Only two aspects of the secret memorandum, now publicly available, can be regarded as factual: the memo was written, although its authorship is yet to be established beyond doubt; and it was received by Admiral Mike Mullen as officially acknowledged by his former spokesman, John Kirby. The memo essentially seeks the support of the US in achieving civilian control over the military and cleansing it of elements that support al Qaeda and its affiliates. That foreign intervention was sought to reconfigure the security apparatus on the one hand and the civil-military relationship on the other is of course a matter of grave concern. Yet key questions related with the memo require investigation if only to mitigate the heightened anxiety of Pakistan’s citizens regarding the state of the country: (a) Who authorised the initiative of approaching the US government for such wide ranging intervention into Pakistan’s state structure through channels that lie beyond the formal institutional framework of inter-state relations? (b) What factors made the contention between the civilian government and the security apparatus reach a critical point whereby such a desperate and dangerous initiative was deemed necessary? (c) How can the tension between the civilian government and the military, presumably preceding the political adventure and its aftermath, be resolved to restore stability within the state structure?
Addressing these questions is necessary for Pakistan’s evolution to democracy. Nevertheless the text of the memorandum has a sub-text which has implications for an understanding of the dynamics of institutional instability in Pakistan. Let us examine the sub-text.
An analysis of Pakistan’s political history indicates incongruence between the formal and actual institutional structure of state power. Thus, while the military is supposed to be subordinate to elected civilian authority under the Constitution, yet it has a pre-eminent position in governance. Policy-making as well as political change are largely shaped by the dialectic of the power struggle between civilian and military factions of the power structure. The memorandum argues that the “tug of war between military and civilian sectors” was enhanced following the Abbottabad raid by US Special Forces. This observation suggests that the civil-military contention in governance had reached a point “…where no central control appears to be in place”.
The intelligence apparatus during the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by the very nature of its enterprise, acquired operational autonomy with respect to its component elements. The organisational structure, ideological orientation and strategic perspective inherited from the earlier period, therefore influenced organisational behaviour in the period after 9/11 when Pakistan’s military establishment was pitted against the very militant groups which it had earlier nurtured.
The memo claims that following the restructuring of the security apparatus with “Washington’s direct intervention”, there would be “an independent inquiry into the allegations that Pakistan harbored and offered assistance to UBL and other senior al Qaeda operatives”. The sub-text of this observation is that there is a possibility that elements within the security establishment may have been complicit, rather than incompetent in handling Osama bin Laden and others. While this is a logical possibility the memo proposes a dangerous path by failing to understand that any “inquiry into the allegations” would have no credibility either within the military establishment or amongst the people of Pakistan if such an inquiry followed US intervention.
The memo proposes that Pakistan’s nuclear assets would be brought under a “…more verifiable, transparent regime”, and cooperation with India undertaken on the issue of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While such initiatives would be possible if taken by a representative government of a sovereign Pakistan, they would be rejected as treason when undertaken following US intervention into Pakistan.
The fact that such a memorandum was written and communicated to a foreign country shows ignorance of the basic fact that the source of legitimacy of any policy change in Pakistan and indeed its independence is the people of Pakistan. It also shows that the contention between various factions of the power structure may have reached a point where it constrains effective governance and threatens the democratic edifice.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 20th, 2011.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Thanks for the article Dr. Akmal. The consequence of this episode is going to be a shift in the momentum of instituional re-alignment in the Pakistani state which was witnessing a questionable yet democratic government about to complete a full five-year tenure for the very first time and in addition to that the disproportionately powerful defense institutions of Pakistan, that have controlled the state's character, decision-making and resources were on this very rare occasion in our history, on the back-foot in terms of mass acceptability , something not seen since the '71 break-up fiasco. It appears that what's going to happen now is that for a long time to come civilian state actors, who were until now criticized on the basis of their fiscal and ethical behavior only would now have a bigger burden to bear, i.e. insincerity towards the state on the most fundamental level, lack of patriotism and treasonous culpability. Whether a sting operation or not, this has been a powerful play and its impact on Pakistan's state and societal structure would be observed not just in the short run but also in the long-run.
Memo is another attempt to create rift within high ranks.There is no solution of everything with America those who think and act there is something wrong with them.We just lack maturity and sincerity.
It is rightly said that "Civil military imbalance has always plagued the country since its inception. The actual power for formulating key policies including foreign policy has always been exclusively with the military as against the presumed civil rule supremacy to entitlement to frame out policies." We must understand that no country,organisation,institution or even a house-hold can survive with such imbalance of dual power centers where the real power lies at nontraditional/unconstitutional place. If Pakistan or for that matter any country has to rise, progress and even survive in the present world scenario such imbalance or call it anomaly has to be corrected. It is in the supreme interest of people of Pakistan to get to resolve this anomaly at the earliest. They have tried many a time with Army being on the top; now, they must give a sincere chance to their own constitution and force every department of state to be under the civil Govt. It looks difficult but certainly possible.
Valid questions these, Dr. Saheb....hope answers are found soon.
As the title claims, the article has truthfully deconstructed the memogate to make common man understand the statecraft as it is being practiced in Pakistan. Many analogies, events spanned over wide timeline and geography, subtexts, all given. "It" is known to everybody, but difficult to explain, and if it can be explained, it can be solved, but since it can not be explained, it will never be solved. So, such deconstructions will help. But, I think similar many articles are needed to at least understand "what needs to be understood", if not solving the problem. There are many subtexts within subtexts, it is complicated.
no comments, not worth one
No one dares to confront aabpara industry including this third rated author Akmal Hussain. Perhaps there is only one editorial so far which has shown enough courage & its that of Rashed Rehman on Daily Times. Dirty trick brigade is at HH woth all its gaggers out.
i wouldnt trust zardari as far as i could throw him but however, is there a remote possibility that this is some us game? after all, the behaviour of mullen, his denial then subsequent sudden remembering of the memo does strike me as slightly fishy. furthermore, regarding the matter of the nuclear weapons, it does not seem very probable to me that zardari would call for the nuclear weapons should be brought under a trasnparent regime...lastly, the fact that mullen accepted that he remembers the memo seems as if america is playing some deep game because if the contents of the memo are found to be true and can be traced back to zardari, then that is treason.
What is wrong in exposing and punishing the protectors and friends of OBL and other known terrorists? How dare anybody can even think about it especially in Pakistan? Let the deep state coninue to plunder the country and its resources and support the fanaticism and terrorism. Otherwise they would bring in a Zia who would hang the elected PM and establish the mullah rule.