The military establishment in Pakistan has always played a dominant role in the country’s politics and has been the primary source of power since the country’s inception. But the question arises why military rulers have been able to gain power in Pakistan and how have they managed to maintain their grip on the country for so long
Going back almost half a century ago, Zia’s military regime in 1977 was marked by widespread human rights abuses, including the suppression of political dissent and the imposition of strict Islamic laws but still was able to maintain its grip on power because it had the support of conservative forces in Pakistani society, including religious leaders, the military, and the judiciary. Similarly, the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, was able to maintain its grip on power by using a combination of coercion and cooptation. Musharraf’s regime was marked by a series of constitutional amendments that strengthened the power of the military at the expense of civilian institutions. During Pervez Musharraf’s regime, which lasted from 1999 to 2008, the USA played a significant role in supporting his government, primarily due to Musharraf’s perceived cooperation in the “war on terror” following the 9/11 attacks. The US government considered Pakistan, under Musharraf’s leadership, a key ally in countering terrorism in the region which led to a neglect of long-term democracy-building efforts and rise of extremist groups in the country.
The Pakistani military is widely considered one of the most powerful in the world. It has a rich history, dating back to its formation in 1947, when it was created from units of the Raj’s British Indian Army. While Pakistan does have a strong military tradition and culture, there have been instances where the military’s involvement in politics and governance has raised concerns about the country’s democratic process. Despite being subservient to civilian officials, the military has a strong tradition of independence, as evidenced by its actions in preventing the government from acquiring nuclear weapons in the 1990s. The military has also been known to intervene in political affairs, such as in August 2018, when it overthrew a democratically elected government through what was in effect a military coup. This was in response to the elected leaders’ failure to control the country’s economy and account for lost funds due to corruption.
The military’s role in governance has also been criticized for undermining democratic institutions and processes. The military has been accused of controlling the media and suppressing dissenting voices, as well as using its influence to shape public opinion in favor of its preferred political candidates. Furthermore, the military’s involvement in the country’s economic affairs has also raised concerns. The military has significant business interests in several sectors, including real estate, construction, and agriculture. Some critics argue that this puts the military in a conflict of interest and undermines the country’s economic growth and development. Therefore, to keep the respect intact, it is essential for the military to maintain its professionalism and remain neutral in matters of governance to ensure a healthy democratic system in Pakistan.
It is with utmost irony that one must acknowledge Pakistan’s prolonged struggle with feeble civilian leadership. From the unfortunate assassinations of Liaqat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Benazir Bhutto, to the domination of the military in Parliament, the story of Pakistan’s executive branch has been nothing short of a tragicomedy. As if the military’s takeover in the 1980s wasn’t enough, military officers were appointed as governors in the provinces, allowing them to exert their power with impunity.
Meanwhile, the bureaucracy, largely controlled by military officers, operates outside the realm of accountability to elected officials. One cannot help but marvel at the satirical nature of Pakistan’s political landscape, where the country’s supposed leaders are merely figureheads, and the military is the true force to be reckoned with. Indeed, the situation in Pakistan is akin to a grand performance, with the actors merely playing their parts in a script written and directed by the military. How amusing it must be for those in power to see the citizens of Pakistan go about their daily lives, unaware of the farce that is their governance.
In essence, the military has maintained its grip on power through its control of major institutions such as the bureaucracy, legislature, judiciary, economy, and press. Overall, Pakistan’s limited rule of law and weak state capacity have contributed to the military’s continued dominance and its ability to hold sway over the country’s affairs. It is a situation that has persisted for far too long, and one that will require significant efforts to rectify.
Apart from that, the institutional presence of intelligence agencies in Pakistan is nothing short of overwhelming. From the humble beginnings of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) at independence to the creation of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1972, the number of intelligence agencies has only increased with time. However, the actions of these intelligence agencies have often been called into question, with accusations of promoting their own interests at the expense of the government. The ISI, in particular, has been accused of manipulating elections and politics in Pakistan, leading to a loss of trust in these agencies among the general public. To add to this already complicated situation, the military has created several non-military organizations, including the Frontier Corps (FC) and the National Logistics Cell (NLC). With so many intelligence agencies and non-military organizations in the mix, it’s no wonder that the situation in Pakistan is often described as opaque and complex.
When it comes to establishing the rule of law and enforcing it, Pakistan’s state capacity is unfortunately limited. This is a crucial factor in the dominance of the military establishment in the country’s politics. Legislative capacity has been weak, with a poor track record of passing laws regularly. Administrative capacity is also lacking, with the government struggling to implement policies and provide services to the population. Despite being subordinate to the elected government and civilian-controlled judiciary in theory, the Pakistani military has consistently acquired more power and authority than what is formally given to it by the constitution and the law. This is because the military has been able to control many of the most critical aspects of Pakistani political and social life. It has dominated the political system, controlled foreign policy, the economy, and internal security.
In essence, the military has maintained its grip on power through its control of major institutions such as the bureaucracy, legislature, judiciary, economy, and press. Overall, Pakistan’s limited rule of law and weak state capacity have contributed to the military’s continued dominance and its ability to hold sway over the country’s affairs. It is a situation that has persisted for far too long, and one that will require significant efforts to rectify.
