Civilian leaders, in order to command respect of the uniform, need to show greater ability, vision, organization, unity and a deep commitment to the well-being of the common citizenry.
ByMaj. Gen Inam Ul Haque | January 2020
Civil-Military relations in Pakistan attract immense attention both nationally and internationally. At the heart of the matter is the controversy of civilian control over the armed forces. This is a constitutional aberration, where a seemingly subservient organ of the state wields immense influence, sometimes behind the scenes, but mostly in an overt manner.
In the literature on the subject, there is a hierarchy, where, at the top is a “National Purpose”, for which nations exist, leading down towards “National Interests”, which can be “vital” – for which nations go to war, and/ or “peripheral”. Below the “Interests” are “National Aims and Objectives” and, thereafter, this hierarchy leads to policies. From “National Security Policy” flows “Defence Policy” which further leads down to “National Security Strategy” and, thereafter, “Military Strategy” for the armed forces. It would be an interesting question to ask the Federal government to produce a “Defence Policy” compiled by our civilian government.
In countries where civilian supremacy over the armed forces is considered and ensured as a bedrock of distribution of power – like the US, UK, India and Australia, etc. - such policies are issued and revised from time to time to give guidance to the armed forces about threats and response priorities in the obtaining and future environment. In the absence of the civilian leadership’s competence, diligence and involvement, civilian control over the armed forces remains at best a pipe-dream, as evident from the reality of military take-overs in our history. The rhetoric that the military does not allow nurturing of the civilian capacity and capability to govern is a flawed escape argument, just like the criticism of the military’s performance while in government. The environment of each military take-over would substantiate this point. In my considered opinion, if the military does not take over in any dispensation, it is not because of the superior governance of the democratic dispensation, it is the military exercising due restraint.
Without succumbing to the temptation of ‘ífs’ and ‘buts’, and arguments for and against this lop-sided aberration, the simple truth is that for civilian leaders to command respect of the uniform, they need to show greater ability, vision, organization, unity and a deep commitment to the well-being of the common citizenry, alongside greater sensitivity to the national security challenges. If one draws on personal experience of some four decades, it would be safe to conclude that the military is always willing to carefully cede authority to civilian leadership, provided the civilian counterparts are able to wrest it and deserve it.
One is also mindful of the understandable criticism, as the notions of ‘ability’ and ‘deserving’ are subjective at best. It is instructive to cite the series of ‘National Security Seminars’ at the military-run National Defence University (NDU), Islamabad, where a broad range of leaders, including politicians, both elected and non-elected - from councilors to the members of assemblies and Senate, businessmen, media leaders and other notable citizens from all walks of life across genders - are schooled in the imperatives of Pakistani state and society. In the absence of any other forum for the purpose, the NDU has taken upon itself to impart the requisite knowledge, inculcate some discipline and bring some rationale to an otherwise chaotic national leadership where politicians have traditionally won by delivering fiery and bombastic speeches but repeatedly failed on delivery. The consequent dependence of elected officials on a politicized and self-serving bureaucracy makes a toxic mix.
The second most important aspect of the debate concerns the interplay between the various organs of the state - the executive, judiciary, legislature alongside the deep state or Establishment and a media that is manipulated and beholden to ratings or money to be more precise. Ironically, the lines are at times blurred with the executive not knowing its powers and obligations, referring politically risky decisions to the judiciary; the judiciary exercising an enthusiastic over-reach and activism and the legislature being just a venue for political demagoguery and point-scoring, rather than enacting needed laws and overseeing their implementation.
The government of the day spends more time, energy, efforts and resources in battling criticism from the Opposition rather than paying attention to governance and where every now and then, the media brews a storm in Pakistan’s tea cup, keeping the whole nation hostage to frivolous issues like the recent episode of extension in the tenure of the Army Chief. This is also where traders – oddly enough - submit their grievances to the Army Chief for arbitration and he forms a committee for the purpose. There is then no wonder that the Establishment exercises an oversize influence and would continue to do so. It is for precisely the same reasons that important policies like National Security and Defence and important foreign relations are dependent upon deep input from Rawalpindi and Aabpara alongside the Foreign Office, rather than the various committees of the National Assembly and Senate.
That brings us to the current debate about the extension in the tenure of the Army chief. Why would a civilian government, headed by a Prime Minister who is on record being against extensions, do exactly the opposite if it is not due to some innate fears about the incompetence and inexperience of his government and its ability to survive the quicksand of our politics? In a power-sharing arrangement, where weaker organs look for strong support, the government’s decision to continue working with the same military leadership makes political sense, especially since the next elections “may” fall in the same extended tenure.
However, shooting itself in the foot by such mis-steps and then blaming the military for it is comical at best and hypocritical at worst. The saga of extension that is dependent on an act of parliament within six months to codify its procedure - with lots of caveats in waiting - is detrimental to the overall dignity and apolitical nature of the armed forces as hinted feebly by the Court. Extension is ostensibly against the enshrined “principles of command” as it deprives career progression to other junior generals; it mocks the System for not having a suitable replacement; it creates doubts about leadership for not nurturing those in waiting and, lastly, it insults the intelligence of those to follow, for being apparently unable to read the political situation correctly and act in the larger interest of the nation and the country.
Although General Kayani’s extension in 2010 was also challenged in the Islamabad High Court, but that petition was not upheld. This time around, the situation is more complex. There are “speculations” about rival officers backing the judiciary - although rubbish, nevertheless, and injurious in implications; or that the Court was sullying an embarrassed government for its incompetence; or the simple narrative that the Chief Justice was eager to make a mark just before retirement in December, 2019. However, the Court’s remarks about the “regional security situation” being “quite vague” a justification for the extension and the implied yet sublime observation that the “whole armed forces and not an individual meets the threat” hit at the indispensability of individuals, besides pointing to the larger issue of the why, how and when of the extension.
Following on from the afore-stated, with the government of the day manifesting the indispensability of the current Army leadership, the issue of civilian supremacy of the armed forces would only remain a pipe-dream and the skewed civil-military relations would continue. In the end, the people of Pakistan would always prefer a stable, organized and sympathetic military rule to the chaos created by politicians.
Leave a Reply