Though founded as a democratic state in 1947, Pakistan has been ruled by the non-political Institute of the military for half of the country’s age. Today, Pakistan has a democratically elected civilian government under the skepticism whether it is truly ruling the country, or still the troops hold the actual strings. To answer this doubt, the contemporary civil-military relations in Pakistan are worth analyzing.
The Romanticism Never Seen Before
Pakistan’s civil-military relations today set an extraordinary example of cordiality. Both the head of the government and the chief of the armed forces are, for most of the situations, seen on the same page particularly regarding the matters of national security. Disagreement and dissent persist, but it has become too weak to overwhelm the clear mutual consensus. The most recent example of this cordiality can be seen in the visit, made by both the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the COAS General Raheel, to Saudi Arabia and Iran. It reflects that they share a common view of maintaining Pakistan’s neutrality for the Muslim World.
A Brief History of Pakistan’s Civil-Military Relations
History of civil-military relations in Pakistan is quite daunting. In the late 1950s, the failure civilian government encouraged Ayub Khan to declare Martial Law in the country that lasted for nearly a decade with all its achievements and expenses. Ayub handed over the power to another General named Yahya Khan justifying his act with the inability of political leaders to take charge of the country. After the ‘Fall of Dhaka’ in 1971, there came an interlude of the civilian rule when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto shaped a civilian government but at the expense of squeezing the armed forces and introducing an unwanted purge in their barracks. Thus, he was sacked by General Zia after seven years of his civilian rule. Another General, another decade and another phase of discordant civil-military relations lasted in Pakistan throughout the 1980s. The decade of the 1990s was of civilian governments, but their relations with the armed forces were bumpy particularly over the matters of appointment and service tenure of the army chief. The friction rose high in 1999 when an attempt of the then civilian government to sack army chief led Pakistan to another coup-imposed by General Musharraf, who shared power till 2008.
Factors that Transformed the Contemporary Civil-Military Relations
But what are the factors that soothed the contemporary civil-military relationship in Pakistan under the shadow of such a terrible record? Beginning from the theoretical base that ‘nations do learn from mistakes made in past and evolve’ there are more practical aspects to elaborate which played a role in bringing the civil-military circles closer to one another.
1. Lessons from the Mistakes made in Past
Primarily, both the armed forces and the political parties confessed their sins and learned from them. General Kayani understood the demerits of dragging the troops into civilian realm when his predecessor (General Musharraf) was not being honored very well. There was a need for the army to regain its lost dignity and it successfully did. This became one of the reasons that no attempt of the coup was made during the government of Pakistan Peoples’ Party, and it completed its constitutional tenure of five years.
In 2013, PML (N) formed a government under the premiership of Nawaz Sharif – a veteran politician sacked by the coup of General Musharraf. Prime Minister Nawaz too realized his over-ambitious step of unseating General Musharraf in 1999 and its bitter consequences. So repeating any such adventure was no more his priority. The government also chose a new army chief soon after it assumed power. Believed to be a true professional soldier, the new COAS General Raheel Sharif along with adopting the legacy of his predecessor went a bit high in maintaining good relations with the civilian government. It is due to environmental reasons, his personal ideas and the response of the civilian government.
2. Need of Cooperation at National Security Front
Secondly, the 16th December Massacre of Army Public School in 2014 was the circumstantial cause which brought civil-military leaderships of Pakistan closer to the front of national security. National Action Plan was formulated under which the military operation ‘Zarb-e-Azb’ in North Waziristan sought a boost. The plan also mandated establishment and worked of Military Court in Pakistan after 21st amendment. This resulted in constant meetings between the army chief and prime minister. A high level of collaboration was established between military and civilian forces.
3. To make the Operation in Karachi effective by Giving the Rangers a part of Mandate
Thirdly, the operation of Rangers against militants in Karachi ceded some more space of civilian authority to the military. But this could be seen as a step taken in the wide interest of people of Karachi which on its sidelines enhanced civil-military interaction sometimes smooth and sometimes not.
Criticism
With these three aspects as major determinants of civil-military relations in Pakistan, policymakers were to highlight the merits there the critics point out the demerits of the new Nexus.
Though this level of coordination was the need of the hour and it timely served the national interest but in no way it can be taken as flawless. Establishment of military courts is a rough thing to digest for the practitioners of law and charters of human rights. Secondly, the Rangers operation is Karachi is being seen by the political parties of the city as an attack of troops on their peaceful settlements. Critics denote this whole scheme with the words ‘Rangers’ Mandate’.
Thirdly, the contemporary civil-military relations in Pakistan reflect as if the state is under ‘Semi-Martial Law.’
Fourthly, the civilian government is also being blamed for sharing the portfolio of foreign policy-making with the troops more than required.
Conclusion
If all the pros and cons are analyzed in a compact, it won’t be wrong to state that, today Pakistan is more stable as compared to its position a year ago. Threats persist but politically the country has performed better under the current civil-military friendship than during any purely civilian or purely military rule. The criticism of establishment of military courts and ceding more space for the troops may be legitimate, but these schemes have expiry dates at the accomplishment of the stated aims. The middle way is better for Pakistan rather than adopting a side in its unusual shape. Countries need to be a realist when it comes to it national security and national interest. Pakistan is doing it right.