‘The military has overwhelmed the Pakistani state’

Daily Times, May 9, 2005
‘The military has overwhelmed the Pakistani state’

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The Pakistani state and society stand overwhelmed by the military that has left no autonomous role for civilian and civil society institutions, according to Dr Hassan-Askari Rizvi, one of Pakistan’s leading authorities on civil-military relations.

Dr Rizvi was speaking to a select group invited at the Brookings Institution on Friday afternoon by Stephen Cohen, head of its South Asia programme.

The Lahore-based academic, who is on a short visit to the United States, said unless there is a civil society, there can be no democracy. He said the army was both a blessing and a liability. It was a blessing in the sense that despite repeated interventions in domestic politics, it had managed to retain its professionalism and cohesive character. Had it been otherwise, the state of affairs would be too horrible to imagine. He called the army a disciplined and task-oriented force in a divided society. It was a liability because it had assumed control of both state and society and thus prevented the growth of democracy and democratic institutions. The army may be in control, he pointed out, but it continues to face a “crisis of legitimacy”. In Pakistan, societal commitment to democracy at the normative and the ideological levels has always been strong, he stressed

Dr Rizvi said the military always needs a semblance of civilian participation. Although Pakistan had a parliament, its value and effectiveness depends on the importance President Pervez Musharraf, who is also the army chief, chooses to attach to it. If the military feels that the parliament is chaotic, the role of parliament in that case will be limited and it was not become the pivot of power. Power in Pakistan, he emphasised, lies with the Presidency. Under Gen Pervez Musharraf, the military has assumed a new political ethos. Under Gen Ziaul Haq, the military remained on the sidelines. He said as long as a civilian government does not question the interests of the army, it can remain in office, but as soon as it does, such as happened in the case of Nawaz Sharif, the military will move against the civilian government. Since 1999, he added, the Pakistani military has seen itself as the guardian of the national interest. It is no longer willing to stay on the sidelines. So extensive have its interests become, including commercial ones, that it feels it can no longer afford to risk losing control of the instruments of power. The military operates a rewards system and to ensure that it keeps working with the necessary resources, the military feels that it needs to be in control of the state.

Dr Rizvi said, as things stand, Pakistani politicians are required to work within the space the military provides them with. This space can increase, depending on the skill of the politicians. The military has set in motion a policy of cooption coupled with a policy of exclusion. Some politicians, such as Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, have been excluded, others permitted to operate as long as they do so according the ground rules laid down by the military. The road to political power in Pakistan runs through the GHQ. The ISI has been given wide powers and it is this agency that deals with the politicians and negotiates with them on behalf of the regime. There are many who believe that in order to succeed, a politician needs a three-star general as godfather. He said he saw no imminent threat to the military in the form of popular, nationwide street agitation. The ability of political parties to evoke voluntary support is limited. Although there are growing strains between the military and the religious parties, they do not pose any serious threat to the present power structure. While in Punjab and the NWFP, there is little or on resentment against the military, the situation in the smaller provinces is different. Political leaders like Sharif and Ms Bhutto who can mobilise public opinion and organise protests are not going to be allowed to return. President Musharraf, he added, appears to be confident that he can manage the politicians. While since 9/11 on the macro level, Pakistan has stabilised economically, the lot of the common man has not improved at all. In fact, it may have worsened. The Pakistani society remains divided along class lines and there are no signs that egalitarianism will gain ascendancy.

Dr Rizvi said only if the mainstream parties and the religious groups come together can they challenge the government, but he saw no sign of that coming about. He said if India-Pakistan relations improve, it will help Pakistan economically – and that would in turn be food for the present ruling order. However, it after a year, Pakistan has made no tangible gains from the present détente with India, there would be a reaction on the popular level. He pointed out that there is a great deal of scepticism in the public as to India’s sincerity in the ongoing dialogue. He said after Kargil, the military had come to the conclusion that international diplomacy was important. He said by and large there was popular support today for normalising relations with India, but things could change if no gains become visible.

In the question-answer session that followed, PPP Senator Akbar Khawaja asked why it was that while the regime had unconditionally pardoned Dr AQ Khan who had confessed on television that he had done wrong, it was unwilling to show the same magnanimity towards the two popular leaders of Pakistan, Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif. Dr Rizvi appeared to be in agreement with the questioner but unable to offer an explanation on behalf of Gen Musharraf and his government.

In answer to a question about jihadi groups, Dr Rizvi said not all militants were under the control of the ISI. These groups proliferate and though the authorities can keep them quiet, they cannot do that to the extent that India, for example, demands. He said it was not even quite clear what the “infrastructure of terrorism” that India was always calling on Pakistan to “dismantle” involved. He dismissed a suggestion that “junior officers” of the military being “Islamist” could stage a revolt. He said any officer who fell out of line could not expect to stay in the military for long. He also clarified that while in the last 25 to 30 years, army officers had become more religiously oriented that did not mean they had become “Islamist” of “jihadi.” Islam, he added, was a part of military ideology in Pakistan. Stephen Cohen, who moderated the meeting, said at one point that while the military can manipulate politicians, it cannot thereby gain the legitimacy that it seeks.