Horses for Courses

Though it sounds theoretically wrong but practically right, the role of the Armed Forces in Pakistani politics has always led to exciting outcomes since the men in khaki, when in power, have fared better than their civilian counterparts, especially when it comes to economic revival and development. Is it because of the competence of the Armed Forces or the incompetence of the democratically-elected leadership that keeps failing Pakistan on the economic front again and again?

The chronic challenges Pakistan faces at the economic, political, and strategic levels are a cumulative result of its lack of democratic ethos, weak and corrupt-ridden governance, and a very hostile strategic environment.

After independence in 1947, South Asian countries opted for democratic governance, but few, and Pakistan, among them, faltered as they failed to establish a sound democratic structure. This resulted in the dominance of the military and bureaucracy in governance. Close to nearly half its life of 76 years, Pakistan has been ruled directly by the military and the remaining half under its domineering influence during democratic governments. So, it is not surprising that many, even among the educated class in this modern age, feel nostalgic for military rule and yearn for its return.

In Pakistan, clamping down on corrupt politicians, even banning certain political parties, is considered a “cleaning” process of eliminating the corrupt and starting anew. However, these moments of joy in installing a military or a docile civilian government have been short-lived. The military government must rely on civilian officers and staff for initial and subsequent guidance. Some military officers pick up the basics and even the intricacies of civilian governance, but a different culture and lack of background come in the way.

When the military takes over, which has occurred four times since independence, there is a sigh of relief, and people’s expectations are raised. No doubt, some military rulers, initially for one or two years, have done somewhat better than political leaders in terms of governance. Still, none of them were able to retire typically. They were literally pushed out and faced an ungraceful exit. The greatest challenge for a military ruler has been how to hand over power and to whom. When they had opted for elections, there were allegations of manipulation, and it backfired and failed to bring stability.

One can understand the frustration and disappointment of military leadership when the country suffers due to inadequate civilian governance, as it also affects security. But the remedy to correct course is by addressing the failings and not revert to the military’s capture of power. One among other reasons for Pakistan’s structural weaknesses and lagging has been the civilian leadership’s undemocratic ethos of seeking the support of the army leadership to catapult them into power and sustain their dominance. Even those leaders whose slogan was to respect the voter’s choice now fall back on the army to gain leverage. So, suppose our leadership delves deeper into Pakistan’s present disarray and initiates self-correction. In that case, the incoming elections will allow the government to steer it toward giving credibility and substance to the electioneering slogans.