VIEW: Civil-military relations in Pakistan —Nizamuddin Nizamani
Transformation from dictatorship to civilian rule is a painful withdrawal for the military generals and the civilian beneficiaries of the system. There must be some via media and acceptable system for a smooth takeover by the civilians
The post-Cold War era witnessed declining dictatorship trends in most countries, with powerful military generals being replaced by elected civilian governments in most parts of the world, barring a few exceptions. Due to the changing socio-political scenario and media revolution, these days military leaderships anywhere could not justify the enforced removal of elected civilian governments, despite all apparent indoctrination on the basis of the doctrine of necessity.
The world community, through its collective wisdom, has learnt to uphold the basic and fundamental human and socio-political right of the people to vote for and elect the representatives of their own choice. Military dictatorships have been put on the defensive by the democratic movements encouraged by the incremental achievements in their neighbouring democratic countries. One would not have predicted in the 70s that erstwhile dictatorships in countries like Indonesia, Turkey, the Baltic states, Chile and South Korea would gradually be replaced with civilian rule after 30 years. Or China, although still with single party rule, would allow elections within its different layers of administration. No one would have thought that the Maoist movement in Nepal would force the removal of the Nepali king as head of state and declaration of Nepal as a democratic republic, although Myanmar, North Korea and some governments in Central and South America did not budge under the pressure and still continue with the old system.
Pakistan too has experienced a transformation during these decades. Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan inflicted havoc on Pakistan. Following closely, General Ziaul Haq’s military rule, flavoured with theocratic values, damaged democratic civil institutions. The Generals in Pakistan have been lucky to have some contemporary international crisis to strengthen their rule. General Pervez Musharraf was not an exception. The twin towers tragedy helped him to further entrench himself.
Transformation from dictatorship to civilian rule is a painful withdrawal for the military generals and the civilian beneficiaries of the system. There must be some via media and acceptable system for a smooth takeover by the civilians. Dr Daniel N Nelson, head of American think tank Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and expert on civil-military relations, illustrates five fundamental steps to have win-win relations between civilians and the military.
First, laws and clear constitutional provisions should be put in place that define the chain of command and civilian authority over the military. Although apparently a piece of paper, this provision establishes the legitimacy for any action to resist any encroachment by the military. Second, bring a change in culture, values and acceptability among the masses that civilian rule is possible and should be put in place. This enculturation would be possible through a committed media and impartial press. Third, structures and processes should be put in place, detailing who will command. Fourth, openness and transparency or freedom of information is vital so that everything is open to the public and civilian leadership. Last, let the military budgets or expenditures be controlled by civilian authorities. No doubt the civilians linked to this process should be thoroughly scrutinised for their integrity.
Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, author of Military Inc., opines that in Pakistan people linked with military officials, civilian bureaucracy, politicians, feudals and industrialists have created a nexus and benefit each other. She believes many civilians look to the military for their patronage, and derive their strength through these links and increased political clout. Her book was the first detailed insight by any civilian into military affairs in Pakistan. Dr Kaiser Bengali, while comparing civil-military issues in Pakistan and other democratic countries in his writings, narrates that in our country most of the sectors, instead of competing with each other, collaborate and flourish at the cost of the masses.
Dr Nelson agrees that although, during the Cold War, the US worked with many military heads of state, including Pakistan, for the collective vision of confronting communism, General Musharraf was never brought and supported by the US. He rejects the notion that the US has been playing the role of kingmaker in Pakistan. One can be critical of these notions. One wonders how the US policy-makers would justify their pampering of Saddam Hussein and later a total annihilation of his family. However, it is obvious that US policy-makers have been very clear about the civil-military relations at home.
Even in US history, for a considerable period of time it was supposed that military generals elected as presidents could deliver more. Surprisingly, 12 generals were elected as presidents, which makes 28 percent of its total elected presidents so far. It took the American voters more than 200 years to come to the realisation that civilian candidates should be preferred over military candidates.
The Americans, through the National Security Act passed in 1947, merged most of the war-related institutions into the Department of Defence, and brought the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under civilian command. The recent successful appointment of 70-year-old Mr Leon Panetta, without any background in military or intelligence, as director CIA by President Barack Obama is another incredible achievement of the American political system. Initially, the decision met resistance, but ultimately the will of the elected civilian president prevailed.
President Asif Ali Zardari has not been that lucky. His government’s attempt to put the ISI under the Ministry of Interior could not succeed. It seemed to be a premature and ill-planned attempt by the civilian government. Instead of going straight for the ISI, they could have, as the first step, negotiated with the military brass to bring passive military institutions like the National Logistics Cell (NLC), Frontier Works Organisation (FWO), Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Inter-Services Selection Board (ISSB), Canteen Stores Department (CSD), Medical and Engineering Corp, etc, under civilian control.
It would be in the fitness of things that civil and military organisations, instead of sticking to their traditional turfs, should enter into negotiations for a gradual and respectable retreat of the military from civilian administration, opening up of the defence budget, recruitments in the military from non-traditional areas, civilian control of paramilitary units, closure of political cells in different intelligence organisations, proper training and support for ex-military personnel for merger in civilian life, etc. To reciprocate, civilian and political circles, analysts, writers and journalists would be trained to adopt a soft tone towards the military in order to establish sustainable civil-military relations in Pakistan.
The writer is a MS in Social Sciences, a professional trainer, researcher and peace activist. He can be reached at nizambaloch@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment