Speakers at a
discussion here on Tuesday attempted to contextualise the dominant role of the
military not just in internal politics, but also within South Asia.
The discussion “Civil-military
relations and policy implications” was part of the Sustainable Development
Policy Institute (SDPI)’s two-day conference titled ‘Sustainable development in
South Asia: shaping the future’, which started here on Tuesday.
Dr Bishnu Upreti, a political
analyst, said: “In post-conflict societies, military control by civilians is
often not possible.”
He was discussing the fragile balance
of power in Nepal.
In India, a close relationship
between economic growth and military spending, and a policy of ‘strategic
restraint’, had limited extra-constitutional power and control of the defence
institution, said scholar Sunil Dasgupta. This has certainly not been the case
in Pakistan.
Regional geo-politics, such as the
oft-quoted threat to the East, Afghans wars, and subsequent Nato/Isaf invasion
have been considered the imperative reasons for military engagement in affairs
of the state.
The military has expanded its role
from the fighting arm of the state, to shaping foreign and financial policies,
and has even attempted to control the parameters of religious and cultural
debate (such as during Ziaul Haq’s marital law years).
In an attempt to define the Pakistani
military, former director general ISPR Athar Abbas stated that “highly
disciplined, egalitarian and merit-based selection” was a reason for the
institution’s success over its national counterparts. “The military has no
objection in asserting civilian control, he added, but “weakness will invite
aggression.” Employed beyond its limits, the military does not want the system
to derail.
“There are no neat divisions between
civilian and military affairs,” Ejaz Haider, senior adviser at SDPI,
acknowledged but through an intricate negotiation process “it is important to
create a consensus on what the rule of the game, or state institutions, should
be.”
The constant flux in these rules have
weakened state structures, but recent judicial activism and parliamentary
debate on national security meant that the civilian-military balance could tilt
in favor of democratic control.
“While the military is important to
maintain order of the state, it has acted as an imperial institution that
considers itself above society,” argued Ilhan Niaz, a professor at Quaid-i-Azam University.
However, for Niaz, “sub-rational
decision making” based on caste and biraderi lines had exacerbated cleavages in
the state, “challenging meritocracy and inducting criminals” into the political
process.
The role of the security apparatus in
Pakistan is closely linked to the flow of foreign aid, in particular, US
assistance, said Ali Cheema, a political-economist at Lums. The political elite
or national wealth holders were not bearing the cost of military expenditures,
Cheema said.
According to his analysis, the fiscal
compact of state institutions had never been constructed, and political parties
were highly regionalised, creating further fragmentation in the political base.
|
