 "Why persistent military interventions will never let Pakistan become a democracy")
What facet of the military’s participation in the nation’s political apparatus contributes to its operational dysfunction? Alternatively, what constituent of the military’s involvement propels society towards the precipice of civil conflict?
From a subjective standpoint, the military’s influence on decision-making processes, notably in formulating foreign and internal security policies, does not inherently manifest as problematic.
Given its precarious geopolitical surroundings, the contextualisation of Pakistan as a security state from its inception underscores the historical roots of such a paradigm.
The 1990s witnessed the ascendancy of a military-oriented perspective, accentuating assumed internal threats to the nation’s survival.
This perspective gained further traction in the aftermath of the post-9/11 security paradigm.
The substantial role assumed by the military in shaping foreign and security policies finds its justification in these historical antecedents.
Critics of the military’s pervasive role in these processes must proffer pragmatic alternatives, implying the establishment of alternative institutional frameworks to curtail the involvement of military bureaucracy.
However, complications arise when the military bureaucracy exploits international linkages forged during policy formulation to consolidate its influence within the country’s power structures.
In the post-Musharraf epoch, military leadership assumed the mantle of de facto diplomats for Pakistan.
The internal security landscape emerged as the preeminent foreign policy concern for successive governments in Islamabad, prompting foreign leaders, including foreign ministers and heads of state from Western and Muslim nations, to seek consultations primarily with the Chief of Army Staff (COAS).
Impact Shorts
More ShortsThe high-profile international visits undertaken by the Army chief were extensively publicised in domestic and international media during this time.
This heightened visibility finds rationale in the geopolitical reality that Pakistan and its adjacent Afghanistan were focal points in global terrorist networks, hosting the headquarters of major international terror organisations.
A historical context is pertinent, wherein the nexus between the Pak-Afghan border areas and mainland Afghanistan was implicated in major terrorist incidents worldwide.
In such scenarios, the discernment of a foreign leader is of manageable complexity; the point of contact for addressing such difficulties is perceived to be the Army chief rather than the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
The irony is underscored by the conspicuous absence of institutional capacity within the prime minister or the civilian government to formulate policies germane to these concerns.
Despite the technical attribution of military capacity within the ambit of the prime minister’s executive powers, the unequivocal proclamations of the military’s media wing regarding its intent to support civil governments on diverse policy matters substantiate the de facto institutional autonomy exercised by the army.
This nuanced interplay unfolds within Islamabad’s structured and disciplined bureaucratic milieu, characterised by an absence of tumult or disorder.
The constitutional powers of the prime minister are willingly ceded, facilitating the encroachment of the Chief of Army Staff and the military bureaucracy, particularly in scenarios where civilian governments lack the independent capacity for policy formulation and execution.
However, it is essential to note that this singular dynamic does not make Pakistan’s political system dysfunctional.
Comparable instances of military leadership involvement in the formulation and execution of foreign and security policies are observable in other nations.
The difficulty associated with the military’s engagement in Pakistan lies primarily in its role as a partisan actor in the nation’s internal political contentions.
This predicament is further underscored by the extensive historical record depicting the Pakistani military’s involvement as a participant in ideological, religious, sectarian, and political conflicts.
The epoch of General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime stands out as a significant period wherein the military was ostensibly positioned as the guardian of the state’s ideological frontiers.
During this tenure, the military administration actively contributed to the cultivation and reinforcement of profound religious and sectarian divisions within society through legislative measures, persisting as unresolved issues within the broader Pakistani political landscape.
Since its inception, Pakistan has manifested itself as an ideologically diverse society, accommodating various political, religious, sectarian, and ideological factions, a characteristic dating back to British colonial rule.
However, the Zia-led military sought to impose an ideological homogeneity on Pakistani society, endeavouring to enforce a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam at both the social and political strata.
Consequently, the military, under Zia’s leadership, assumed a partisan role in ideological, sectarian, and religious conflicts, aligning itself with advocates promoting specific interpretations of Islam, distinct ideological perspectives, and particular sectarian worldviews.
This multifaceted involvement raises intricate questions surrounding the military’s role and its impact on the socio-political fabric of Pakistan.
In the post-Zia period, a specific cadre of politicians, sectarian leaders, and ideologues emerged within Pakistani society, leveraging the military’s partisan engagement in political, sectarian, and ideological spheres.
Following General Zia-ul-Haq’s demise in an air crash, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) under Benazir Bhutto ascended to power after parliamentary elections.
The PPP, subjected to the military’s repressive measures during Zia’s era, was perceived as a potential threat by the incumbent military leadership.
Consequently, the military aligned itself with the right-leaning coalition led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, participating in a political conflict against the left-leaning PPP.
This trajectory was characterised by non-linearity; as the PPP normalised its relations with the military leadership, the latter shifted its focus towards the sitting leader, Nawaz Sharif.
Subsequently, the military’s entrenched partisan role became customary, transforming into an autonomous actor within the political landscape.
By the conclusion of General Musharraf’s military government, the military had assumed a permanent partisan role in the political arena, intermittently aligning with various political players—a trend facilitated by the emergence of figures such as Imran Khan openly advocating for the military’s partisan involvement in politics.
Imran Khan actively implored military leaders to support his anti-corruption initiatives against political adversaries, particularly during the concluding phases of his governance.
Some journalists in Pakistan asserted that the military possessed files detailing the corruption of the Sharif family, with military intelligence officials reportedly confirming and sharing these files.
Imran Khan overtly appealed to the military to relinquish their proclaimed neutrality in the no-confidence motion against his government, emphasising the imperative for collaborative efforts against his political opponents.
Imran Khan’s public proclamations elucidated his intention to instrumentalise the military in his anti-corruption campaign against political rivals.
Conversely, Nawaz Sharif, while not overtly advocating for the military’s partisan role, strategically appears to derive benefits from its involvement in the country’s political milieu.
The imperative for the Pakistani military lies in its transformation into an institution characterised by unwavering non-partisanship.
This principle should be theoretical and rigorously practiced across political, social, ideological, and religious spheres.
It is paramount for military leaders to comprehend the intricate societal tapestry they are mandated to safeguard, acknowledging its diversity in political affiliations, social structures, ideological orientations, sectarian diversities, and religious beliefs.
Persistent partisanship directed against specific segments of society would undermine the fundamental rationale and legitimacy underlying the military’s existence and operational integrity.
In such a milieu, confrontations with influential political leaders and groups could be imprudent and detrimental to the institution’s objectives.
The post-Musharraf era witnessed an initial manifestation of military leaders adopting a partisan stance against Nawaz Sharif, thereby precipitating a state of confrontation between the military leadership and prevalent political entities.
Presently, the military finds itself entangled in a subsequent confrontation with Imran Khan, the favourite of the masses.
This recurring pattern presents a pronounced peril, with the potential to escalate into a substantial catastrophe, ultimately leading to turmoil within the military and the potential for civil conflict.
So far, Pakistan has undergone a transformation wherein various facets of the state are under military control, making it challenging to maintain the essence of democracy.
Unfortunately, those very people who had the onerous responsibility to safeguard it and make it people-centric have sabotaged democracy. Surprisingly, the world leaders have maintained silence, though the media has not.
The author is the chairman of Law and Society Alliance, a New Delhi-based think tank. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
