Daily Times

As Field Marshal Ayub famously said in the early 1960s, it is the duty of the khakis to “save the people from themselves”. He forecast that Pakistan would be ready for true democracy two generations hence. Many still believe that Pakistan needs the big stick of the military to survive as a nation state. Military ambitions are fuelled by an authoritarian conviction among the ruling elite that the people cannot be trusted to choose their own leader. The military continues to wield an extreme form of influence in society: a state of affairs in which military values predominate and the military devours a disproportionate share of society’s resources.
A consistent pattern in Pakistan’s unfortunate political history is that militarism and not democracy is on the march. As UCLA historian Stanley Wolpert once put it, the army has been “Pakistan’s protective wolfhound, always on duty, powerful enough to keep any enemy at bay, or to destroy its ‘master’ if he forgot the proper password or feeding hour.” The military is omnipotent and its strength has come at the expense of civilian institutions. Indeed, weak civilian institutions have kept the military imbedded in politics, often at the expense of its core competency. Pakistan’s military failures are rarely studied, critiqued and analysed.
In general, civil-military relations describe the interactions among the people of a state, the institutions of that state and the military of the state. At the institutional level, there are “two hands on the sword”. In normal circumstances, the civil hand should determine when to draw it from the scabbard and thence guide it in its use. This is the dominant hand of policy, the purpose for which the sword exists in the first place. The military’s hand sharpens the sword for use and wields it in combat. The problem arises when the military grows in influence to the point of being able to impose its own perspective on many civilian policies and decisions. This manifests itself in repeated efforts on the part of the armed forces to frustrate or evade civilian authority when that opposition seems likely to preclude outcomes the military dislikes.
The fact is that military solutions are not sought for their own purposes but to achieve policy goals set by the political leadership of the state. This quote from the Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke aptly describes the importance of political goals and the limits of military means: “The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.”
The powerful Pakistani military has been unable to paper over the country’s faltering political system, its dysfunctional social order, its dangerous sectarianism and its grossly distorted political system. A country on the edge cannot be held together by its nuclear bomb programme, imported weaponry and a politicised military. None are going to help the state survive because what is chipping away at the national identity are a myriad of internal problems. Nation building from the barrel of a gun has proven unworkable. The result is a rise in regional and ethnic tensions, and popular discontent.
Like its predecessors, the current military leadership remains contemptuous of politicians. But it would prefer to avoid the unconstitutional interventions of the past. Publicly mocking the Constitution and the courts, cobbling military friendly coalitions and rigging elections are now considered passé. The military would prefer to see the civilian setup self-destruct as the quality of politics and politicians is increasingly called into question. The public clamour for military-led solutions to terrorism, accountability and corruption aid militarism.
It is only now after a decade of conflict that the military appear to have the upper hand against Taliban insurgents. This has allowed Pakistan some breathing space to distance itself from the militarism that has entrapped the country in a violent existential legacy that has stunted its economic growth, destabilised its polity, antagonised its neighbours and alienated the international community. The focus should shift from an overweening military to building strong civilian institutions that can hold the country together.
All constitutions and systems must be allowed to evolve. The rule of law, restraining oneself within constitutional limits, transparent and across the board accountability, and tolerance for criticism are critical elements that constitute a democracy. Elected governments must have the people’s mandate obtained on a regular basis — to wit, democracy must not be preceded or followed by any caveats or hamstrung by any reservations. While poll reforms are essential to ensure greater transparency of the exercise, this trend must be allowed to continue uninterrupted. The practice of powerful institutions overstepping their constitutional limits and treading into the domain of other institutions is not a good omen for the stability of a democracy and needs to be addressed urgently and meaningfully. The civilian leadership must set political goals and have oversight over military means. Discarding militarism with time will lead to the growth of a stable political system and a state at peace with itself.

The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com