Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Will NSC end military intervention? By Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi It appears that Pakistan will soon have a National Security Council (NSC) to provide a legal cover to the expanded role of the top military brass in the country. The government has enough votes at its disposal to secure the passage of the NSC bill through parliament. Despite the MMA's efforts to distance itself from the bill, its agreement with the government last December for, among other things, setting up such a council through ordinary legislation offered the military an easier way out to creating a legal basis for a political role. There are two perspectives on the NSC. First, there is hardly any justification for the establishment of the NSC, as envisaged in the bill, within a democratic framework. It impedes the growth of autonomous civilian political institutions and processes, which is a pre-requisite for ensuring the sustainability of participatory governance, especially under the parliamentary system. Second, one can view the NSC as an effort to provide a legal cover to an undeniable reality of Pakistani politics. The military is the most formidable political player in Pakistan with enough clout to influence the nature and direction of political change. The top brass of the military can continue to play this role even if there is no NSC. The proposed legislation recognizes a reality and brings it within the ambit of law, which parliament can change by a simple majority. The NSC in Pakistan is not comparable with similar bodies in the US and India in terms of purpose and scope. In the US, the NSC was set up under an act passed in July 1947 to offer advice on security related issues to the president who actually runs the government under a presidential system of government. The chairman, joint chiefs of staff, is the only uniformed officer who participates as an advisor on military affairs. This body limits the role and input of the military top brass and asserts the primacy of the civil over the military. Over the years, the president's national security advisor, who is a civilian, has acquired much salience. India established an NSC in November 1998 as a six-member body presided over by the prime minister. The Indian armed forces are not represented in this body and do not have direct access to the political leadership at this level. The NSC has established three organizations: the Strategic Policy Group, the National Security Advisory Board, and the Secretariat. The three service chiefs are accommodated in the Strategic Policy Group which also includes the cabinet secretary and secretaries of relevant ministries, the heads of intelligence agencies and the governor of the Reserve Bank of India. It is noteworthy that the president is not involved in the process and the service chiefs sit in a committee whose other members for the most part have the status of federal secretary in the Pakistani context. The Pakistani NSC is comparable with the Turkish NSC first set up in 1961 when General Cemal Gursel returned the country to constitutional governance after military rule (1960-61). The NSC was also included in the 1982 constitution after another spell of direct military rule under General Kenan Evren. Though the NSC has civilian representation, the Turkish military has successfully used the NSC to assert its role. This is coupled with informal pressures for influencing policy-making. For a long time (1960-1989) the presidency was occupied by serving or retired military commanders. However, the institution of the NSC did not save Turkey from direct military intervention (a coup in 1980) and the pressures employed by senior commanders against the prime ministers. Some prime ministers like Erbakan got a rough deal at the hands of the NSC. The role of the NSC is now being diluted in order to strengthen democracy as a pre-condition for Turkey's admission to the European Union. Turkey's experience suggests that the setting up of the NSC is no guarantee that the military would not directly intervene through a coup or the senior commanders would not pressure the civilian government for pursuing policies to their satisfaction. If the generals cannot get their way through the NSC, other means of changing government policies and personnel cannot be ruled out. General Zia-ul-Haq wanted to set up a National Security Council but the idea was dropped as a part of the deal for the approval of the eighth constitutional amendment by parliament for legitimizing changes in the constitution through the Revival of the Constitution Order of March 1985. In late 1996, the interim government of President Farooq Leghari and interim Prime Minister Meraj Khalid established a Council for Defence and National Security, which could not be operative because a new and elected government assumed power after the February 1997 elections. President General Pervez Musharraf revived the idea and established a National Security Council in 2001 (Chief Executive's Order No. 5 of 2001) but this body did not hold a single session. However, this was incorporated in the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in August 2002, as a consultative body on "strategic matters pertaining to the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the state; and the matters relating to democracy, governance, and inter-provincial harmony." In December 2003, when the government and the MMA signed an agreement for resolving the stalemate on the LFO, the two sides agreed to set up such a council through ordinary legislation. The government has accordingly moved the bill but the MMA decided to oppose the bill, ostensibly to register its strong displeasure on the government's strident policy towards religious militancy. The desire to institutionalize the expanded role of the military goes back to the period of General Zia-ul-Haq who used the notion of "defence of the ideological frontiers" to justify such a role. His successors in the army during 1988-99 were willing to stay on the sidelines if their interests were not threatened and their sensitivities not disregarded by civilian political leaders. They closely monitored the performance of the civilian government and caused changes in government or its policies from the background. However, during the last spell of direct military rule under General Pervez Musharraf, the top commanders appear to have made up their minds for securing a permanent role in policy-making and management at the highest level. Several factors explain this change in disposition. The top commanders do not want to give a free hand to political leaders in order to prevent them from undermining state institutions like Nawaz Sharif did in the case of the supreme court, the presidency and the army during his second term. They have come to the conclusion that their role is critical to political stability, economic development and overall security. Therefore, they must have a direct role in policy-making and management even when the military is not directly ruling the country. Furthermore, the military has expanded its role in different sectors of the government, economy and civil society through a phenomenal expansion of the activities of various charitable trusts of the three services, and a large scale induction of retired and serving officers in government, semi-government institutions and organizations. The private sector accommodates senior military officers in order to avail of their linkages with the government and the military. Such an expanded presence of the military in non-professional sectors pushes the military to maintain interest in most sectors of policy-making and implementation. Given these considerations and interests, the top commanders' insistence on the setting up the NSC is understandable. The proposed NSC has slightly modified the goals originally set out in the LFO, but it gives sufficient leverage to the top brass over incipient civilian institutions. The new set-up can accommodate participatory pressures and maintain some semblance of democracy provided the political leaders cultivate a relationship of trust with the top brass of the military. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
