Civil Military Relation In Pakistan

Mudassar AliM.Osama Jahangir

Civil–military relations (Civil-Mil or CMR) describes the relationship between civil society as a whole and the military organization or organizations established to protect it. More narrowly it describes the relationship between the civil authority of a given society and its military authority.

WHAT IS CIVIL MILITARY RELATION

The term “civil–military relations” refers to the role of the armed forces in a society. It is not, perhaps, a happy phrase. It implies that the relations between the military and the civilian population are like labor-management relations, legislative-executive relations civil-military relations includes studies of how a military employs civilian contractors, how military bases interact with their neighbors, and how a nation's military affects its politics 

Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan Always on a Bumpy Road The most basic precondition of a true democratic setup is a

healthy civil-military relationship. In all democratic countries, an elected civilian government enjoys full control over the military. However, in Pakistan, control over governance has oscillated between the two; a decade of civilian supremacy followed by a decade of military rule. The reasons for this periodic shuffling are incompetent political leadership, weak political parties and institutions, rising power of civil-military bureaucracy, serious security threats to the country and frequent use of military in aid of civil power.

CIVIL MILITERY RELATION IN PAKISTAN

Soon after independence, in 1948, the Father of the Nation and the first Governor-General, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, passed away. Thus, a leadership void was created after just one year of the country's establishment. The first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was Quaid's right hand lieutenant, was also assassinated in 1951. About the rest of the leadership lot, the Quaid had ruefully remarked that “he had false coins in his pocket.” 

Similarly, in 1954, there were nine members of the Prime Minister's cabinet, who were not members of the Parliament, including Commander-in-Chief General Muhammad Ayub Khan. Moreover, Pakistan took nine long years to finalize its first constitution that was enforced on 23 March 1956. This inordinate delay allowed the Governor-General to continue with his authoritarian rule. This all was happening at a time when the country direly needed healthy democratic traditions. In addition, the first general elections in the country, which were due in 1951, were held after a lapse of almost quarter of a century, in 1970. This further strengthened the non-democratic and authoritarian tendencies providing space to civil and military bureaucracies to assume a dominant position in governance.

After seven years of instability (1951-58), in which as many as seven prime ministers rose and fell, the military regime put the country on the path of economic and political stability. Hamid Khan, a renowned lawyer, writes in “Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan”: “Ayub's term of office [1958-69] was the golden era for the bureaucracy, which exercised its powers, unbridled by any political interference.”Again, after the restoration of democratic governance during 1988-99, four governments were dissolved by the President of Pakistan invoking Article 58 (2)(b). On 12 October, 1999, the military once again ousted the elected government and Pakistan was again under their despotic rule. 

Present SituationPresently, however, the situation is different. Pakistan's political leadership is more mature and political parties are better established. The country has developed a middle class, an active civil society, a vibrant media and an independent judiciary. Whenever required, Parliament is getting briefing on security matters from the Services Chiefs and decisions are taken through consensus. Although military enjoys autonomy in its internal affairs, somewhat healthy civil-military relations exist. The Army is more deeply involved now than a decade ago in support of activities for the civilian government: law-and-order tasks; relief and rescue operations after natural disasters; the use of its organizational and technological resources for public welfare projects; greater induction of its personnel in civilian institutions; anti-terrorist activities; and containing narcotics trafficking.

Chronology

Ist •Gen.Ayoub Khan•1958-1969

2nd •Gen.Yahya khan•1969-1971

3rd •Gen.Zia•1977-1988

Events

Gen. Zia1977

• 3RD Martial Law

1988

• Died in Plain Explosion

Execution of ZA BHUTTO.

AFGHAN JEHAD AND IT AFTERMATH.

ISLAMIZATION OF PAKISTAN.

NUCLEAR PROGRAMME OF PAKISTAN.

ISI MQM JAMAT-E-ISLAMI RELATIONS WITH INDIA PAK-US RELATIONS

Events

Gen.Pervaiz Musharaf

4th Martial Law1999-2008

• Kargil war 1999.• War on Terror.• 17th amendment in

constitution.• Devolution plan for

Civil Bureaucracy.• Visit to India.• Judicial Coup 2007.• Lal Masjad Operation• Assassination of

Akbar Bugti.

Pakistan military is known to be one of the best military forces in the world who are capable to tackle any situation they face. But sometimes interest in politics have been seen in our army. But there were some reasons why the army took some interest in politics. Some of these causes are

Corruption

Threat to lives of citizen

Threat to army’s stabilization

Role of Judiciary

Threat of internal and external enemy attack

Weak Civil politics

When state becomes weak

Corruption:

Corruption is a basic problem every civilian government has to fight in order to keep the soldiers out of politics.

We can observe that corruption among politician is one of the factors that has lead various coup we have witness in our politics.

In October 1999, when Musharaf imposed martial law he also gave the reason of Pakistan going economically unstable.

Threats to Lives of Citizen:

When lives of citizens and innocent people are in danger than army has to show involvement in politics as they are known as defenders of the citizens. Musharaf stated the same reason after imposing the martial law. He said that his plane with 180 passengers was not allowed to land in Pakistan.

Threat to army’s stabilization:

Whenever army feels that there is threat to its integrity and government tries to destabilize the army and doing unwanted changes in army which may be a reason of external orders than army come into action.

Musharaf speech after imposing Martial law October 1999

Role of Judiciary

Chief Justice Munir in his epoch-making judgment in 1955 in the Maulvi Tamizudin Case upheld the incomprehensible and arbitrary action of Governor General Ghulam Muhammad of the dissolution of first constituent assembly under the Doctrine of Necessity.

Justice Munir opened the door for military and civil political adventurists in Pakistan.

Pakistan has been suffering since 1950’s till the dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhri by Perez Musharraf in 2007.

Threat of internal and external enemy attack

The relation between Pakistan and India have also been a reason of Army’s interference in politics. If the army feels that India is trying to destabilize Pakistan while the government is taking no action against them than army gets invoved in the act.

30,000 killed from 2009-2012 from only terrorismMany terrorist and militant groups operate in Pakistan

Sipah-e-Muhammad, LEJ, anti-India (LeT), Haqqani network

Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Al-Qaeda

When the politics in country becomes in stable

People not accepting the elected government

Rigging in elections

Danger of fight between different parties

Threat of loss of lives of people

When Zia ul Haq in 1977 imposed martial law he gave the reason of rigging in election due to which it was danger of fights betwwen different parties.

Zia ul Haq speech when he imposed Martial law in 1977 and became

president of Pakistan

Impacts of Military Interference in politics:

Some of the positive impacts of Military interference :

Whenever military has ruled our country, a big ecnomic increase was produced. According to the researches made it has been clear that Pakistan’s growth rate was increased in military rule.

Strength to armed forces

Whenever the military rule begans armed forces feel free and they like the military rule due to which their performane is increased .

As we saw Pakistan army fighting hard in 1965 and 1971 war.

Army rulers know how to increase the motivation of armed forces and the people. Such strength in military lead to victory.

Negative impacts of Military Role in politics:

Less freedom of speech

In military rule the president don’t like any thing on media which he doesn’t like.

Ban on News paper and channels may be imposed.

Weak judiciary:

Judges are not allowed to make decisions right. It has been shown in military rule that it doesn’t allow a decision that is against them.

If such decisions which they don’t like they impose the judges who make decision according to the choice of ruler.

Conclusion

Pakistan inherited the well established tradition of supremacy of civil-political over military institution under British political theory.

Within a few years of her independence, Pakistan encountered the ever growing influence of military into politics.

In the end I conclude that military should keep itself away from politics but if situation gets worse than it should show its involvement in politics because army is that part of country to whom the people trust most.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, unlike India, Pakistan degenerated into a praetorian state with dreadful political, social and economic fallouts

This process of militarization of Pakistan owes its transformation to multiple variables as have been discussed. No single factor can be cited as the sole cause; rather, a cluster of causes led to the intervention of military into politics in Pakistan.

In the end I conclude that military should keep itself away from politics but if situation gets worse than it should show its involvement in politics because army is that part of country to whom the people trust most.