ON joining the army, every officer is bound to swear that he will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan, uphold the Constitution, and not engage in any political activities whatsoever. As per Article 243 of the Constitution, the supreme command of the armed forces vests in the president, who is to maintain, raise, and commission them into service.
More importantly, the control and command of the army vests in the federal government, led by the prime minister. This is further crystallised in the Rules of Business, 1973, which characterises the army as subordinate to the ministry of defence.
However, although the ideal of civil supremacy over the military is clearly entrenched in law, the distinction on the ground remains obscure. This is a result of various factors, the more important of which revolve around repeated military coups, a skewed power structure inclined towards a dominant army, as well as the perceived incompetency of political representatives.
The situation on the ground is arguably one where the military is routinely seen as transgressing its constitutionally defined boundaries by delving into issues of policy or politics. For example, when Hamid Mir was shot and injured last month, there were allegations linking ISI to the attack. Interestingly, ISPR decided to issue a statement which appeared to have nothing to do with its professional responsibilities.
In its press release, it hit out at allegations made by the family of Hamid Mir, describing them as misleading and regrettable. However, as per constitutional restrictions, the competency of the armed forces to issue such statements is debatable to say the least. In fact, being subordinate to the defence ministry, it was solely the latter’s prerogative to issue any statement.
Furthermore, recently, the army chief while discussing the achievements of his institution at the Martyrs’ Day event, ventured into foreign policy by announcing that any resolution of the Kashmir issue must be in line with the aspirations of the Kashmiri people and the UN resolutions. The statement attracted severe criticism from across the border, with political parties in India questioning the army’s right to make such political statements.
These examples are just a couple among many others indicating that the enactment of constitutional provisions or legislation to entrench an ideal or to contain institutional transgressions may not be sufficient in and of itself. In fact, it appears that to align the realities on the ground with constitutional provisions, the government must take some remedial measures.
The single-most important factor in establishing the ideal of civilian supremacy over the military is to garner the legitimacy of the democratic process itself. At the end of the day, the stakeholder who attains greater legitimacy in the eyes of the people shall be the one to eventually rule the country. In terms of civilian governments, such legitimacy is attained by delivering to its people, that is, by providing better living standards and basic facilities, including better infrastructure, healthcare, employment and education.
In addition, the government must also re-tailor its education system, including what is taught to young recruits of the armed forces and to take a clear partisan position on the upholding of the democratic process as opposed to autocratic regimes.
Syllabi and course work cannot extol military rulers at the expense of civilian leaders, or praise both alike. If Zulfikar Bhutto is praised for being a democrat, adulation of Gen Ziaul Haq for being a visionary is not without contradiction. Such praise for undemocratic regimes disallows democratic values from taking root, creates fissures and confusion in society, and amongst other things, results in polarisation and division in the media, political circles, as well as in civil society. In addition to the above, the government must also ensure that relations with its neighbours remain cordial. If the government were to achieve this, the need for such a large army, exorbitant military expenditure, as well as the military’s dominant role in shaping national security may well be diluted and brought within constitutional limits.
Although the armed forces in any country retain a supposed monopoly on the use of force, the establishment of the democratic ideal by civilian authorities has been achieved in various parts of the world on the strength of practical politics and idealistic objectives.
While this is clearly not appreciated in present-day Pakistan, the political forces of today must come to realise what the 30th president of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, understood during his time in the Oval Office, that is, “there is no force more democratic as the force of an ideal”.
The writer is an attorney-at-law.
Twitter: @basilnabi
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.