Mukarma Jawad
Introduction: Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan has witnessed a complex and ever-evolving relationship between its civilian government and the military establishment. This article aims to delve into the historical context and examine the various dynamics that have shaped this relationship over the past decades. From military coups and political instability to periods of democratic governance and civilian supremacy, the interplay between civilians and the military has played a pivotal role in shaping Pakistan’s political landscape. The Early Years: Following the partition of British India in 1947, Pakistan inherited a nascent state with weak institutions and an underdeveloped civilian leadership. The country’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, had to navigate the challenges of nation-building, internal divisions, and conflicts with India. During this period, the military played a significant role in maintaining internal security and territorial integrity, given the absence of a well-established police force and a border conflict with India over Kashmir. The first military intervention: In 1958, Pakistan witnessed its first military coup when General Ayub Khan overthrew the civilian government of Prime Minister Feroz Khan Noon. Ayub Khan justified his actions by citing political instability, corruption, and the need for reforms. Under Ayub’s regime, the military expanded its influence in policymaking and governance, assuming a dominant role in Pakistan’s political landscape. The return of civilian rule: Following mass protests and growing discontent, General Ayub Khan stepped down in 1969, leading to a period of civilian rule. However, this transition did not mark the end of military interference. The subsequent civilian governments faced challenges from both external and internal forces, leading to political instability, which eventually paved the way for another military intervention. The Zia-ul-Haq Era: General Zia-ul-Haq seized power in a bloodless coup in 1977, citing the need to restore law and order and uphold Islamic values. Zia’s rule, which lasted until his death in 1988, witnessed a significant expansion of the military’s role in Pakistan’s politics and society. He introduced Islamization policies, curtailed civil liberties, and stifled political opposition. The military remained a powerful institution during this period, and its influence continued to grow. The Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif Era: In 1988, civilian rule was reinstated with the election of Benazir Bhutto as Pakistan’s first female Prime Minister. However, her government faced numerous challenges, including accusations of corruption and political infighting. In 1999, Nawaz Sharif became Prime Minister for the third time but was soon overthrown in a military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The coup marked another setback for civilian rule and highlighted the military’s recurring intervention in Pakistani politics. The Musharraf Era: General Pervez Musharraf’s tenure as Pakistan’s military ruler lasted from 1999 to 2008. While he initially enjoyed popular support, his regime faced growing opposition, particularly after the controversial dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in 2007. Widespread protests and demands for the restoration of democracy led to Musharraf’s resignation in 2008, marking another transition from military to civilian rule. Democracy and the Military: Since 2008, Pakistan has experienced periods of democratic governance, alternating with military influence. The civilian governments led by Asif Ali Zardari and later Nawaz Sharif faced challenges of political instability, allegations of corruption, and confrontations with the judiciary. The military, during these periods, retained its influence through behind-the-scenes interventions, particularly in matters of national security and foreign policy. The Current Scenario: In recent years, Pakistan has witnessed efforts to strengthen civilian institutions and promote democratic values. The 2018 general elections marked a significant milestone as Pakistan witnessed a peaceful transfer of power from one civilian government to another. Imran Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, assumed the role of Prime Minister. This transition was seen as a positive step towards consolidating democracy and reducing military interference in politics. However, despite the shift towards civilian rule, the military continues to play a significant role in Pakistan’s governance and security affairs. The military establishment maintains control over key areas such as defense, foreign policy, and intelligence agencies. This influence is rooted in Pakistan’s historical context, where the military has traditionally been seen as the guardian of national security and the primary defender of the country’s interests. In addition, the current crisis, particularly the response to Khan’s detention, exemplifies the intricate and convoluted relationship between Pakistan’s civilian and military sectors. Khan’s arrest follows months of intense political rivalry between Khan and his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), on one side, and the coalition government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the military establishment on the other. Khan’s removal from office through a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April 2022 has fueled his campaign against both the military and the coalition government. He has accused them of colluding with the United States government to orchestrate his ouster. In response, Khan’s supporters have staged persistent and large-scale protests throughout the past year. In a demonstration rally, Khan narrowly survived an assassination attempt when he was shot in the leg. Khan has also been calling for early general elections, anticipating a sweeping victory for his party. The Sharif-led coalition government has remained steadfast in the face of Khan’s pressure tactics. The military has refuted Khan’s allegations and stated that he is seeking their intervention beyond their constitutional role to support his cause. Numerous legal cases have been registered against Khan, and he has openly criticized the military establishment, including General Asim Munir, the army chief, through rallies, interviews, and social media. In a significant escalation prior to his arrest, Khan directly accused a senior officer of Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency of plotting to assassinate him. Such public and direct accusations are unprecedented in a country where the military establishment has long been regarded as the guarantor of stability. The military’s involvement in governance has both positive and negative implications. On one hand, the military’s stability and discipline have contributed to maintaining law and order, particularly in regions affected by militancy and terrorism. The military’s role in counter-terrorism operations and peacekeeping missions has garnered respect and admiration from the public. On the other hand, the military’s extensive influence in politics raises concerns about the erosion of civilian authority and the stifling of democratic institutions. Critics argue that the military’s interference undermines the principles of representative governance and hampers the development of a robust democratic culture. They argue that civilian leaders should have greater control over policymaking, ensuring transparency, accountability, and checks and balances. Another significant aspect of the civilian-military relationship in Pakistan is the role of the judiciary. In recent years, the judiciary has played an active role in challenging the military’s dominance and asserting the importance of constitutional supremacy. Landmark judgments, such as the disqualification of political leaders on corruption charges, have signaled a push towards accountability and a level playing field for all stakeholders. Furthermore, civil society organizations, human rights activists, and media outlets have become vocal in demanding greater civilian control and the protection of democratic norms. These voices play a crucial role in advocating for a healthy balance between civilian authority and military expertise. It is worth noting that Pakistan’s civilian-military relationship is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a binary of complete civilian supremacy or military dominance. Various factors influence this complex dynamic, including regional security challenges, internal stability, and political consensus on key national issues. Moving forward, fostering a sustainable civilian-military relationship in Pakistan requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders. There is a need for institutional reforms that strengthen democratic institutions, ensure the rule of law, and enhance transparency and accountability. The military should continue to focus on its core responsibilities of defending the country and providing security, while refraining from interfering in civilian affairs. Simultaneously, civilian leaders must demonstrate competence, integrity, and strong governance to earn the trust and support of the military establishment and the public. They should work towards developing a consensus-based approach on key national issues, fostering inclusive decision-making processes, and promoting political stability. Conclusion: The civilian-military relationship in Pakistan has undergone significant transformations since the country’s independence in 1947. It has witnessed periods of military dominance, democratic governance, and an ongoing struggle to strike a balance between civilian authority and military expertise. While progress has been made towards strengthening democratic institutions, challenges remain in ensuring a sustainable and inclusive civilian-military relationship. Pakistan’s future lies in the ability of its civilian and military leaders to work together, respect democratic principles, and address the aspirations and concerns of the people. A harmonious and constructive relationship between the civilian government and the military establishment is essential for Pakistan’s stability, security, and long-term development as a democratic nation.