Due to the inherited heritage left to Pakistan by the colonial British in India, there has always been an imbalance between apolitical institutions and the representatives of the people. The bureaucracy and the military, which were essentially in accord with one another, continued to be fairly strong and forceful and frequently obstructed the easy transition to democracy. But soon after gaining independence, the powers of the bureaucracy experienced a significant transformation when they came under the absolute control of the army. The army carried out several coups and overthrew legitimate civilian administrations by using its superior power. In addition to this, while in power, they established several institutions and made significant changes to the political system in order to build a support base and remove those political figures who would constitute a challenge to the dictators in charge. Unfortunately, even after the de facto dictator eventually left office, the arbitrary establishment of new institutions and the introduction of technical improvements to the system led to more chaos.
Since the founding of the state, the military-bureaucratic oligarchy has held a privileged position and effectively controlled state authority. For a decade, this oligarchy put politicians and political parties in charge to provide the appearance of parliamentary governance; nevertheless, in 1958, when the possibility of upcoming general elections appeared to threaten its dominance, it chose to remove them.
However, since 2008, Pakistan has been ruled by civilian governments, but the military remains a powerful institution in the country and continues to play a significant role in politics. The military establishment in Pakistan is widely perceived as a “state within a state,” with its own intelligence agencies, media outlets, and a large economic empire. Furthermore, the military also continues to exert significant influence over key areas of national security, foreign policy, and governance.
The current state of civil-military relations in Pakistan is marked by a persistent power struggle between the military establishment and the civilian government. As the military continues to play a significant role in politics, often influencing the appointment of key political figures, including the Prime Minister, and exerting significant control over foreign and security policy. Additionally, the military establishment also continues to be a major source of opposition to the government, as the military and its intelligence agencies often undermine the efforts of the civilian government to bring about change. All this has caused the country to counter some major challenges.
A Case Study of Civil-Military Conflict:
1) Lack of Transparency in the Military’s Role in Politics and Governance in Pakistan:
One of the major challenges faced by the country is the lack of transparency and accountability in the military’s role in politics and governance. The military establishment in Pakistan operates with significant independence, with little oversight or scrutiny from the civilian government, leading to widespread of corruption and human rights abuses, including the forced disappearances of political activists, journalists, and human rights defenders.
2) Persistent conflict between the military and the civilian government:
Another major challenge facing the country is the persistent conflict between the military and the civilian government over the allocation of resources and power. The military establishment in Pakistan continues to control significant resources and wield significant power, with the civilian government often struggling to assert its authority over the military. This has led to a persistent power struggle between the two institutions, with the military often seeking to undermine the efforts of the civilian government to bring about change.
3) Institutional crisis:
In the past, the courts in Pakistan have also participated in the collusion scheme, frequently giving the military authorities approval to stay in power after the initial emergency term had ended. At this present time, all the institutions of Pakistan are in a major crisis, whether it is the military institution or the judicial system, all of them are facing a major backlash due to some recent incidents. But this is not something new to us, in fact all this is happening since the very start, Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan has had three periods of military rule totaling 30 years (1958–1971; 1977–88; and 1999–2008). During these periods, the military—particularly military intelligence, the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). And how can one imagine a democratic country flourishing where democracy is never given much space? There is too much hatred and loathing in this nation after such incidents for the institutions, specifically the military, and judiciary, because they are not doing what they ought to do, there’s no justice in the courts and this country is suffering from a national security crisis, including terrorism, food security, and energy crisis, despite of the fact that we have a well-trained army along with world-class intelligence, but the problem is that they are so much involved in politics now, that they have forgotten that what their real job is. Every institution needs to play its own role in its own domain.
Present Situation; Military involvement in Policy Making:
The viewpoint, which is based on historical anomalies and completely at odds with the institutional structure that the Constitution mandates, holds that the military has the right and the obligation to direct national security and foreign affairs.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the incursion has spilled over into a dizzying variety of civilian objectives, going beyond small, older boundaries. Therefore, the military’s policy imperatives and fingerprints are clear in everything from the federal government’s conception and launch of the Karachi operation to the details of CPEC, from seeing Balochistan primarily as a national security concern to prescribing economic priorities.
However, the military is not the only cause of the issue. Recently and historically, civilian leaders have applauded, promoted, and even demanded military intrusion. Civilian opposition parties of all sorts have at some point or another been guilty of themselves subverting democratic norms, whether it be empowered Presidents or all-powerful Army Chiefs.
It is still true that placing the system above individual political aspirations is the surest way to improve the democratic process. Last but not least, the democratic process should not be viewed as a zero-sum game. Both the civilian population and the armed forces have benefited from democratic continuity since the transition to democracy began in 2008.
Suggestions:
In order to promote a responsible civil-military relationship within a democratic constitutional framework, the following measures can be taken;
1) A choice made by the military’s senior commanders to curb their political ambition and stick to their area of expertise. The military’s internal service autonomy must be respected by civilian officials as well.
2) By guaranteeing sound administration and wise political management, civilian political leaders, particularly those in positions of authority, must establish a viable civilian alternative to military control.
3) Provision of essential necessities to its inhabitants must be ensured through democratic institutions and procedures.
4) An agreement of not using the military for the sake of advancing particular political goals should be made by the major political leaders.
5) Instead of seeking individualized and patrimonial administration and prudent political management, strengthen civilian institutions and procedures within a genuinely democratic framework.
6) Appointment of highly qualified political leaders to the defense, internal security, and foreign policy posts.
Conclusion:
Briefly said, Pakistan acquired a long-standing legacy of civil-political institutions dominating military ones under British political ideology. Within a few years of gaining independence, Pakistan had to deal with the military’s expanding influence in politics. Unlike India, Pakistan eventually deteriorated into a praetorian state with terrible political, social, and economic repercussions. A number of factors that led to the military’s participation in Pakistani politics are to blame for the alteration of Pakistan’s militarization process. The secret to political stability and effective management of Pakistan’s internal and foreign security lies in the country’s civil-military ties. Therefore, in order to completely dedicate themselves to their respective spheres of power and cooperate when there is overlap in policy or when they need to complement one another, both the civilian leadership and the army’s top brass need a harmonious partnership.
