name a few. Amongst them all, the country’s political pedigree of civilian rule is mainly known for its abysmal performance history, whether it is measured in terms of economic development or judged from the standpoint of the nation’s progress as a whole.

In the specified instance, one must ponder the primary factors that always lead to the rapid downfall of the country during the democratically elected leadership vis-à-vis their military counterparts. Although the field of political science is not complicated and convoluted to the level of proverbial rocket sciences, one needs to have a non-partisan, non-aligned, and dispassionate approach to see things on merit on a case-by-case basis and call things by their proper names when it is due. The same rules must be applied when critically evaluating the repeated failures of the civil regimes in Pakistan. Put it bluntly, the success of military rule in state affairs cannot be attributed to some superficial realities or divine wonders since the stratocracy regime tends to fare better in such matters primarily because of a mélange of common denominators that characterise the armed forces by and large, not only in Pakistan but all over the world.


First and foremost, no government setup can ever deliver, even at a small scale, when its high command is obstreperous in itself, and a lack of discipline in its decision-making process severely affects its ability to govern from the word go. The military regime, quite the reverse, makes the most of its built-in disciplinary attributes that, as a result, play the leading role in the smooth running of state affairs. When it comes to the functioning of the security apparatus, there is no concept of factionalism, or in plain words, the division of the top brass into various groups that may follow different beliefs or have dissimilar sets of ideologies to work in factions.

The success of military rule in state affairs cannot be attributed to some superficial realities or divine wonders since the stratocracy regime tends to fare better primarily because of a mélange of common denominators.

Secondly, military institutions cannot evade the profound sense of accountability and obligation in their entire operations, a universal reality that is equally reflected when the military assumes power. Thirdly, despite being dictatorial or authoritarian in nature, no martial law can move an inch without practically showing its profound sense of ownership in its constitutionally assigned responsibilities or self-assumed tasks. Therefore, when in power, the men in uniform exhibit a much deeper sense of ownership than their civilian counterparts whenever they are assigned a set of responsibilities that relate to the matters of state governance and its due administration both at micro and macro levels.

Fourth, when compared with civil rule, the military government has to follow a predefined commanding hierarchy that necessitates transparency in every state of the system, while critical decisions are not subject to merely whims and fancies of a few minds – a proven fact that ultimately leads to better decision making. In a word, the fruits of outright discipline, laced with a profound sense of accountability, sincere ownership, and all-inclusive transparency within the established order, are mostly viewed during the military regime, in spite of the rule of the sword together with a host of constitutional breaches that delegitimise the spectre of stratocracy in a democratic state.

Democracy must be the rule of the law, no matter what. However, we all need to look beyond the omissions and commissions of the previous civilian government to find a visible yet invisible pattern that permeates multiple layers of the popular regime. The militarisation of governance and public affairs can never be conceived as an ideal remedy. Still, the political leadership can learn a lot from the men in khaki as to how to deliver, especially when it comes to economic development and growth of the country, which is now lagging centuries behind the comity of the first-world nations.

Read More