Pak Tea House » Opinion » Civil Military Relations in Pakistan

Civil Military Relations in Pakistan

January 12th, 2012 | 13 Comments

By Harry Pasha:

With pressure mounting on the PPP government and President Zardari at the center of every new crisis, it appears that the house he built by patching together some deals is crumbling faster than a thatched cabin pulverized by a fierce typhoon. The formidable alliance he cobbled together with major political parties is shaken up by the establishment assault and appears to be near collapse.

Pakistan’s history is replete with similar stories. Contrary to the common belief, the Army started interfering in country’s politics when it first helped Gov. Ghulam Mohammed remove the second PM Nazimuddin from power in 1953. US ambassador in his confidential Memo to the State Dept stated: “Nazimuddin dismissal was planned and accomplished through combined efforts of Army leadership (specifically Def Secy Iskander Mirza and C-in-C Gen Ayub) and Gov Gen himself”. “the Governor-General, Mr. Ghulam Mohammed could never have dared to dismiss a Ministry which had appointed him, had he not have had the support of the Army. The Army would take its cue from the Defense Secretariat. Therefore this is in fact a coup d’etat by Mr. Iskander Mirza and the Army, which has nominated Mr. Mohammed Ali as its agent.” In 1952 Gen. Ayub Khan told the US Consul General in Lahore, “that the Pakistan Army will not allow the political leaders to get out of hand and the same is true regarding the people of Pakistan. He stated that he realized that the Army was taking on a large responsibility, but that the Army’s duty was to protect the country.”
Gen. Ayub was planning to take over the government since 1953 and had informed the US embassy in no uncertain terms that the Pakistan Army would immediately declare martial law and take charge of the situation… and “the Pakistan Army would not allow either politicians or the public to ruin the country”. Ayub had arbitrarily decided that he would not allow even the people of Pakistan to decide the fate of country and he or the Army would make that decision. Pakistan had and still is paying a huge price for the haughty worldview of the Army Generals. References Below.

The Army cultivated US from the early 1950s to become its important ally in the region. The various defense agreements that Pakistan signed with the US enhanced the image of the Army in the general public and allowed the Army to become the most powerful political faction in Pakistan. Initially, the US would go along with the Pakistan Army’s coup but after the Soviet Union withdrawal from Afghanistan in the late 1980s, the US developed a policy in the area that called for some form of partnership between the Army and the civilians and the first Benazir government in 1989 was the first beneficiary of the change in US policy after Gen. Zia died in mysterious circumstances.

Jon Alterman, a very typical member of the National Security priesthood in the US recently re-emphasis the policy in Egypt’s context and he wrote, “American interests,however, call for a different outcome, one that finds a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and … politicians.” NYT see below.

The policy was again implemented in Pakistan when an uneasy alliance between the Musharraf government and the PPP was presented to the people of Pakistan in 2007-08; the partnership with the PPP was agreed upon and mediated by Condoleezza Rice, former US Sec of State.

The Kerry Lugar Bill in 2009, in the Army’s view, broke the agreement the Army had with the US and the Zardari government as the K-L Bill called for stopping all US Aid to Pakistan in case of the Army interference. The Army believed that the Army agreed to a partnership with the civilians but the K-L bill clearly put the Civilian government on top and that was not acceptable to the Army.

The narrative of often uneasy relationship is not confined to Pakistan only and many countries including the US share many forms of often contentions and sometime mutually acceptable partnership between the Military and the civilian governments.

The government in the US itself has developed in to a partnership between the civilians and the Pentagon. With strong democratic currents and tradition of regular elections, the civilian organs such as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House wield more power in the internal affairs but the Pentagon input is vital in running the foreign and defense policy of the US. One sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote extensively on the military-civilian Partnership in the US in the mid fifties and presented the idea of the Power Elite. Later it was publicly acknowledged by President Eisenhower when he talked about the rising Military-Industrial complex in the US in 1961. There were many conflicts between the White House and the Pentagon within the Kennedy Administration over Cuba. Preside Johnson was pressured in to sending more troops to Vietnam by the Pentagon. He ended up ceding the control of the Vietnam War and his foreign policy to the Pentagon. During the Clinton Admin, the Pentagon refused to send ground forces to Serbia and Kosovo in 1998 and the whole operation was conducted from the Air. Recently, President George W. Bush and his political cronies also known as the Neo-cons took the lead in starting the Iraq war but soon after the start, the Bush admin lost control of its defense and foreign policy and was merely a spectator when decisions were made in Pentagon for the war on terror or the Iraq and Afghan war issues. He was so much under the Pentagon thumb that he frequently sent the Army Generals to the Congress to defend the Iraq war. The US Army Generals were repeatedly found to be parading the Congress and promoting their war policies. The famous Surge in Iraq was publicly advocated by the US Army. The Bush admin and its civilian spokesperson always deferred to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the Surge, on policy matters. There was a battle in DC between the Pentagon and the Obama White House over more troops in Afghanistan in 2009 and both parties had been talking to each in public by way of multiple leaks.

Then we have Israel where the Israeli Defense Forces popularly known as the IDF shares power with the civilians and the elected Prime Minister. In Israel usually the Defense Minister is either a former General or a representative of the IDF. The IDF enjoys a veto power over Israel’s foreign policy. Recently both the present and the former Mossad chiefs publicly disagreed with the civilian Government of PM Netanyahu over Iran’s nukes.

Turkey’s history after the First World War is also replete with battles between the civilians and the Army Generals. One Turkish Prime Minister lost his life, like ZAB did in Pakistan, over the control of the country. However, over the years and after a long struggle, the civilians appear to have an upper hand but to say that they are completely independent would not be accurate. The Turkish Army still has tremendous clout over the state affairs.

Historically, the Pakistani politicians enter the government knowing full well that they have to share powers with the Army but slowly the Army interference in even the minor issues of governance frustrates the civilian leaders. Former PM Nawaz Sharif twice ousted the COAS after he was frustrated with the undue Army interference and now Zardari government finds itself in an irretrievable situation.

Ref:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/emerson20april1953.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/egypts-real-revolution.html?_r=1

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/pakistan/pakintrigue.htm#ayub

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills

http://www.amazon.com/House-War-James-Carroll/dp/0618187804

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156716100/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk/180-4248032-9540858

NOTE: The article is based on research and the references are provided at the end. I would appreciate it if the editors please not change the subject substantially as all parts ofthe article are linked with the issues involved.I have placed bold tags on some sections. Thanks.

Harry Pasha is management consultant based in the USA. He has a keen interest in Pakistani politics and US –Pakistan relations. He occasionally writes for the Sindhi daily, Kawish.

Written by admin

Filed under: Opinion · Tags: Harry Pasha, Pakistan, people, PPP

13 Responses to "Civil Military Relations in Pakistan"

rex minor says:

January 12, 2012 at 8:31 am

The author premises in the article are grossly inaccurate and do not reflect the historical facts. Pakistan is not a banana republic nor is it comparable to the Turkish military which created modern Turkey, nor can be compared with the situation in Israel which on account of conscription in the country, has most of their political leaders being ex officers of the small army.

Rex Minor
rex minor says:

January 12, 2012 at 8:35 am

PS
Pakistan military is one of the largest and the finest highly professional and disciplined and loyal force in the world which is trained to defend the country. Its history and experience with the civilian Govts is very much tainted and not verycooperative for very different reasons.
Civil Military Relations in Pakistan | Chai Pakistan says:

January 12, 2012 at 9:38 am

[...] Civil Military Relations in Pakistan By admin | January 12, 2012 January 12th, 2012 | 2 Comments [...]
Mustafa says:

January 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm

@Rex Minor: Totally agreed. Other nations have found a way to deal with it , main reason being , moral authority and governance competency of the civilians. Unlike our incompetent civilians with the exception of ZAB.

Yes Military has history of interference in politics, for different reasons sometimes agrressive.

But This Time its the Civilians that attacked the Army and not the other way around. Did Kayani say anything to Gilani? Who raised the first punch? How did the Army attack the Civilians this time?

For maybe the first time the Civilians have launched a verbal assault on Army. The PPP knowing it has no governance or electibility needs votes. So its trying to acheive Shahadat and Sympathy but Army and Judiciary arent going to give them that, they will finish thier term and get what they deserve.
rex minor says:

January 12, 2012 at 4:51 pm

@Mustafa
Pakistan military needs to be reformed from the colonial style to a national army. Pakistan army has followed the principle that if the central ivilian Govt. is unable to maintain law and order in the country and seeks military intervention to suppress the uprise then the civilian Govt looses its legitamacy to stay in power. This was the key factor for the first bloodless military takeover and the transfer of capital from karachi to Islamabad, near to the military headquarter.

The last military takeover was caused due to the personal animosity of Shareef versus Musharaf and under his rule it has lst he high moral ground with the population. PPP current Govt. is reckless and is heading for an uncertain and chaotic future due to the presence of the yanks.

Rex Minor

PS The author could have relied more on local info.
umar says:

January 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm

http://hacklejackle.blogspot.com/
Malik Rashid says:

January 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm

You have rightly quoted the mission statement of Pakistan’s military; “the Pakistan Army will not allow the political leaders to get out of hand and the same is true regarding the people of Pakistan.” Judicial murder of Bhutto, assassination of BeNazeer, murder of Taseer and bombing of markets and shrines follow the above stated aim. Civil government’s direct association with US(Kerry-Lugar bill)provoked anger and bin Laden’s murder blew the gasket. Hence memo-gate was hatched. Zardari and Gilani had a good, long run of 4 years and they would not mind going out peacefully. But that is not an option. For their perceived transgressions, they could be murdered to keep terror alive in the hearts of civilians. Adjustment between civilian-military powers cannot be contemplated when PM’s comment about legality of army-chief’s response to Supreme Court gets such an indignant reaction. The military wants the head of civilians and the politicos fend off their looming demise. A realistic solution would probably include dismissal of government with assurance of safety for the fired civilian representatives. Your comparison of White House-Pentagon relations to the state of affairs in Pakistan does no justice. Parliamentarians are summoned to GHQ. President cannot send the army/ISI chief to parliament unless they themselves decide to bless the house with their presence.
Civil Military Relations in Pakistan | Tea Break says:

January 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm

[...] Civil Military Relations in Pakistan [...]
Rashid Aurakzai says:

January 12, 2012 at 10:40 pm

Rex: You perhaps have not gone through the references provided. Specially the one with US declassified documents about Pakistan early years.

Read this to understand whether the egg came first or the chicken.

http://hamzaalavi.com/?p=102

The researcher is one Pakistan should be proud of but unfortunately we are not suppose to declare such people as heroes. The only Heroes we have are martyrs of the Military.
rex minor says:

January 13, 2012 at 1:59 am

@Rashid Aurakzai

Now I have, and it does not influence my analysis and simply gives the view of events from the other side.

History is usualy very dry , dull and straightforward, some writers and columnists add unrelated occurances, giving a color and a spin to make them look related, and simply to facilitate their own interpretations and conclusions which are usualy misleading. The events and agreements become further complex by the use of English language which has a longer stretch than any other language. Each party to an agreement interpreting it to their satisfaction.

The USA declassified documents simply tell us the perception of the events from the point of view of the USA. People believe in what they perceive which may not be all the truth; the truth is that the imperial USA could not care a hoot about India, Pakistan, Turkey or Europe. It has always protected its own interests and made allies from other Nations to protect their own Arsch!

USA dod not came to aid Pakistan and let Pakistan split despite having entered into the CENTO, which was regarded by the participants as adefence pact. Not so was the response from the USA, the treaty was a defence agreement againsi the Soviet Union. If Turkey were to come under attack tomorrow from Israel, its NATO partner USA is going to give the same response that NATO is a Pact against the Russians, so on and so forth. A very minor detail but cost Pakistan lost of territory and constant enimosity with India. Pakistan did not have a military when it was created but the chief of Pakistan military General Gracey was there to make sure that Pakistan civilian Govt. is unable to defend its territory with the rag tag military units that it did get. Indian Govt. was allowed under the watch of Mountbatten, the ist Governor General Of India, to go on rampage in several territories which were to become part of Pakistan. People of Pakistan were asked to defend the country and those who heed the call were no other than the Pashtuns from the territories of Swat to Waziristan. It is ironic that these people should today be subject to the artillery assault from the Musharaf infantry and the USA drones from the air. Today they are called Talibans; people who live on a protein diet, had their lunch in a Peshawar restaurant and dinner in Kashmir, are under attack by the Pakistan and USA alliance.

It will be a mistake if any Pakistan General is dreaming to rerun the Musharaf rule, riding roughshod on judiciary and other institutions and control of the civilian enterprise. It is time that people who conspired with the USA both military and the civilian elites are put on trial for until such time there shall be no peace in the country and more violence and sufferings are to follow. Military responsible for the murder of Baluch must stand trial for without justice there can be no beginning.

Rex Minor

PS Pakistan military has no expanded mission other than to protect its borders; security within the country is the responsibility of police.

Rex Mino
rex minor says:

January 13, 2012 at 2:10 am

PS
at the end of the day the Yanks always piss on their enemies, when pissed off. The USA marines are just GI’s who express what their leaders feel. the talibans believe in hygene and simply cremate!

Rex Minor
umar says:

January 14, 2012 at 12:43 am

harry pasha are u paid by slumdog bhartis?
rex minor says:

January 15, 2012 at 5:04 am

Zardari is a professional survivor and is probably right now beavering about a solution to neutralise Pakistan military: Gillani must go and make place for the next goof!

Rex Minor