Sajjad Ahmad Khan.
In Pakistani politics, the topic of civil-military relations has been discussed more often, but always in the Q.T. manner. And no one dared to discuss it openly, because there was an unconscious fear in everyone’s heart that the consequences of this forbidden discussion could be injurious. But for some time now, independent opinion has been on the rise, and people are openly criticising the establishment. Former Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has already expressed his displeasure about the army’s interference in politics. And now this time, Imran Khan, in his own style, challenged the army and incited the people to revolt against the authorities. Apart from this, everyone has heard the Pashtun Tahfuz Moment (PTM) sloganairing against the army. As a result, PTM chief Manzoor Pashteen was also arrested on charges of sedition, criminal conspiracy, invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, and promoting ethnic hatred.
This movement has been able to attract people, especially the local residents, due to its effective narrative. It is not part of my topic today to discuss the various implications of PTM’s narrative, so I will refrain from writing anything on it.
The current government is facing many problems, one of which is the smooth and harmonious civil-military relationship. When civil-military relations in a constitutional democracy are not abundantly within the realm of civilian supremacy, new problems tend to crop up.The question appears on the mind’s screen: what is the last moment when the people turn their gaze to the army? The question is answered succinctly. This reaction comes when a civilian government becomes unable to meet the needs of the people due to rampant corruption, and the helpless people have no choice but to pin their hopes on the military. Civil-military relations reveal information about a society’s overall situation, values, future, and level of development of its political system.Some political pundits liken civil-military relations to a bonded marriage. But to know about this special affair, it is necessary to look at it from different angles. At first glance, it should be seen how different the chemistry of military and civilian interests is within the same country. Then it is necessary to answer the question of whether the army and the entire society are against each other or just a few segments within the two. Finally, is this disagreement limited to the top commanders of the army and the big players in the political circus? After answering these questions, we should be able to find a remedy to keep the relationship between the military and civilians within their own limits.
Ever since Pakistan came into existence, it has been trapped in the abyss of security depth. Due to this, the importance of the Pakistan Army has become extremely important and it has started to play unconscionable role outside of its assigned ambit. With the passage of time, the military style came to be considered a part of Pakistani politics, or so the people got used to the interference of the army in politics. Then finally, two parallel political narratives emerged, one of the military and the other of the civilians. And now these two narratives are fighting each other. Both sides present arguments in their support and, at the same time, throw accusations at each other. But it is an indisputable fact that the army and politics are two sides of the same river, which can never meet.
Being “on the same page” with non-elected bodies can enable any government to achieve real and long-term goals. Many problems can be resolved, and the country will start running on the track of good governance. But how can “civilian” and “uniform” be brought onto the same page? Of course, now there is a need to identify the elements that are hindering harmony between the parliament and the army. The politicians of our country consider the role of the army to be synonymous with praetorianism. They often allege that there is a line in our constitution that these booters easily cross. The main reason for the displeasure of the politicians is that the army eats a big piece of the “budget cake” every year, and thus the developmental budget becomes an orphan. Students of political science know that the concept of any modern state government refers to rule by the people, given to elected leaders through free and fair elections. We can definitely call it a large-scale appointment because, in this form of government, the people empower the elected leaders to take decisions on their behalf. Later, these representatives of the people transfer administrative powers to the bureaucracy to run the state system and day-to-day affairs, while the responsibility of the country’s borders is entrusted to the military. But both these institutions work under the authority of Parliament, as the constitution recognises Parliament the supreme.
On the other hand, the military provides its own rationale for ousting elected governments and interfering in civilian affairs. The army argues that the people are forcing them out of their barracks. The main reason for the army to take over the government or to intervene in civilian affairs is to put on beam the fractious system of the country. This is the reason that, after the streamlining of the system, the army takes over its professional responsibilities. But here the question arises whether the constitution of Pakistan assigns the right to the General Head Quarters (GHQ) to perform the duty of mending the system under any circumstances. The second question is, if they take steps to entrench in the system, how long will they remain in power? The third question is, on what principles or by what yardstick will the army determine if it should now take the steering wheel of the faltering vehicle?
