Daily Times

Securing the subordination of military forces to civilian authority remains a distant dream in Pakistan. Democracy, as a viable alternative to military and quasi-military rule is yet to sink in. The military monopolises power in a wobbly political structure. It operates more like a state within a state. Its institutional definition of national security and political and financial imperatives prevail. A domineering military leadership, hectoring insecure politicians, is par for the course. The skewed civil-military imbalance has stunted political development and undermined democracy in the country.

The Punjab dominated military, feudal, and bureaucratic elite, since its inception, has viewed mass participation and the rough and tumble of politics, with both disdain and distaste. After Jinnah’s untimely demise, the military establishment carefully cultivated a reputation for honesty, integrity, and efficiency. These are precisely the virtues that inefficient, corrupt and self-serving politicians don’t possess. The country’s experience of democratic politics has been far from exemplary. Yet military rule through a barrel of a gun has never lasted because it lacked political legitimacy.

Few Pakistani political leaders such as Z A Bhutto, Junejo, and Sharif have had the gumption to challenge the military leadership. Their respective fates are well known. It was civilian leaders, however, who bailed out the military after the Bangladesh, Kargil and the Bin Laden debacles. The country suffered shame and embarrassment from these misadventures. Their effects still linger. The military, in recent times, has had success in fighting domestic extremism. But its record, historically speaking, in fighting external wars or in governance is poor.

After Jinnah’s untimely demise, the military establishment carefully cultivated a reputation for honesty, integrity, and efficiency. These are precisely the virtues that inefficient, corrupt and self-serving politicians don’t possess

Civilians today, day in, day out are on tenterhooks lest they antagonise the military. Criticism of armed forces and security establishment is severely restricted. Even mild critiques are considered anti-patriotic, and a threat to national security; inviting ridicule or worse. An example is the recent detention, alleged mistreatment and forced exile of anti-military bloggers.

The military has always overvalued its ability outside its domain to counsel, guide, and govern. Possibly the only change from the past is that the soft authoritarianism exercised by the current military leadership looks over civilian shoulders. Previously, the military was inclined to take over the country on the pretext of solving its political and economic problems; then it stayed in power indefinitely.

The military is swift to question the civilian government’s competence and capability in foreign, defence, and security matters. Army chief General Bajwa’s public comments on the deterioration of the economy are case in point. His remarks also raise interesting questions. Undoubtedly, a weak economy adversely impacts national security. But so do iniquitous economic policies, crumbling and unresponsive state institutions and excessive centralisation.

The military frequently steps outside its professional purview to offer gratuitous advice to civilians. Certainly, politicians should be called to account if they overspend, misspend and steal public money. But it is also fair to question the military on what it does with the money it receives from the government. The military’s financial requirements are self-determined. Unlike in other democracies, public input in this process is absent and even unwelcome.

Civilians would agree about the importance of broadening the tax base and bringing in financial discipline. These measures will hopefully lead to breaking the proverbial ‘begging bowl’. But implementing financial discipline must include reigning in the growing defence budget.  As it stands, the defence budget is a severe burden on national resources and the economy. The country’s average growth rates and tax revenues don’t support the current high level of military spending.

The national obsession with India has damaged Pakistan in many ways. Most importantly, it has given the generals too much power. Also, Pakistan’s army is too small to match India’s but too big for Pakistan. The arms race and political and economic dysfunction have crippled the country. Clearly, it is untenable to sustain the national security state.

Since no military is trained to manage a struggling economy; will ours pitch in to help by disposing of its massive land holdings and vast commercial interests? Will it consider eating up less than 20 percent or more of the government’s budget? Sadly, education and health get just 2.0 percent and 0.5 percent. Strengthening democracy and civilian supremacy over the armed forces will require collective time and effort. Some key elements of this process are: The elected government implements effective measures to investigate and prosecute corruption. Parliament establishes a mechanism for the oversight of the military and intelligence services. Civil society actively raises issues in the media to build public awareness and motivate parliament.

Eliminating the temptations of Bonapartism from the military won’t be easy. The military has always believed that they are messiahs saving the country from its chaotic democracy. The primary obstacle is a culture that glorifies order and stability over inclusion and diversity. Reforming this culture is difficult, but necessary. The military as one element of a democratic society will be stronger, not weaker, and its actions are more likely to reflect the sovereign will of the people it serves.

The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, October 29^th 2017.