Civil-military relations
Pakistan needs to learn from countries that have rehabilitated civilian primacy after years of military’s ascendancy
PHOTO: ISPR
Smooth civil-military relations hold the key to political stability and an efficacious management of external and internal security in Pakistan. Therefore, both the civilian leadership and the top brass of the military seek a friction-free relationship to devote fully to their exclusive domains of authority and work in harmony in the overlapping policy space or when they need to supplement each other.
The military’s role has expanded in Pakistan not simply because of the long years of its direct and indirect rule that caused political and democratic discontinuity. There are other reasons as well. Pakistan developed as a security state right from the beginning because of external threat primarily from India and secondarily from Afghanistan. There was also a fear of internal collapse in the early years of independence. Therefore, the focus was on securing Pakistan against external threats and internal pressures. The key priorities were the enforcement of monolithic notion of nationhood, assertive centre and a strong military rather than democratisation of the political system. The military, especially the Army and the paramilitary forces, were summoned from time to time in “aid of the civil” for restoring civilian authority or to support it where it could not cope with the civilian task relating to political agitation, supplement civilian authorities in managing their administrative problems, natural calamities and man-made crises.
This practice goes on even today. The army and paramilitary are needed to hold elections, undertake census, provide security in Muharram, for reading electricity meters, managing government entities like Wapda, provide protection to staff administering anti-polio drug to children and making medical assistance and food available in the drought- or flood-affected areas, to name some civilian tasks undertaken by the three services, especially the army.
Yet another area that has expanded the role of the military is internal security. This includes terrorism, sectarian and ethnic violence and a nexus of criminality and politics in the post-September 2001 period. A number of successful security operations have been launched by the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Air Force for containing terrorism and religious and ethnic violence. This task is expected to continue for an indefinite period.
The frequent reliance of the civil administration on the military for handling civilian affairs has a strong political fall out to the disadvantage of the civilian authorities. All this provides the military with the experience of handling the civilian affairs. It also exposes the weaknesses of the civilian authorities and it creates the impression that the military can succeed in a task where civilian authorities fail. However, if the military can manage an administrative task in an efficient manner this does not mean that it can also resolve the complex political problem. It is in this domain that the military often falters.
One major reason for the popularity of Army Chief General Raheel Sharif is that the Army has been successful in reducing internal terrorism to a great extent. As the Army has “delivered” on countering terrorism, the Army Chief and the Army have won much appreciation.
The critical appraisal of the political role of the Pakistan Military by Pakistani and foreign writers and analysts has identified at least seven reasons for the expansion of its role. We cannot discuss these factors here due to space problem. However, any attempt to limit the role of the military will have to address these issues. Some of these call for “restraint” on the part of the military and others emphasise “performance” on the part of the civilian leaders, institutions and processes.
Pakistan needs to learn from the countries that have rehabilitated civilian primacy after long years of the military’s ascendancy. This calls for redefining Pakistan’s internal and external security profile. If the issues of external security and internal violence and terrorism are not defused, the military stays central to state policies and state survival. It also requires a recognition on the part of the military top brass that “day-to-day” political management does not fit into their professional and organisational disposition.
Above all, an elected civilian government enjoys electoral legitimacy but it must also earn performance legitimacy. It must pursue socio-economic policies that give a strong hope to people for a better future. It needs to work towards reducing socio-economic disparities, be transparent in managing state affairs, and create a corruption-free, efficient and accountable governance within the framework of the rule of law.
In Pakistan, the civilian governments since 2008 have experienced crisis after crisis and these could not muster voluntary loyalty of the common people. These governments cultivated personalised loyalty by a partisan use of state resources and tolerating corruption in government.
Instead of creating a “credible and popular civilian alternative” the Nawaz Sharif government has spent more energy in outmanoeuvring the military. Some of the federal ministers have built their reputation for public criticism of the security establishment. The latest controversy caused by the news item regarding the discussion at a national security meeting in the prime minister house has adversely affected civil-military relations.
The Sharif government’s complaint of losing a lot of space to the security establishment for the making of foreign and security policies relates more to the style of governance. Such a complaint was not heard that much when Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Hina Rabbani Khar were foreign ministers (2002-2013). Today, the Foreign Office lacks the unity of command. It has four poles of authority Sartaj Aziz, Tariq Fatmi, office of the Prime Minister and the Punjab Chief Minister. The latter manages relations with China and Turkey in an autonomous manner for Punjab-based development projects. Punjab has also obtained some loans from Chinese banks for its development projects. A divided foreign policy house is bound to demonstrate ambiguity in policymaking and management and leaves policy gaps.
Two issues are going to shape the civil-military relations in the next two months. How the civilian leadership handles the inquiry into who passed on the information of about what happened at the national security meeting? The Corps Commanders’ Conference held on October 14 describes this information as “false and fabricated.” The other issue pertains to the appointment of the new Army Chief in November. Any gross violation of the seniority principle will compound the current problems in civil-military relations.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 18th, 2016.
The military’s role has expanded in Pakistan not simply because of the long years of its direct and indirect rule that caused political and democratic discontinuity. There are other reasons as well. Pakistan developed as a security state right from the beginning because of external threat primarily from India and secondarily from Afghanistan. There was also a fear of internal collapse in the early years of independence. Therefore, the focus was on securing Pakistan against external threats and internal pressures. The key priorities were the enforcement of monolithic notion of nationhood, assertive centre and a strong military rather than democratisation of the political system. The military, especially the Army and the paramilitary forces, were summoned from time to time in “aid of the civil” for restoring civilian authority or to support it where it could not cope with the civilian task relating to political agitation, supplement civilian authorities in managing their administrative problems, natural calamities and man-made crises.
This practice goes on even today. The army and paramilitary are needed to hold elections, undertake census, provide security in Muharram, for reading electricity meters, managing government entities like Wapda, provide protection to staff administering anti-polio drug to children and making medical assistance and food available in the drought- or flood-affected areas, to name some civilian tasks undertaken by the three services, especially the army.
Yet another area that has expanded the role of the military is internal security. This includes terrorism, sectarian and ethnic violence and a nexus of criminality and politics in the post-September 2001 period. A number of successful security operations have been launched by the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Air Force for containing terrorism and religious and ethnic violence. This task is expected to continue for an indefinite period.
The frequent reliance of the civil administration on the military for handling civilian affairs has a strong political fall out to the disadvantage of the civilian authorities. All this provides the military with the experience of handling the civilian affairs. It also exposes the weaknesses of the civilian authorities and it creates the impression that the military can succeed in a task where civilian authorities fail. However, if the military can manage an administrative task in an efficient manner this does not mean that it can also resolve the complex political problem. It is in this domain that the military often falters.
One major reason for the popularity of Army Chief General Raheel Sharif is that the Army has been successful in reducing internal terrorism to a great extent. As the Army has “delivered” on countering terrorism, the Army Chief and the Army have won much appreciation.
The critical appraisal of the political role of the Pakistan Military by Pakistani and foreign writers and analysts has identified at least seven reasons for the expansion of its role. We cannot discuss these factors here due to space problem. However, any attempt to limit the role of the military will have to address these issues. Some of these call for “restraint” on the part of the military and others emphasise “performance” on the part of the civilian leaders, institutions and processes.
Pakistan needs to learn from the countries that have rehabilitated civilian primacy after long years of the military’s ascendancy. This calls for redefining Pakistan’s internal and external security profile. If the issues of external security and internal violence and terrorism are not defused, the military stays central to state policies and state survival. It also requires a recognition on the part of the military top brass that “day-to-day” political management does not fit into their professional and organisational disposition.
Above all, an elected civilian government enjoys electoral legitimacy but it must also earn performance legitimacy. It must pursue socio-economic policies that give a strong hope to people for a better future. It needs to work towards reducing socio-economic disparities, be transparent in managing state affairs, and create a corruption-free, efficient and accountable governance within the framework of the rule of law.
In Pakistan, the civilian governments since 2008 have experienced crisis after crisis and these could not muster voluntary loyalty of the common people. These governments cultivated personalised loyalty by a partisan use of state resources and tolerating corruption in government.
Instead of creating a “credible and popular civilian alternative” the Nawaz Sharif government has spent more energy in outmanoeuvring the military. Some of the federal ministers have built their reputation for public criticism of the security establishment. The latest controversy caused by the news item regarding the discussion at a national security meeting in the prime minister house has adversely affected civil-military relations.
The Sharif government’s complaint of losing a lot of space to the security establishment for the making of foreign and security policies relates more to the style of governance. Such a complaint was not heard that much when Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Hina Rabbani Khar were foreign ministers (2002-2013). Today, the Foreign Office lacks the unity of command. It has four poles of authority Sartaj Aziz, Tariq Fatmi, office of the Prime Minister and the Punjab Chief Minister. The latter manages relations with China and Turkey in an autonomous manner for Punjab-based development projects. Punjab has also obtained some loans from Chinese banks for its development projects. A divided foreign policy house is bound to demonstrate ambiguity in policymaking and management and leaves policy gaps.
Two issues are going to shape the civil-military relations in the next two months. How the civilian leadership handles the inquiry into who passed on the information of about what happened at the national security meeting? The Corps Commanders’ Conference held on October 14 describes this information as “false and fabricated.” The other issue pertains to the appointment of the new Army Chief in November. Any gross violation of the seniority principle will compound the current problems in civil-military relations.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 18th, 2016.