Civil-military imbalance

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) co-chairman and former president, Asif Zardari, recently accused the military establishment of overstepping its domain. Zardari faced a firestorm of criticism for implying that the generals separate themselves from politics and not interfere in civilian matters. His legitimate concerns were buried under sharp attacks on his and the PPP’s weaknesses, foibles and failings. Zardari did, however, manage to re-ignite the perennial debate on the civil-military imbalance in Pakistan. The spectre of military intervention always hangs over the country. It casts a permanent shadow of uncertainty over the democratic process. Several factors have contributed to skewed civil-military relations in Pakistan. These include an ineffectual political class and civil society with a limited understanding of democratic institutions and values. Moreover, there is little nationwide consensus on the role and mission of the military. Consequently, the political leadership has been unable to impose the supremacy of parliamentary politics over the military. The military is seen to be the only group capable of preserving political stability and order. This reinforces the perception that the remedy for all social and economic problems can be found in the officer corps rather than the politicians. Some even think that the military’s concept of ‘modernism’ as the sole direction for the country. Yet the military leadership, when it had a chance, failed to restructure the country’s political, social and economic life. In fact, the capability of the military institution to transform the state and society is grossly overestimated. Moreover, as dictatorships passed, their political and social machinations quickly unravelled, leaving a bitter and destructive legacy. For example, the Balochistan quagmire proves that military solutions to political problems do not work. Still, the hybrid model of market capitalism and authoritarian governance resonates with the self-styled Kemalists, Gaullists and Putinists among the chattering classes. It helps that authoritarianism is firmly imbedded in Pakistani society. It makes military interventions easier in political life, domestic and foreign affairs. The social and political structure is autocratic in character and functions from the top down. Backed by coercive sanctions, the military-led power elite exercises domineering power and influence over the country. At the same time, the missing attributes of statehood tempt a vacuum of authority and an imbalance of power internally. Parts of the country have witnessed bloody sectarian and ethnic conflict; religious militias and the powers backing them challenge state sovereignty at will, strengthening the perception of a failed state not able to control its own territory. The political space is a lair of conspiracies aimed at the country’s hopeful democracy. Democracy is blamed for not tackling important economic and security issues. The very nature of the democratic decision-making process is clogged by cosseted, vested interests and the endless obligation to consult ‘stakeholders’. At times, policies are watered down, ineffectual or counter-productive. Often, no decisions are made at all. Winston Churchill’s aphorism, that democracy is the worst system except for all others, is no consolation. But the problem does not appear to be democracy itself or that democracy is overrated. Democracies need people inherently reasonable and inclined towards peaceful compromise and common sense. Instead, citizens want more for less. They demand more of the state but are unwilling to give back much in return. They vote as narrow interest groups inviting politicians to pander to them. Elections are vaudeville shows in which an apathetic public requires titillation to tune in. The weak political culture allows politicians to be disengaged, reluctant to take risks and govern only at the margins. Democracy is set up to fail, overburdened with obligations that cannot be fulfilled. In addition, Pakistan’s nascent democracy must operate under the shadow of an ambitious military. However, turning the country over to the military, directly or indirectly, hardly appears to be the answer to broken dysfunctional governance. It seems too easy to blame the corruption and apathy of politicians entirely for everything that is wrong with Pakistan. The people remember past dictatorship years as a blur of bleakness. None delivered the promised economic miracle. They were unable to provide better hospitals and schools, a secure environment, cheaper electricity and new jobs. At times, the air was thick with fear, civil servants were arbitrarily dismissed from service for corruption and malfeasance, politicians and journalists imprisoned and executed, citizens flogged for not falling in line, a military vision that cast citizens as recalcitrant beasts to be whipped into shape. There was little improvement in the quality of governance or a reduction in corruption. Instead, the military’s professional duties suffered as it got mired in fixing civilian problems. Pakistan can derive strength from the presence of a well-trained and experienced military that is respected and funded by a civilian authority. The military should acknowledge the principle of civilian control, including the principle of political neutrality and non-partisanship of the armed forces. Democratic control should always be a two-way process between the armed forces and society. Firm constitutional guarantees should protect the state — including the armed forces — from two types of potential dangers: from politicians, who have military ambitions, and from a military with political ambitions.