A stable political system is the best guarantor of national security and balanced civil-military relations. The inability to manage internal political disputes can end up in a crisis like the dismemberment of the country. The natural growth of state institutions in Pakistan was restrained due to military interventions and as a result, various institutions are still struggling and posturing for their rightful space. While the blame game among state institutions continues, democratic politics so far has failed to deliver good governance.

The military, as a state institution, has strong nationalistic character and its main strength lies in its merit-based selection and promotion system. The military ardently guards its internal autonomy and does not like any outside interference in its administrative and organizational matters. It believes that its internal accountability mechanism based on rough and speedy justice is essential for maintaining good order and discipline.

On the issue of why participatory politics are not translating into good governance, the different approaches of civil and military respectively remain at odds: participation first and performance later as against performance first and participation later. Then there is a fear with the military that the decentralisation of state resources will render the Federation weak and encourage centrifugal forces. This fear, however, is misplaced as it disregards the principle of unity in diversity in a heterogeneous polity.

There is a need for a formal forum for meaningful debates between the civil and military on critical national security issues as well as the contentious issues concerning civil military relations. Civilian government needs to take ownership of security and direct the military rather than vice-versa; the government should consider military as part of the system and defend it in the public sphere. It can only happen when the members of defence committees are well informed and clued up on complex security issues and have regular interaction with their uniformed counter parts.  On the other hand, military should not resist the objective control by the civilians. The military should continue to support the democratic process and remain confined to its constitutional role, resisting any move that can result in derailment of the system. The presentation would focuses on the interpretation of national security by the military all encompassing or it only takes a narrow institutional view confining to defence against external and internal threats in physical terms?