Constitution and the state
General Kayani emphasised the importance of public support for the armed forces of Pakistan. It may be helpful, therefore, to examine the conditions under which citizens give their support to a particular organisation of the state, such as the military. It can be postulated that public support for the military hinges on the citizens considering its organisational behaviour to be legitimate. The source of legitimacy is the will of the people as embodied in the Constitution of a country. So, public support for the military or any other organisation of the state is forthcoming if, and only if, it functions within the scope of, and in a manner specified by, the Constitution. So the military will lose public support if it overthrows an elected civilian government or intervenes in the process of elections or covertly attempts to destabilise an elected government.
Anyone who has been in contact with Pakistan’s military officers (as I have, teaching them during annual lectures at the Command and Staff College and the National Defence University for many years) would testify to their character qualities. By and large, they exude discipline, a quiet confidence, a humility drawn from an inner strength and a sense of honour. They would unhesitatingly give their lives in defence of their homeland. Most citizens of Pakistan would be moved by such sterling qualities. Why is it then that the army chief feels a need to seek public support for the military? Perhaps, this is because as an organisation, the military has frequently gone beyond the institutional limits envisaged in the Constitution. From being an armed force exclusively assigned by law to defend Pakistan’s territory, it has enlarged its role to become a major player in the politics and economy of the country.
The identity of any state organisation is articulated by the institutional structure within which it is located. Pakistan’s Constitution is the foundation on which the entire institutional structure and the associated organisational edifice of the state rest. The central feature of the Constitution is that it stipulates a balance between the various pillars of the state: parliament, the judiciary and the executive with the free media being the fourth pillar. The military, within this configuration, is simply a subordinate arm of civil authority. The purpose of this separation of powers and the balance, thereof, is to establish the necessary checks to arbitrary power. In this way, the freedom and the fundamental rights of the people can be ensured.
If a particular organisation of the state goes out of balance relative to other organisations within the state structure, two consequences ensue: first, the entire state structure is destabilised and hence, state authority jeopardised. Second, if a particular state organisation arrogates to itself disproportionate power, both its identity and balance with other state organs, are eroded. Thus, the very organisation that attempts to get extraconstitutional power, actually gets weakened. As its identity and balance vis-à-vis other state organisations is undermined, so too is its strength. Thus, the strength of any state organisation as much as its public support is drawn from the Constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 12th, 2012.
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
1719315628-0/BeFunky-collage-(8)1719315628-0-405x300.webp "article")
1731329418-0/BeFunky-collage-(39)1731329418-0-165x106.webp "article")
I truly believe that Army's Role should only be limited to defending Pakistan. They have ruled this country for years and years. They all consider them above Law. Our civilian population is so much disorganized that army easily manipulates everything in their own favor. They are always seeking opportunities for justifying their coups. I got surprised to read that in Australian Army, there is complete corps composed of only civilians. These civilians check the routines of armed forces and give their recommendations on allocations of budgets. our army on the contrary has developed their own resources in addition to what they get from the government. They run markets / hotels / petrol pumps / factories and are earning easy money. This money is not spent on their soldiers but only on high ranking officials to fulfill their wishes. Army is getting richer every passing day. They have developed their own parallel state within state. The only way to check them is to ban all ecnomic activities and control their budget. Until we do that they will continue growing in strength. Army Generals think they are the most patriotic people in this country. They simply forget that they are less than 1 percent of the entire population.
I truly believe that Army's Role should only be limited to defending Pakistan. They have ruled this country for years and years. They all consider them above Law. Our civilian population is so much disorganized that army easily manipulates everything in their own favor. They are always seeking opportunities for justifying their coups. I got surprised to read that in Australian Army, there is complete corps composed of only civilians. These civilians check the routines of armed forces and give their recommendations on allocations of budgets. our army on the contrary has developed their own resources in addition to what they get from the government. They run markets / hotels / petrol pumps / factories and are earning easy money. This money is not spent on their soldiers but only on high ranking officials to fulfill their wishes. Army is getting richer every passing day. They have developed their own parallel state within state. The only way to check them is to ban all economic activities and control their budget. Until we do that they will continue growing in strength. Army Generals think they are the most patriotic people in this country. They simply forget that they are less than 1 percent of the entire population.
@Akhter: Thank you Mr Akhter. I invite you to Facebook and to like the page Asian Fraternity and to be my friend.
@Manoj Joshi India: Dear Sir An accurate and thoughtful brief history of Pakistan politics, I wish more people had your level of insight/tolerance and perspective, your points are eloquently put and i can only but admire them. A stable and democratic Pakistan is in the best interests of its Neighbors/Region and the world at large. This is the only way that development/improvement in the quality of life of all of southeast Asia can be ensured.
The Constitution of Pakistan that was framed and had come into force in 1956 has been changed a number of times by various subsequent governments and military rulers. Democracy in this Islamic Republic could never really take roots due to periodic military coups and thereafter the elected governments which were not able to deliver the desired results. Thus democracy in Pakistan was more a civilian rule hence this nation has experienced a military rule and a civilian rule. The essence of a democracy could not develop in the political system and society of Pakistan hence democracy remained a kind of a managed democracy. The longest tenure of a democratically elected government in Pakistan has lasted for almost eleven years between 1988 to 1999 followed by the last military coup that ended in 2008 after almost nine years. This has been the first time in the constitutional history of Pakistan that an elected government; of Pakistan People's Party; has been able to complete the tenure of five years in the National Assembly. The Pakistan Army has over the years since 1958 been a major influencing factor and has influenced major decisions in the nation related to defence, home affairs and external affairs and has gone beyond institutional limits by having initiated coup against the elected government. Corruption and feudal mindset of the political leadership of Pakistan has been another major factor in having deterred democracy from taking a deep root within the nation. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had a third equally important factor that has influenced their society and that is the influence of the religious clergy which has sapped the essence of a real democracy. Islam is the official religion of Pakistan hence blasphemy is unacceptable but national interests is above religion and this aspect has been largely ignored by even the elected governments of Pakistan. Hence at this juncture the fundamentalist approach adopted by the religious hardliners has made the situation in Pakistan rather difficult to administer when the nation is passing through a economic crisis. The tussle between the political executive and the judiciary is no doubt serious but a phase which should phase out as it is a transitional phase in the growth of democracy in Pakistan. The Pakistan Army has been off course playing their role well with the responsibility needed and are no longer trying to create a difficult situation for the democratically elected government. The challenge no doubt for Pakistan Army against terrorism and fundamentalism is grave and the situation is trying. This challenge is being handled reasonably well by this institution and the leadership of General Ashfaq Kayani deserves all appreciation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan should play their role as the interpreter of their constitution and maintain the desired balance. In other words the three organs of governance Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have to maintain their balance and play their roles within the limits specified by the Constitution. This exercise will need time to get properly implemented but is unavoidable. Democracy needs time and a proper nurturing in Pakistan to reach the level of stability so that democracy remains in existence in the Islamic Republic.
@Reidi and Walayat Malik So i guess what we should all do is let the politicians destroy the country and sell of what's left of it to satiate their greed, while someone whose only purpose in life is defending this country against foreign and internal threats sits as COAS and waits for nitwits to decide for them. I think you should stop smoking the stuff you are smoking as its causing a false reality where you feel that our politicians have a god given right to destroy my country and expect the defenders of the country to sit idly by and do nothing!.I for one would definitely prefer a democratic set up but Pakistan does not have the necessary prerequisites. And so whenever we reach a point of decrepitude steps need to be taken to ensure stability by men of honor (as mentioned by the author). Finally the Constitution is a law written by humans for humans (god forbid it is not Quran or Hadees!) so please stop glorifying it in a similar manner.
Why does the Military need public support, it is not a political party. This hunger for public support must be killed post haste because Legislature is the body formed on the basis of public support. The Asghar Khan case has clearly shown that the craving of COAS for public support means they will try to engineer the same which is clearly undemocratic and unconstitutional.
@Arshid Jamil: Corrupt and inept leaders should be removed by the ballot by the public. Army has NO right under any circumstances to take over the reign of the country. Army is paid by the public taxes to defend the borders ONLY. First thing cadets at Kakul Academy should be taught is their responsibility to defend the border and not dream of becoming President of the country. Those citizens who yearn for army to take over the civilian govetnments are TRAITORS.
Achilles said, "Imagine a king who fights his own battle..... wouldn't that be a sight?" Only deception and distortion brought us to the state of affairs, in which we are today. And still we have people who are trying the same trick of Interpretting the law in concocted shapes to divert/ and or deciet the perception of a certain class or group of people who, unfortunately were born poor in this country and were kept far from getting knowledge and learning. If they were given the opportunity of getting education and understanding what really meant what, they would challenge every extraconstitutional act of any institution and authority. They would, absolutely, not need Mr. Arshid Jamil or any one else, for that matter, to tell them what defend means. Otherwise the Chief Justice would have been the perfect person for the job. It is so sad that we still challenge the authentisity of Dr. Akmal Hussain's interpretation. In fact that is not the case. The reality is that this is another attempt to incline people from the straight path and put them on a road to nowhere ....... far, far, far away from what reality is. 'Defending territory', simply means defending territory. If the politicians are corrupt, it does not give any additional power to any institution to intervene into any other institution's territory or boundries already explained by the constitution. There should be a political solution to cope that. What Dr. Hussain has said is a pure logical and constitutional argument which leaves nothing for the adventures of imagination, and that too a 'fertile' one. Let us make it simple. The constitution has defined everyone's territory and everyone should honor that....... And the writer is Dr. Hussain not Hassan. "...did I play my role well, in this comedy, called Life"?
Dr. Hassan has postulated the logic behind general Kayani seeking public support for the military, however, he has failed to recognize an important aspect of the military's institutional role envisaged in the Constitution. He writes ''Perhaps, this is because as an organisation, the military has frequently gone beyond the institutional limits envisaged in the Constitution. From being an armed force exclusively assigned by law to defend Pakistan’s territory, it has enlarged its role to become a major player in the politics and economy of the country'. The 'defending' envisioned under law is not limited only to the territory of Pakistan,but also included within it is the defense of the people of Pakistan. Thus when the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan are usurped by corrupt and inept 'leaders' and the country is at the brink of a breakdown threatened by 'internal enemies' it becomes the military's moral and legal duty to intervene. It cannot therefore be termed as 'enlarging its role'.
Beautiful and thought provoking piece. Just a short comment. It can not be denied that the graph of popularity of Kayani's organization has drastically gone down, partly because of unconstitutional usurpation of power and partly because of its inability to protect life and property of ordinary citizens.
well said, let us not forget that the CJ was incarcerated by the Generals on the orders of Mush and General Kayani was present there and did not lift a finger to protect the judiciary, another institution and pillar of the constitution, instead of sacking these Generals, Mr.Kayani was rewarded and became COAS, it is time now that he should be retired right away and give a message to the establishment that according to the constitution , the COAS is responsible for defending the borders and not getting involved in political statements.