The Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif's statement on Monday, a little over five months after he was appointed, that "Pakistan army upholds the sanctity of all institutions and will resolutely preserve its own dignity and institutional pride" has fuelled debate on civilian military relationship.
General Sharif's statement was released by ISPR and significantly noted that it was in response to "the concerns of soldiers on undue criticism of the institution (army) in recent days." The statement did not clarify what constituted 'undue criticism' but the consensus is that it relates to the government's decision not to take Pervez Musharraf's name out of the Exit Control List (ECL) after the former army chief adhered to his side of the reported bargain by altering his confrontational legal team over night and presenting himself in court thereby finally allowing the court to indict him. The ISPR press release is being widely seen as a warning to the army's virulent detractors within the PML-N ranks and the media to back off from criticising an institution that has paid a heavy price in terms of fatalities to protect the people of the country.
The following day the Minister of Defence Khawaja Asif who, like many of his party workers including Khwaja Saad Rafiq endured grave injustice and torture during Musharraf's rule, in a palpable response stated in the national assembly that all institutions protect their dignity and pride however the parliament is supreme. There is no doubt that the constitution bars a military adventurer from dismissing an elected parliament and placing the constitution in abeyance till such a time as he has cobbled a motley group of politicians supporting him as the country's president - a group that fights what many regard as a rigged election.
However, in spite of the constitution, the ground realities in Pakistan indicate that power continues to be wielded by the army on a range of issues that, in mature democracies, are the domain of the civilian government. In addition, the army has consistently displayed a marked sensitivity towards civilian accountability of retired officers (and those on deputation) operating in sectors not related to the army's core business of protecting the country's borders and fighting the war on terror. A case in point is former army chief Kayani's decision in 2010 to reinstate and investigate two accused retired army generals implicated in a financial scam involving 1.8 billion rupees while serving in the National Logistic Cell. The country is still awaiting the outcome of the investigation.
There is a consensus that the army has played a pivotal role in domestic policies (allegations of interference in the country's politics have been commonplace in our history); in taking key decisions with respect to external as well as internal security threats (notably in relations with India, making the distinction between the good and the bad Taliban, and in dealing with the Balochistan insurgency); and foreign policy (with special reference to the grant of Most Favoured Nation status to India as well as relations with the US and Afghanistan). Few would challenge the need for the army to be on the same page as the civilian government on these important issues however critics point to three major incidents that took place during President Asif Ali Zardari's tenure that raised questions about the army's ability to ensure its own accountability: (i) public acceptance of the charge of incompetence levelled by the US with respect to being unaware of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, (ii) public acknowledgement that the army was unaware of more than six hour US navy seal raid on bin Laden residence; and (iii) release of Raymond Davis who had killed three Pakistanis in broad daylight.
There is a general perception that Asif Ali Zardari steered away from any confrontation with the army (exceptions being those times when his own self interest was involved for example in relation to the Memogate); in all other matters he either deferred to the wishes of the army or retracted once made aware of army's reservations for example retracting the notification making ISI subordinate to the Ministry of Interior, amending certain clauses of the Kerry Lugar bill. However by and large the newly installed PPP chairman Zardari opted to sustain the civilian-military status quo minus Musharraf. This, analysts argue, accounted for the first ever completion of the tenure of an elected government.
Nawaz Sharif however has publicly criticised the role of the army in the country's politics though the PML-N manifesto, perhaps propitiously from the perspective of not upsetting the applecart while out of power, does not tackle the issue head on and on page 86 the last sentence maintains that "it is equally important to overhaul and modernise the security sector in order to establish democratic and parliamentary oversight on intelligence services and to achieve better surveillance, improved co-ordination among intelligence agencies and enhanced capacity to counter insurgency forces at different levels."
The question then is what are the issues on which the civilian government and the army are not on the same page today? The first issue that comes to all minds today is Musharraf. No one knows with certainty that there was a deal between the government and the army to let Musharraf proceed abroad; however while Musharraf supporters refer to the government reneging on the deal the government supporters point to Musharraf's statement in court, delivered in his own arrogant style, where he remained unrepentant, claimed successes during his rule and expressed anger at being labelled a traitor as also not part of the deal.
Those politicians who argue that the army is not supporting their former chief must accept that by allowing a relatively spry man to remain in a heart hospital for three months with no tests or surgery scheduled is a soft if not a hard intervention. In addition it has to be acknowledged that the rather propitious bomb blasts around the time that the Musharraf cavalcade is scheduled to pass with no fatalities is perhaps another soft intervention by his well placed supporters, or so Khawaja Asif has publicly stated. These soft interventions imply that the army regards Musharraf as one of its own and his ten year stint as a dictator and the establishment of his political party has not diminished his army credentials or made him liable to civilian justice.
What about other matters that have a bearing on the army's long established prerogatives? Nawaz Sharif was gung-ho about granting India the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status but that has been placed on the back burner in spite of the intense diplomatic efforts spearheaded by Shahbaz Sharif and Khurram Dastgir that led to India's non-papers on reducing the SAFTA sensitive list by 30 percent - a major achievement for Pakistan's negotiators. The talk is that the government wisely decided to wait for after the Indian elections however analysts rightly maintain that Narendra Modi, if elected as the country's Prime Minister as expected, is unlikely to forge a trade deal with Pakistan but may have been unable to scrap a deal already signed by the Congress (I) government as domestic influential pressure groups would have made that difficult.
There has been no development on resolving the Balochistan issue through talks with the exiled Baloch leadership though the Chief Minister has been engaged in shuttle diplomacy - shuttling between Quetta, Islamabad and London. The missing persons' case continues and even though many argue that those who remain missing were engaged in heinous crimes against the state yet Baloch leaders argue that if the government can engage in talks with the banned Taliban then why not with the Baloch leadership? Be that as it may military operations continue in the restive province and it is unclear whether the government proactively sanctions these raids though Nawaz Sharif in January this year appreciated the role of security forces in "helping to bring normalcy in Balochistan and directed both political and military leadership to devise a joint strategy to ensure peace in the province." The failure to resolve the issue politically accounts for heinous massacres by the Baloch nationalists as well as destruction of gas pipelines with army reprisals.
Reports indicate that while the government is taking the army leadership on board in all decisions relating to negotiations with the Taliban yet there are some points of difference notably the declaration of cease-fire, time that the army fears may be used by the Taliban to recoup their losses prior to re-launching attacks, a view based on what happened in past agreements with some of the Taliban groups. In addition the army has also expressed concerns over the unilateral release of 16 non-combatants in the first week of April by the government to reinvigorate the peace process while the Taliban contend that not one of the 16 was on the list of 800 'non-combatants' that it provided to the government for release. Given the dissatisfaction of the army and the Taliban on the release of the 16 it is unclear why the government took this step.
There is thus a lively ongoing debate on civilian army relations in the country but what has been largely ignored is that this is also of considerable interest to the international community. A month before General Raheel's statement a report was presented to the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which stated that Nawaz Sharif is seeking to "acquire a more central policy-making role" (for civilians in areas that the Army has traditionally dominated). His push for an increased role in foreign policy and national security will probably test his relationship with the new Chief of Army Staff, particularly if the Army believes that the civilian government's position impinges on Army interests."
To conclude, it is critical for the government and the military to present a united front both within and outside the country. If the military has any reservations on how the government is dealing with certain issues then the appropriate forum is behind closed doors and if the civilian government has reservations on how a former army chief is to be treated then that too must be tackled behind closed doors. The government must surely have learnt the lesson that democracy is still in its infancy in this country and the army in turn must learn to proactively nurture this infant democracy though truth be told no Pakistani maintains that maturity is round the corner.