fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
VIEW: Redefining the militarys role Hasan-Askari Rizvi
There is need for civilian institutions to be liberated from the domination of retired and serving officers, who are holding lucrative civilian jobs in total disregard to the negative impact such appointments have on civilian institutions and personnel
The Pakistani military has acquired such a salient role in politics and other non-professional domains that it is no longer possible to discuss politics and society without taking into account the disposition of the top brass, especially that of the army. It is therefore not surprising that much attention is now being focused on the armys top command in the context of the ongoing political situation.
Three factors draw attention to the role of the armys top brass in the current political context.
First, there has been a resurgence of civilian-political and societal forces that have increased the strain on the political order led by President Pervez Musharraf. Political parties and several civil society groups, especially the lawyers, have become more assertive in their demands for constitutionalism, civilian primacy and participatory governance.
Second, increased terrorist activity by militant Islamic groups based primarily in the tribal areas poses a serious challenge to the state.
Third, Musharraf faces strong constitutional and judicial challenges to his political future. Even if the Supreme Court legitimises his re-election, he will find it difficult to continue in the dominant role he currently enjoys.
In addition to these factors, Benazir Bhuttos return to Pakistan has given a boost to civilian-political forces. However, her major strength i.e. her popular appeal, incurs the wrath of militant Islamic groups and the leadership of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PMLQ). Both view her as a threat to their respective agendas and want to neutralise her popular appeal.
As a result, Pakistan will witness increasing political hostility between the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and its political adversaries. This situation will get a fillip from militant Islamic groups that are likely to use violence to disrupt Pakistans transition to a more democratic system.
In such a complex and polarised political situation, the attitude of the top commanders is important in shaping the direction of political change: will they help the government cope with these pressures and facilitate the transition to democracy or exploit these problems to further consolidate their hold on power?
According to the Attorney General, if the Supreme Court disqualifies President Musharraf, the government has several options to deal with the situation. In any case, say official circles, Musharraf could still continue as army chief.
In such a scenario, political circles will view the Army as a partisan of Musharraf in his effort to stay in power. Such an outcome would also amount to undermining the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Musharraf has already overstayed as army chief and if he uses this office to hold on to power, this will yet again expose the Army to sharp criticism from political circles and other societal groups. The top brass will not want a repeat of the harsh criticism directed at the Army when Musharraf tried to get rid of the chief justice earlier this year.
The top brass can continue to dominate the economy and politics of Pakistan if it so wishes but this approach neither serves the long-term institutional interests of the military nor does it help stabilise Pakistan. If the current wave of activism in Pakistani politics continues, the commanders will soon find it very difficult to maintain their control of politics and their domineering role will consistently be challenged.
The military should also be concerned about its image within Pakistan. While direct and indirect use of state power enables its brass to enjoy privileges that would not be available otherwise, it adversely affects the reputation of the military and opens it to criticism from civilian political circles.
The military cannot expect to be spared such criticism when it has become the most powerful political force at the expense of civilian politics. Politics constitutes a contentious domain of human activity and power is central to it. It involves mobilisation, interaction with divergent groups and individuals, competition, bargain and accommodation. Key players face criticism for what they do or fail to do; therefore, if the top brass of the military has become a competing interest in politics, it is bound to be exposed to criticism.
The top commanders should take a step back from their active and partisan political role and allow civilian political forces more space. They need to limit themselves to their professional role as set out in the Constitution. And, even if they are needed to enter the political domain, they should do so in a non-partisan manner and allow smooth resolution between civilian players instead of becoming contenders in the power game themselves.
The non-partisan behaviour being recommended is not without precedent. In August 1988, COAS General Mirza Aslam Beg and his commanders allowed constitutional procedures to settle the question of political succession. And then in 1993, COAS General Abdul Waheed Kakar remained non-partisan in the power struggle between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, asking both to leave when the constitutional deadlock could not be broken
The present-day military command should learn from these examples and consider the option of returning to a professional and non-partisan role in politics. There is also a need for the brass to review their attitude towards civilian politicians, whom they view with contempt.
Equally important is the need for civilian institutions to be liberated from the domination of retired and serving officers, who are holding lucrative civilian jobs in total disregard to the negative impact such appointments have on civilian institutions and personnel. As a result of this breach in the boundary between the civilian side and the military, a crisis of confidence has developed in civilian institutions and officers serving therein.
In addition, the military needs to make its commercial activities more transparent and place them under parliamentary oversight. Military personnel should not be allowed to directly engage in moneymaking activities in non-professional fields.
Finally, the top brass should use their influence to ensure that the forthcoming general elections are fair, free and transparent with equal opportunities provided to all political actors. To accomplish this, a number of measures would have to be adopted.
First, the Election Commission and electoral procedures should be restructured and reformed to the satisfaction of the major political parties.
Second, free and fair elections cannot be held without the installation of neutral caretaker governments at the centre and in the provinces.
Third, intelligence agencies should be restrained from involvement in, and possible manipulation of, the electoral process.
A professional and non-partisan role for the top brass of the military as a result of the above proposals would not adversely affect their professional and corporate interests. On the contrary, the army will continue to be an important state institution and will enjoy more respect in society. Most importantly, it will enable it to devote more attention to dealing with the terrorist threat and other security pressures.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and
defence analyst
There is need for civilian institutions to be liberated from the domination of retired and serving officers, who are holding lucrative civilian jobs in total disregard to the negative impact such appointments have on civilian institutions and personnel
The Pakistani military has acquired such a salient role in politics and other non-professional domains that it is no longer possible to discuss politics and society without taking into account the disposition of the top brass, especially that of the army. It is therefore not surprising that much attention is now being focused on the armys top command in the context of the ongoing political situation.
Three factors draw attention to the role of the armys top brass in the current political context.
First, there has been a resurgence of civilian-political and societal forces that have increased the strain on the political order led by President Pervez Musharraf. Political parties and several civil society groups, especially the lawyers, have become more assertive in their demands for constitutionalism, civilian primacy and participatory governance.
Second, increased terrorist activity by militant Islamic groups based primarily in the tribal areas poses a serious challenge to the state.
Third, Musharraf faces strong constitutional and judicial challenges to his political future. Even if the Supreme Court legitimises his re-election, he will find it difficult to continue in the dominant role he currently enjoys.
In addition to these factors, Benazir Bhuttos return to Pakistan has given a boost to civilian-political forces. However, her major strength i.e. her popular appeal, incurs the wrath of militant Islamic groups and the leadership of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PMLQ). Both view her as a threat to their respective agendas and want to neutralise her popular appeal.
As a result, Pakistan will witness increasing political hostility between the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and its political adversaries. This situation will get a fillip from militant Islamic groups that are likely to use violence to disrupt Pakistans transition to a more democratic system.
In such a complex and polarised political situation, the attitude of the top commanders is important in shaping the direction of political change: will they help the government cope with these pressures and facilitate the transition to democracy or exploit these problems to further consolidate their hold on power?
According to the Attorney General, if the Supreme Court disqualifies President Musharraf, the government has several options to deal with the situation. In any case, say official circles, Musharraf could still continue as army chief.
In such a scenario, political circles will view the Army as a partisan of Musharraf in his effort to stay in power. Such an outcome would also amount to undermining the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Musharraf has already overstayed as army chief and if he uses this office to hold on to power, this will yet again expose the Army to sharp criticism from political circles and other societal groups. The top brass will not want a repeat of the harsh criticism directed at the Army when Musharraf tried to get rid of the chief justice earlier this year.
The top brass can continue to dominate the economy and politics of Pakistan if it so wishes but this approach neither serves the long-term institutional interests of the military nor does it help stabilise Pakistan. If the current wave of activism in Pakistani politics continues, the commanders will soon find it very difficult to maintain their control of politics and their domineering role will consistently be challenged.
The military should also be concerned about its image within Pakistan. While direct and indirect use of state power enables its brass to enjoy privileges that would not be available otherwise, it adversely affects the reputation of the military and opens it to criticism from civilian political circles.
The military cannot expect to be spared such criticism when it has become the most powerful political force at the expense of civilian politics. Politics constitutes a contentious domain of human activity and power is central to it. It involves mobilisation, interaction with divergent groups and individuals, competition, bargain and accommodation. Key players face criticism for what they do or fail to do; therefore, if the top brass of the military has become a competing interest in politics, it is bound to be exposed to criticism.
The top commanders should take a step back from their active and partisan political role and allow civilian political forces more space. They need to limit themselves to their professional role as set out in the Constitution. And, even if they are needed to enter the political domain, they should do so in a non-partisan manner and allow smooth resolution between civilian players instead of becoming contenders in the power game themselves.
The non-partisan behaviour being recommended is not without precedent. In August 1988, COAS General Mirza Aslam Beg and his commanders allowed constitutional procedures to settle the question of political succession. And then in 1993, COAS General Abdul Waheed Kakar remained non-partisan in the power struggle between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, asking both to leave when the constitutional deadlock could not be broken
The present-day military command should learn from these examples and consider the option of returning to a professional and non-partisan role in politics. There is also a need for the brass to review their attitude towards civilian politicians, whom they view with contempt.
Equally important is the need for civilian institutions to be liberated from the domination of retired and serving officers, who are holding lucrative civilian jobs in total disregard to the negative impact such appointments have on civilian institutions and personnel. As a result of this breach in the boundary between the civilian side and the military, a crisis of confidence has developed in civilian institutions and officers serving therein.
In addition, the military needs to make its commercial activities more transparent and place them under parliamentary oversight. Military personnel should not be allowed to directly engage in moneymaking activities in non-professional fields.
Finally, the top brass should use their influence to ensure that the forthcoming general elections are fair, free and transparent with equal opportunities provided to all political actors. To accomplish this, a number of measures would have to be adopted.
First, the Election Commission and electoral procedures should be restructured and reformed to the satisfaction of the major political parties.
Second, free and fair elections cannot be held without the installation of neutral caretaker governments at the centre and in the provinces.
Third, intelligence agencies should be restrained from involvement in, and possible manipulation of, the electoral process.
A professional and non-partisan role for the top brass of the military as a result of the above proposals would not adversely affect their professional and corporate interests. On the contrary, the army will continue to be an important state institution and will enjoy more respect in society. Most importantly, it will enable it to devote more attention to dealing with the terrorist threat and other security pressures.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and
defence analyst
