In today’s Pakistan, there are more complex reasons for debating the appointment of the new army chief. The first and foremost among them is the challenge of establishing civilian supremacy — actually the supremacy of the democratic government. Pakistan is going through the fourth democratic transition since the 2008 elections — the democratic transition is still in process and is unfinished business. The good news is that major political parties have reached a consensus on the democratic destiny of the country and, so far, the journey toward this destination has been uninterrupted. But that is not the whole story. The bad news is that while General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani didn’t intervene directly and resisted advice and temptation to topple the government, he pursued parallel foreign and security policies on the most important problems — insurgency in Balochistan and Fata, and relations with Afghanistan, India and the United States. Yes, there was a consultation process with the civilian government but it was a one-way briefing and for soliciting a nod for the choices the security establishment had made. On many issues, from drone strikes to security cooperation with the United States and covert support to the Afghan Taliban, there has hardly been any transparency.
A new pattern in civil-military relations has emerged, which may be termed the Kayani doctrine. The doctrine is as follows: the civilian government has every power under the Constitution, except on defence and national security. The military establishment will make all the critical choices on counterterrorism strategy, draw the central line on relations with Afghanistan and India, and deal with the United States on bilateral and regional security matters. The last civilian government of Asif Ali Zardari got a lot of presentations and briefings on these issues but had no real choice to make. That is not what a democratic transition would mean. At best it is work half-done, at worst it leaves elected governments in an embarrassing national and international situation. Whenever our civilian governments have made some bold moves towards Afghanistan and India, they have confronted the uncomfortable question: is your security establishment with you?
With the new army chief appointed, there is a fresh opportunity to consolidate, strengthen and regain full power under the Constitution by the civilian government. With a divided house — between the security establishment and the civilian government — Pakistan will remain weak, untrustworthy and vulnerable to foreign manipulations. Under no circumstances should the security establishment set the security or foreign policy priorities of the country. It must be meaningfully consulted and its views given due consideration but never a veto power. It is the prerogative of the political executive to frame all policies.
There is a consensus across the political divide in Pakistan on having the best of relations with India, non-intervention in Afghanistan and transparency in our relations with the United States. This has been, and will be, the key challenge in civil-military relations in Pakistan. It is time to assert the civilian view.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 2nd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Shahbaz Asif Tahir: You should move to Afghanistan or Sub-Sharan Africa. Maybe the law of the jungle and might is right might work better for you.
@nrmr44: You have given me a brand new chain of thoughts......thanks... ooo God, two powers under one 'fake democracy flag'........though provoking isnt it?
Thanks God. finally after a long time, i've read some thing in clear and 'lenient' form of the language. I am sick of going through articles and blogs coming out of phobic authors who use to drag complex words just to register their 'unbeatable' connection with the language. (Thanks to the OXFORD dictionary). The aforementioned writer is hitting the bull's eye here in terms of writing a reader's friendly article and also be able to assemble healthy ideas in the whole thing
" .... There is a consensus across the political divide in Pakistan on having the best of relations with India, non-intervention in Afghanistan and transparency in our relations with the United States .... " This, obviously is opposed by the military. Now, where do the people of Pakistan stand on this? Then we will find out whether it is the politicians or the military who are going against the people's wishes. Is it just possible that the people themselves have abdicated their responsibility? That they elect the politicians and cheer the military, all in a day? There has to be some explanation for seeming stability between three contending constituencies while everything goes quietly to pot. The above has to do with my other post on whether Pakistan can be rated a democracy.
Why do Pakistani writers keep calling Pakistan a democracy? It is not. If more than half the power lies in military hands, Pakistan is less than half a democracy, by definition. The essential fact is that there are two Pakistans, one that has to renew its power in elections, and another which does not. One Pakistan which is accountable for generating the money, and another that appropriates and spends as it likes without sanction or audit. In democratic countries you do not have two centers of power. Even in dictatorships you do not have two centers of power. Pakistan's model is unique. Whatever else it may be, a democracy Pakistan is not. A new term is required for this new concept.
@Nadeem, Don't go by what you hear on CNN, or what is their official government position.If you really believe that the elected representatives run these policies in these countries, then you need to update your knowledge.
All though this is how it should be in an ideal country, if the civilian government is unable to handle the things within its power, what makes you sure that it will be able to handle the foriegn and security matters?
@tabrezi: U.S.A., U.K., France, China, Russia, Israel, India, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea.... to name just a few
Says it all
@Nikki: Its better we should comaper with India not with the United States. Indians have learn democratic values while our rulers still behave like emporors and kings not people's representatives.
our so called thinkers never get ready to admit that a man with superficial qualities can not master those who have knowledge and guts. if people would select a visionary and literary person to rule them he would outwit the military and only then he can rule over them otherwise it is horrible disastor.....
Eeven in the United States, the most demporatic president cannt escape from the military's influence, but the President has to respect his constitution so army does not think to take over. Pantagon's policy some time does not match with White House's policy. In Pakistan, problem remains with elected civilians, they always put the constitution aside and did whatever they wanted, : lawlessness, merit violations, favoritism , worst governance and corruption took place. If the present civil government does not mend and continues its malpractices then the people of Pakistan ready to welcome to overthrow the government,no matter what. In the past we have seen many exaples.
Thanks Mr. Rasul for an excellent article! The only way for a stronger and stable pakistan is through civilian supremacy. We are reaping the fruits of military intervention in the. form of total chaos today.
This author seems to be the spokesman of the secular, liberals. Inshallah their agenda will never happen. May Allah Subhana, protect our military, Ameen.
"Under no circumstances should the security establishment set the security or foreign policy priorities of the country". Can you tell me of a major country, where this is not the case??.