Daily Times

The corridors of power in Pakistan have long been shadowed by an ever-present, yet often invisible force – the military. It is not a secret; it has become an integral part of the country’s identity. For decades, the military has been the most influential institution in the country, both revered and feared by the masses and political elites alike. Despite the constant rhetoric about democratic governance, civilian supremacy, and constitutionalism, the reality of civil-military relations in Pakistan is one of delicate balance and power struggles. The Pakistani military’s role in politics has transcended traditional notions of defence, and this has triggered a silent tug-of-war for control of the nation’s future.

Ever since Pakistan’s birth in 1947, the military has loomed large over the political landscape. At times, this influence has been overt, with generals stepping into the role of head of state through coups and dictatorial regimes. At other times, the influence has been more subtle, where behind-the-scenes manoeuvring has shaped policy decisions and government appointments. The military’s dominance in Pakistan’s political sphere is so entrenched that any discussion on civilian governance seems incomplete without acknowledging the “military factor.”

Historically, the Pakistani military justified its forays into politics by citing the country’s security needs. Given the existential threat posed by India, particularly over the Kashmir dispute, the military’s narrative was that it needed to retain a significant say in matters of state to ensure the country’s survival. This reasoning was particularly compelling during the early years of the country’s independence when wars with India in 1948 and 1965 tested Pakistan’s territorial integrity. The military, under the leadership of General Ayub Khan, began to cultivate an image of being the saviour of the nation, stepping in when politicians seemed incompetent, corrupt, or divisive. By 1958, Ayub Khan launched the first of Pakistan’s military coups, paving the way for a system of “controlled democracy” where the military held the reins, though civilian leaders remained in place as figureheads.

Journalists who have sought to expose military overreach or criticize the establishment have faced harassment, threats, and even violence.

Over the years, this pattern repeated itself with minor variations. After the 1971 war and the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), the military was discredited for a brief period. Civilian leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took the helm, attempting to diminish military influence by focusing on populist policies and building closer ties with other nations through diplomacy. But Bhutto’s authoritarian tendencies, coupled with his inability to prevent economic and political crises, gave General Zia-ul-Haq the opportunity to seize power in 1977. Under Zia, the military once again asserted its supremacy, this time intertwining it with religious conservatism to legitimize its role. Zia’s Islamization policies further entrenched the military in Pakistan’s socio-political structure, influencing the judiciary, education, and even cultural expressions. The 1980s, with Pakistan’s pivotal role in the US-backed Afghan jihad, saw the military solidify its position not just within Pakistan but also as a key player on the global stage.

The return to civilian rule in the 1990s was seen as a fresh start. However, the back-and-forth political bickering between Pakistan’s two major parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led by Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led by Nawaz Sharif, proved chaotic. Amid corruption allegations, mismanagement, and institutional weaknesses, the military continued to hover in the background as the ultimate arbiter of power. By 1999, tensions between Nawaz Sharif and the military, particularly over the handling of the Kargil conflict with India, reached a breaking point. General Pervez Musharraf led another coup, further cementing the military’s hold on power.

Musharraf’s era, though starting with promises of reform and a return to democracy, was marked by a complex blend of authoritarianism, liberal economic policies, and cooperation with Western powers, particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan, once again, became a frontline state, this time in the “War on Terror.” Musharraf’s reign showcased how deeply entrenched the military had become in both the country’s domestic and international politics. While his rule may have improved Pakistan’s economy, it was also a time when the judiciary and media were suppressed, and political dissent was curbed.

However, the military’s influence in the political arena did not come without consequences. The blurring of the lines between civilian governance and military authority led to an erosion of democratic institutions. The judiciary, often subservient to military regimes, struggled to maintain its independence. Political parties, aware of the military’s power, frequently sought alliances with the establishment rather than focusing on developing grassroots democratic support. This created a system of patronage politics, where leaders prioritized short-term survival over long-term institutional building.

This cyclical dominance of the military raises a pertinent question: Is democracy truly the only solution for Pakistan, or do military-backed regimes provide a more effective form of governance? The answer to this dilemma is not simple. A military regime may provide temporary order and discipline, but it does so at the cost of democratic norms and civil liberties. Democracy, on the other hand, though often chaotic and inefficient, is the only system that truly allows for the development of institutions that can lead to sustainable governance.

One of the most controversial aspects of the military’s involvement in politics has been its role in elections. Allegations of military manipulation of elections have surfaced repeatedly over the years. From the rigged elections of 2002 that ensured Musharraf’s continued dominance to the more recent accusations surrounding the 2018 elections, where the military was alleged to have supported Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the legitimacy of the electoral process in Pakistan has often been called into question. Opposition parties, particularly the PML-N and PPP, have frequently accused the military of covertly engineering election results to ensure the emergence of governments that would be pliant to military interests.

Proponents of military-backed regimes argue that Pakistan’s unique security challenges, particularly with regard to its relationship with India, internal militancy, and economic mismanagement, necessitate a strong central authority. They believe that military regimes can cut through bureaucratic red tape, enforce discipline, and ensure stability in a way that fragmented and often corrupt civilian governments cannot. This argument is bolstered by the military’s comparatively better reputation for being organized, efficient, and disciplined.

Yet, despite its dominance, the military’s role in Pakistan is not without its own vulnerabilities. The rise of extremism within Pakistan poses a direct challenge to the military’s authority. While the military has been instrumental in combating terrorism, particularly through operations such as Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad, it has also faced accusations of using militant groups as proxies in its foreign policy, particularly in relation to India and Afghanistan. This has led to a complex and often contradictory approach to dealing with militancy, where some groups are targeted while others are allegedly tolerated.

Meanwhile, advocates of democracy argue that true progress, both political and economic, can only occur within a system where the people are allowed to freely elect their leaders, hold them accountable, and participate in governance. They point to periods of civilian rule as times when Pakistan has seen progress in human rights, freedom of expression, and economic reforms aimed at uplifting marginalized groups. Moreover, they assert that the cyclical return of military regimes has stunted the growth of democratic institutions, leading to a vicious cycle of instability and authoritarianism.

The judiciary, too, has been a battleground for this power struggle. While Pakistan’s judiciary has had moments of independence, it has often been seen as complicit in legitimizing military rule. In some cases, judges have faced pressure to validate military takeovers through legal doctrines such as the “doctrine of necessity.” However, the judiciary also had moments of defiance, particularly during the Lawyers’ Movement in 2007, when Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was reinstated despite Musharraf’s attempts to remove him. This movement became a symbol of resistance against military rule and brought the role of the judiciary into sharper focus in the civil-military dynamic.

Media freedom has been another significant casualty of the civil-military tussle. While Pakistan’s media industry has flourished since the early 2000s with the proliferation of private television channels, it has also faced significant restrictions and censorship, especially during military rule. Journalists who have sought to expose military overreach or criticize the establishment have faced harassment, threats, and even violence. In recent years, media outlets perceived to be critical of the military have reported being pressured into toning down their coverage, while pro-establishment voices have been given greater airtime. Yet, the military’s influence in Pakistan is not solely negative. For many Pakistanis, the military represents stability in an otherwise turbulent political environment. The frequent failures of civilian governments, plagued by corruption, inefficiency, and infighting, have led many to view the military as a necessary force to ensure the country’s survival. The military’s role in counterterrorism operations, particularly in regions like the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Balochistan, has been crucial in maintaining law and order. It is also seen as a protector of national interests, especially in its strategic dealings with neighbouring India and Afghanistan.

The writer is a financial expert and can be reached at jawadsaleem.1982@gmail.com. He tweets @JawadSaleem1982.