Daily Times

A number of questions are raised when we talk about protecting civilian supremacy over the military. The questions are: Why is the military so dominant in Pakistan? How has the war on terror shaped the new dimensions of the civil-military relations in Pakistan? How do the democratic forces, secular and Islamist, deal with the changing policies of the military-political leaders? How will the current efforts at democratization change the civil-military relations in the future?

The constitution of Pakistan is framed in such a way that it ensured the military would be under civilian control. The role, responsibilities and the limits of military and civil governments are designed well in the constitution. Despite all, there is still a conflict between the military and civilian relationship. The military always dominates in all the spheres of the state. This is the only reason for the instability of the political system of Pakistan.

Despite tremendous efforts on the part of the secular and religious forces, and the creation of many civil institutions, there is no effective institutional counterbalance to the military. In fact, some military leaders are effectively linked to the civil society and have co-opted these forces to their own interests. General Ziaul Haq’s Islamis ation process and support for the Islamists (non-state actors) empowered such groups, which the military regime manipulated in its own domestic and foreign policies. The events of September 11 changed the dynamics of the military-civil relationship, creating a war at home. It is in this context of an internal war that the future of Pakistani democracy must be understood and analysed.

At the time of inception in 1947, Pakistan had to create a country from scratch. Infrastructure, institutions, and governmental systems did not exist in Pakistan. India, on the other hand, had many of these in place during the time of the British Raj. Pakistan had no one but the military to turn to for assistance in creating some sort of government system. No outside organisation or nation was concerned about its feeble existence. With the weak and fragile Pakistan still recovering from the devastation of partition, the military was able to come in and take hold of the country from the beginning.

Pakistan is a country that has witnessed a military presence in its governmental system since its birth. For nearly seventy — one year since independence, the Pakistani military has had either direct or indirect control of the government. It has had a tremendous influence on the direction that Pakistan has taken. The current instability witnessed today in Pakistan is due to an unbalanced relationship between the civil system and the military establishment. What is greatly lacking is a civil-military relationship that allows for the civil institutions to flourish and the military to stand in the background of this civil environment. It is inevitable to eliminate the possibility of the military’s encroachment into governmental affairs, civil supremacy must be present.

The questions are that what types of civilian systems create an easy entry for the military and allows them to flourish? The answer is simple, that the backbone of a strong, well-established political system is a high level of political institutionalisation. Weak civil institutions allow easy entry for domineering governing systems, such as patriarchy, patrimonialism, and neo-patrimonialism. These systems are exhibited effectively by the military establishment. How do they allow for a strong military presence in the civil government? Samuel Huntington (Author — The clash of Civilisation) contends that there are four features that measure the institutionalisation of a political system. They are adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence. When these four are in sync, the political system, civil society, military, and other institutions work together to create civil supremacy. But here in case of Pakistan, these features have no coherence at all.

How are military politicians unable to establish political organisations or effective political institutions? Military skills do not transfer well to the sphere of politics. Society is more complex than an army. Rule by force alone, or the threat of such force, is inadequate; in addition, the government must possess authority. It must be widely recognised not only as the government but as the lawful, rightful government. A government that has its rule based on the fact that it was materially stronger than any other force or forces in society would prove both short-lived and ineffective.

If the people of Pakistan demand a just government that serves the populace, they need to overthrow vested interests that have ruled Pakistan since its inception

When civil supremacy exists, a healthier government system usually follows. In this environment, the military knows its place in the hierarchy. Neo-patrimonialism is common in societies that have weak civil-military relations and weak institutions. This weakness refers to a system where most likely the civil government is weaker than the military and is therefore dominated by the military establishment. This also allows ease of entry for the military into the political environment. Hence, a praetorian society now exists.

Can Pakistan find a healthy balance between its civil and military institutions? First, civil supremacy must be established, this will be the cornerstone of a strong political system. Will the military allow Pakistan to take this first step towards the creation of a country that will no longer need to rely so heavily on its military establishment?

Unless Islamabad’s objectives are redefined to focus on economic prosperity and popular participation in governance which the military as an institution remains reluctant to do; the state will continue to turn to Islam as a national unifier. The country’s leaders have relied on this strategy of Islam as the “national unifier” for so long. Any hope of change will be very difficult. Old habits die hard and with such violent opposition in Pakistan, the necessary changes will be difficult to achieve. Pakistan has been on the front lines of terrorist activity in recent years. It is an ever-changing landscape which involves the military, the Islamists, and the civilian system.

Effective civilian institutions must be established for any chance of a better future. The military and the Islamists must step back from their present roles and allow for the growth of civil institutions. However, neither one of these groups is willing to relinquish control nor the financial gains that come with power.

Pakistan needs a leader that can come up from the populace and inspire the people to demand change. However, the environment is treacherous and dangerous for anyone willing to fight for transforming Pakistan. Three of the last four civilian leaders have come from the same family. This practice of nepotism must end; and so must the presence of patrimonialism. These approaches to government have been injurious to Pakistan’s progress. It is necessary for Pakistan to begin to rely upon a system of meritocracy. Will Pakistan be able to move beyond these entrenched practices and create an environment that would allow someone to come up from the populace? Pakistan has a long road ahead if it tries to change the course of its future. If it stays on the current path it will continue to be an unstable haven for extremists and the military control. The status quo only serves to perpetuate and sustain those that currently hold power and allows the subjugation of the citizens.

If the people of Pakistan demand a just government that serves its populace, it may require a violent revolution to overthrow the vested powers that have ruled Pakistan since its inception.

The writer is a PhD Scholar in Media and Crime. He has written books on International Relations, Criminology and Gender Studies. He can be reached at fastian.mentor@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, May 20^th 2018.