Army interfering in Pakistani politics

[Ratus Ratus]

Good Point Mr. Rafus, but you have not mentioned one of the key component of true democracy were the fundamental problems lies for the Pakistani establishment. That is Commander and Chief, typically in a good democracy the commander and chief are the President and Prime Minister, but in Pakistan that power is given to head of the army. This creates such a polarize democracy that you are seeing today in Pakistan. One clearly knows the frustration United States is facing with Pakistan regarding this issue alone.

You will need to expand on your commander and chief issue.
From what I gather in Pakistan the Army reports to the government.
243. Command of Armed Forces.
(1) The Federal Government shall have control and command of the Armed Forces

Unfortunately using such useless tools as wikipedia one only gets the jumbled context of:
"In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the President is constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, however that is only a ceremonial position and the real power rests with the elected Prime Minister who is the Chief Executive of the state however this has changed and in reality today the President of the Federation holds the real powers since overtime most of the presidents have played a major role and have been former army heads themselves"

Which still boils down to the Government of the day.

Thus the perception that such power is given to the head of the army is not quite correct. The fuzziness that does come into this is past behaviour caused by the military takeovers.
So a perception does arise in line with your comments.

The frustration the US finds would be more associated with the polarised nature of politics and lack of positional & behavioural decorum. That is being nice as well.

In the current situation when General Kiyani went to the PM that was in essence formally correct. It would have been out of order for him to go directly to the President.

 

[Captain03]

Many political parties claim that they do not want army to interfere in political issues
and that army should be on borders doing its job.
Recently there was a long march started by the lawyers and some political parties for the restoration of the deposed Chief justice. the protest became violent when the protesters started beating policemen.
Later that night General Ashfaq pervaiz kiyani talked to Prime minister Yousuf raza gilani and asked him to restore the deposed chief justice immediately. After which the prime minister yousuf raza gilani took the decision to restore the deposed cheif justice in front of the people of Pakistan.
The decision was welcomed by parties like plmn and pti.All these parties which in past claimed that army should not interfere in politics did not even said a word against General Kiyani pressurizing an elected prime minister instead they welcomed the decision
Isn’t this hypocrisy

lmao seems like you don't understand pakistani politics
pakistani politicians would do anything to get power or remain in power

 

[zombie]

Army will continue to interfere as long as it controls the main intelligence agency of the country.

So why cant pakistan have a civilian intelligence agency instead of a military intelligence agency as its main spy agency like its in the rest of the world? MI5, CIA, RAW etc... this would also reduce the possibility of coups etc..so common in pakistan and seperate the army from being overbearing unlike other countries.

This is one step in ensuring not all power remains with the army. We know the well known saying about absolute power.

Ok now the first reaction would be defensive as usual. No one is saying about not needing a intelligence agency. Just reorient the composition and control like in other countries that have stable democracies.

 

[Captain03]

Army will continue to interfere as long as it controls the main intelligence agency of the country.

So why cant pakistan have a civilian intelligence agency instead of a military intelligence agency as its main spy agency like its in the rest of the world? MI5, CIA, RAW etc... this would also reduce the possibility of coups etc..so common in pakistan and seperate the army from being overbearing unlike other countries.

This is one step in ensuring not all power remains with the army. We know the well known saying about absolute power.

Ok now the first reaction would be defensive as usual. No one is saying about not needing a intelligence agency. Just reorient the composition and control like in other countries that have stable democracies.

the only reason the army takes over is because the democratic government can't hold or we have someone like nawaz sharif who tries to take over all the powers
the army is good where it is at
it can always save us at our time of need

 

[Bane Blade]

What does the army do not take controll of everything Musharraf or Zia or Ayub no chance they destroy all democratic organisations in terrible positions.

 

[spsk]

Army will continue to interfere as long as it controls the main intelligence agency of the country.

So why cant pakistan have a civilian intelligence agency instead of a military intelligence agency as its main spy agency like its in the rest of the world? MI5, CIA, RAW etc... this would also reduce the possibility of coups etc..so common in pakistan and seperate the army from being overbearing unlike other countries.

This is one step in ensuring not all power remains with the army. We know the well known saying about absolute power.

Ok now the first reaction would be defensive as usual. No one is saying about not needing a intelligence agency. Just reorient the composition and control like in other countries that have stable democracies.

Being surrounded by countries like Afghan and India , United States trying to establish and "bring peace" to South Asia , its very important for them ( and not only for them for India as well ) to keep ISI very much active then ever before.

They can split the army command centers like how we have done in India.

 

[batmannow]

we dont care what the army wants but we dont want to bring Marshalla at any cost

osamaziadxb, sir
i guss, with your flags, you are not bound to use" word , we"! i guss you dont belong to pakistan so its, not up to you what you want in pakistan?

 

[osamaziadxb]

osamaziadxb, sir
i guss, with your flags, you are not bound to use" word , we"! i guss you dont belong to pakistan so its, not up to you what you want in pakistan?

i belong to FATA doesnt mean that i didnt belong to Pakistan..if u dont know anything about FATA thn go nd learn..u r senior member nd i dont want to show my anger at all

 

[jeypore]

You will need to expand on your commander and chief issue.

From what I gather in Pakistan the Army reports to the government.
243. Command of Armed Forces.
(1) The Federal Government shall have control and command of the Armed Forces

Unfortunately using such useless tools as wikipedia one only gets the jumbled context of:
"In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the President is constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, however that is only a ceremonial position and the real power rests with the elected Prime Minister who is the Chief Executive of the state however this has changed and in reality today the President of the Federation holds the real powers since overtime most of the presidents have played a major role and have been former army heads themselves"

Which still boils down to the Government of the day.

Thus the perception that such power is given to the head of the army is not quite correct. The fuzziness that does come into this is past behaviour caused by the military takeovers.
So a perception does arise in line with your comments.

The frustration the US finds would be more associated with the polarised nature of politics and lack of positional & behavioural decorum. That is being nice as well.

In the current situation when General Kiyani went to the PM that was in essence formally correct. It would have been out of order for him to go directly to the President.

Let me expand on what i really ment. In United States, to wage a war is typical done by the president, who is commander in chief. He only needs to go to congress for approval of funds to wage that war. It is probably similar senario for English type of republic, including Pakistan. The problem in Pakistan is if Gilani decided on any executive order of war, the army has his own decision power to actually follow it or not. That intern creates a polarise democracy in Pakistan. Pakistan in literal terms is a two head dragon.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Let me expand on what i really ment. In United States, to wage a war is typical done by the president, who is commander in chief. He only needs to go to congress for approval of funds to wage that war. It is probably similar senario for English type of republic, including Pakistan. The problem in Pakistan is if Gilani decided on any executive order of war, the army has his own decision power to actually follow it or not. That intern creates a polarise democracy in Pakistan. Pakistan in literal terms is a two head dragon.

Well yes and no, or no and yes.

In USA the president can not wage war but a personal decision made by him/her.
A declaration of war must be made via congress and not by the president.
With such ventures as Iraq and Afghanistan they are not “war” in the formal sense. So with that regard the US president can have his own private conflict, and make appropriation bills to congress for funding of the military. But the congress has to authorise such funds. If they don’t he will not get his little conflict.
This is a somewhat simplified outline of the situation

Note the so called WOT is a ‘war’, but not a declared one. This title, WOT, can cause a few misconceptions.

Under the UK government systems and using the UK, the Queen is the CIC. She is not able to declare war, her government does.
Also the UK government will sent and decide on sending troops OS such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Note government not parliament.
The military in this system is under the control of the government and reports to that government in essence via the minister. The minister can not send the army off to some squabble but the government can.

Now if you look at say the Australian or New Zealand situation it becomes a bit more confusing as included into this is the Governor General. In a sense here the Queen is the CIC but that role is technically passed to the GG as the GG is appointment by the Queen.
But the GG can not send the military anywhere the government does. The same with a declaration of war, it is the government that makes the declaration.

Where does this come from?
The problem in Pakistan is if Gilani decided on any executive order of war, the army has his own decision power to actually follow it or not.
Is it built into the constitution or something developed by bad controls and people doing their own thing?

 

[jeypore]

Where does this come from?
The problem in Pakistan is if Gilani decided on any executive order of war, the army has his own decision power to actually follow it or not.
Is it built into the constitution or something developed by bad controls and people doing their own thing?

No, but do they really follow the constitution?, answer is No. So you have a quasi-democracy.

 

[Unbeliever]

Well I hope that for the sake of the slowly flourishing democracy in Pakistan after many years of military dictatorship the army does not interfere and destabilize the whole system again.

we dont care what the army wants but we dont want to bring Marshalla at any cost

Out of curiosity, what does Marshalla mean?

 

[DarkStar]

Martial law...Military dictatorship.

 

[Bane Blade]

the only reason the army takes over is because the democratic government can't hold or we have someone like nawaz sharif who tries to take over all the powers
the army is good where it is at
it can always save us at our time of need

Nawaz was elected by more than 60% of the nation I think he has the right to take all powers had he been unreasonable as a ruler he would have disappeared off the public eye the army just got rid of a generation that had voting confidence and sense and it is only destroying our country in its time of need.