Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
October 2016

PTI: It is time to sign the Charter of Democracy!

Given PTI’s announced lockdown of Islamabad on November 02, 2016, old fears of alleged covert support of military behind the PTI agitation resurfaced again.

Although PTI has a democratic right to protest, and it is a totally different debate whether it should protest inside the democratic forums it is elected to or disrupt citizens lives, it has been observed that the party and its Chairman show little, if any, restraint towards leaning on the military to oust what it has termed to be its key foe – the elected Federal Government of the PML-N. Mr. Imran Khan’s penchant for using cricket terms in politics such as the ‘Umpire’s Finger’ to wrap up the elected political system were on full display ahead of the November 2 planned lockdown of the country’s capital, just as those were extensively used before and during the 126-day long Dharna in 2014.

In what perhaps defines PTI’s leading strategy of the end justifying the means, it appears that the party has no qualms in exploiting the not-so-hidden differences in civil-military relations at this time. Consider for instance, the statement by PTI’s Senior Vice President, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, MNA that ‘the current distance between the military and civil government is not of ordinary nature’. According to a leaked video of his address to party workers on October 17, 2016 in Islamabad, Mr. Qureshi reportedly said the ongoing relations between the civil and military leadership were not different than those in 1999. In the context of Mr. Imran Khan’s earlier statement of endorsing a military coup against the civilian government led by prime minister Nawaz Sharif when he said “people would celebrate and distribute sweets if there was a military takeover in Pakistan,¹  he seemed to be echoing the same when he said that if anything happened to the country’s democratic setup, the Prime Minister would be responsible for it.²

In the checkered history of fledgling democracy between 4 coup d’états in 7 decades of Pakistan’s history, espousing and advancing of such a policy for a political party that is a recipient of 16.92% of the popular votes in General Election 2013, along with the party forming the government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is not just inappropriate for the party and its democratic ethos but extremely dangerous for the country. Two leading political parties of Pakistan, having learnt their respective lessons at the cost of huge disruption to democratic process during the decade of 1990s, signed a Charter of Democracy ³ essentially agreeing to respect electoral mandate of representative governments and not to undermine it through extra constitutional means. Isn’t it time that as a popular political party with a trailblazing record of galvanizing public support and changing its fortunes from 1 seat in the National Assembly in 2002-2008 to 33seats in the current National Assembly, PTI should have faith in its own popularity, mandate and policies, and sign the Charter of Democracy?

'Military Forced and Sucked into the Political Environment in Pakistan': Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf

The former President and COAS, Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf in an interview on September 29, 2016 with Mr. Robert Siegel of the Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum stated that ‘the Army has always played a prominent role in the governance of Pakistan, mainly because of the mis-governance of the democratically elected governments… the Military is forced and sucked into the political environment, especially when miss-governance is going on and Pakistan is going down in various socio-economic indicators’.⁴

PILDAT believes that the former President has raised some probing questions regarding civil-military relations in Pakistan.

Dawn’s Exclusive Story and its Aftermath

While PILDAT expressed and shared its opinion on the need to remove Mr. Cyril Almeida’s name from the ECL, ⁵ there are many questions that are important to be raised with regards to the unusual hullabaloo and developments following Dawn’s exclusive news story of October 06, 2016 titled Exclusive: Act Against Militants or face International Isolation:

• While violative of rules and contrary to the entire principle of in-camera meetings, leaks emanating from such meetings are not a novel phenomenon and have, in both the recent and distant past, emanated not only from security related in-camera sessions of the Parliament and All Parties Conferences, but also from one-on-one interactions between the Prime Minister and the Chief of Army Staff. Indeed one cannot fail to recall the insider account of the Prime Minister and COAS’ one-on-one meeting on May 10, 2016, published in the very same newspaper, citing the COAS ‘weighing in’ on the elected Premier of this country to ‘resolve the Panama Papers issue at the earliest’ whereas the presser issued by the Prime Minister Office gave out no such details.⁶
  
  In fact, there is a penchant for such leaks to surface after national security huddles, highlighting differences of civil-military leadership, especially in the case when the Military leadership is seen to be sitting in judgment of the elected Government’s performance. In the sad reality of what constitutes the lop-sided civil-military relations in Pakistan, such leaks apparently constitute ‘business-as-usual’ and either the elected Government chooses to ignore them or thinks unwise to depict similar outrage.

• Since the publishing of story and resulting developments, many journalists have publicly shared that they also had the contents of the same story as Mr. Almeida, thus providing a tacit support to the veracity of the story. While one may or may not agree with Mr. Almeida’s judgment to file the story, and the newspaper’s editorial decision to carry it as important for public consumption regardless of the national security considerations, the news story, in the judgment of some readers, may have carried slightly sensationalist and vivid hue, which may not have been desirable in reporting on such sensitive matters. However, the real issue of concern is that a participant at the meeting disclosed in such vivid detail what should have been kept behind closed doors. The development may take away from the atmosphere of trust and official secrecy that are crucial to such meetings and therefore, PILDAT supports an investigation into where the leak emanated from and holding those responsible accountable as a matter of paramount importance. However, the inquiry needs to be focused on where and how the leak has occurred.

Simply due to the cleavages it exposed in civil-military relations, we believe a timeline of development emanating from publication of Dawn’s exclusive news story of October 06, 2016 is important to be produced in PILDAT’s Monitor on Civil-Military Relations:

Table 1: Timeline of Developments on Dawn’s Story

Premier-COAS Interactions

The Prime Minister and the COAS met thrice during October 2016. In each of these meetings, Federal Minister of Defence was not present. The details are as follows:

Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
September 2016

Pakistan Rangers (Punjab) Deployed in Punjab

In a development, which has seemingly failed to catch the eye of observers amidst hostility between Pakistan and India, the Provincial Government of the Punjab called in the Pakistan Rangers (Punjab) for a limited operation against terrorist outfits in specifically ‘designated areas’.¹⁴ The Provincial Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Rana Sanaullah Khan, MPA, made an announcement in this regard on September 09, 2016, with the Federal Ministry of Interior issuing a notification on the same upon the request of the Provincial Government. The request was made under Section 7 and Section 10 of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 ¹⁵ for an initial period of two months.¹⁶

It must be noted that Rana Sanaullah Khan was particularly careful in establishing that the Rangers would only assist the Provincial Police and the Counter Terrorism Department in conducting operations, perhaps to guard against the larger-than-life role that the paramilitary force has attained in Sindh.

The Provincial Government of the Punjab had come under increasing pressure with regards to its somewhat lackluster performance in controlling the law and order situation in some parts of the province, especially during the past one-year. The two incidents of the blast in Lahore’s Gulshan Iqbal Park on March 27, 2016 and the assassination of the Provincial Home Minister, Col. (Retd.) Shuja Khanzada in Attock in August 2015 were particular causes of concern. Subsequently, the failure of the Provincial Government’s law enforcement apparatus to contain the Chottu Gang in southern-most part of Punjab also signified a centralized governance model, with the peripheries of the province apparently ignored.

In the larger context of policing in the province, it is important to note that with the requisitioning of Rangers, the Provincial Government of the Punjab has also resorted to a quick fix because of which the policing service in Pakistan, especially in Sindh, is suffering. The requisitioning signifies the policing woes of the Provincial Government of the Punjab, especially in the peripheries of the province, which came to the fore with the shameful resistance put up by the Chottu Gang in April 2016.

 The deployment of Rangers to aid with policing, and maintenance of law and order, might be an easy option, but it has long-term adverse ramifications. Consider the case of Karachi, where the Rangers have become a permanent feature of the law enforcement dynamics of the province for more than 20 years. What are required are certain reforms in the policing service of the province, which have already been outlined by PILDAT in the case of Punjab’s police.¹⁷

United Kingdom’s Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Calls on the COAS

As noted previously, the centrality of the Military leadership in particular areas of our foreign policy, and the COAS’ resultant exclusive interactions with visiting foreign civilian leadership has become an established trend. In line with that, the United Kingdom’s Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Mr. Owen Jenkins, called on the COAS at the GHQ on September 05, 2016.

According to the presser issued by the ISPR, ‘Matters of regional security and mutual interest came under discussion during the meeting. The visiting dignitary appreciated Pakistan Army’s achievements and continuing efforts in fight against terrorism and contribution for regional peace and stability’.

It is interesting to note that during his one-day visit, Mr. Jenkins’ only official engagement was with the COAS. 

Premier-COAS Interactions

The month of September 2016 saw the Premier and the COAS interacting twice.

In both the meetings, the Federal Minister of Defence, was not present.

Monitor on Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
August 2016

Quetta Blast: Civil-Military Relations in the Aftermath of a Tragedy

Almost 70 people lost their lives, most of them lawyers, on August 08, 2016, when a bomb ripped through a civil hospital in Quetta, in the wake of the arrival of Mr. Bilal Anwar Kansi’s dead body after the target killing of the  leader of Balochistan’s legal community earlier in the day.²⁰

Quetta blast brings us face to face with another heinous reminder that Pakistan is facing more than its fair share of security-related challenges, which are perhaps unique only to our case. Existing in a hostile neighborhood, with frayed regional relations, and a raging militancy amidst the larger context of proxy warfare, necessitate an enhanced role for not only the Armed Forces, but for the intelligence agencies who remain our first line of defence against the enemy’s nefarious designs, both seen and unseen. We, as citizens of this nation, stand proud of the services rendered in this regard, and duly recognize that in this line of work, recognition for achievements is hard to come by, whereas criticism for failure is easily made.

However, this does not mean that accountability of the intelligence agencies, and criticism directed at them at public fora amount to actions that necesserily damage our national interest. Therefore, Mr. Mehmood Khan Achakzai’s question of whether Quetta Attack was an intelligence failure, and if so, his demand that the Premier should initiate accountability of the concerned officers, was certainly not an unreasonable demand.

Unfortunately, it seems that his comments in the National Assembly attracted the wrath of not only the Interior Minister, who categorically stated that such remarks were ‘unacceptable’,²¹ but also the Prime Minister who stated in his address in the National Assembly on August 10, 2016 that ‘intelligence agencies are working day and night to defeat designs of the country's enemies’.²²

This however was not where the reaction stopped. The Election Commission of Pakistan also sought a reply from the Pashtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party’s (PMAP) Parliamentary Leader over a disqualification petition filed with the institution against his allegedly anti-Pakistan remarks.²³

PILDAT believes that the incidence of such terrorist attacks does necessitate robust soul searching and fresh look at the effectiveness of the intelligence agencies, which will not only result in an increased public confidence in them, but will also strengthen them. In fact such accountability, certainly at the Cabinet and at the Parliamentary level, should regularly and institutionally take place for Pakistan to avoid incidents such as the GHQ attack, Mehran base attack, raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Quetta, the APS Peshawar Tragedy, etc., to name a few unfortunate and damning incidents in a series of security-related threats that surround us.

It is not just ironic but reflects a deep institutional malaise in Pakistan that that while military remains in charge, and also wants to be seen to be in-charge²⁴ questions on institutional accountability that come with authority, have not become an established norm until now.

In a very pertinent analysis, daily Dawn, in its Editorial of August 11, asked the following:

‘After more than a decade of near-total control of security policy and a dominant hand in the security arrangements of the province, why is Balochistan’s intelligence apparatus unable to detect a plan as sophisticated as the one that unfolded in Quetta on Monday? Surely, it is not unpatriotic to ask if everything possible is being done before deaths occur, and not after’.²⁵

Implementation of the National Action Plan: Still a Thorny, Public Issue

The Quetta Attack brought to the fore the latent civil-military friction with regards to the implementation of the National Action Plan, with the contention yet again spilling out into the public, with the Military leadership initiating public criticism of the elected Government.

Although a Press Release was not issued by the ISPR this time around, as on November 10, 2015, major newspapers quoted the COAS as saying ‘Unless all prongs deliver meaningfully and all inadequacies are addressed, remnants of terrorism would continue to simmer, and long term peace and stability would remain a distant dream’ in the aftermath of a security meeting held at the GHQ on August 12, 2016.²⁶

Incidentally, the GHQ meeting came a day after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif chaired a meeting in Islamabad, which concluded with formation of a Implementation and Review Committee, to be led by the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasser Khan Janjua, to oversee implementation on NAP.

PILDAT recognizes that the Elected Government appears to be unable to display the proactive leadership that is particularly required with regards to the implementation of the NAP. For example, there is no clear indication of the progress achieved by the various Committees formed by the Prime Minister to implement the NAP. Additionally, the Federal Government has also not yet brought a comprehensive package to reform Pakistan’s justice system, which necessitated the 21st Constitutional Amendment leading to the formation of Military Courts. It is hoped that the latest Implementation and Review Committee formed by the Premier is also not an eyewash measure, but actually leads to meaningful progress.

However, the military leadership has shown an unfortunate inclination to sit publically in judgment of the performance of the Elected Government, which, to say the least, certainly violates the Constitutional and institutional role and space of military. The result is Pakistan has to suffer at the hands of de-facto two parallel national regimes in place, with the military throwing its weight around as the senior partner reprimanding the elected Government publically at will as and when it pleases. Consider, on the other hand, the irony, that elected Government bears down with full force against even a question of accountability of military led-intelligence agencies against political veterans such as Mr. Achakzai demanding this in the publically mandated Parliament.

Despite this de-facto position, a civilized system would demand that differences in opinion and strategy are tackled inside official fora, in this case most-pertinently the National Security Committee that is very casually bypassed as Prime Minister and COAS meet frequently for one-on-one meetings. Even these official meetings offer an opportunity to be on the same page. One is sympathetic to and demands institutionalization of national security decisions through consultations but one is also compelled to ask what purpose is served, other than unfortunate attempts to humiliate elected leadership, when the military leadership, consistently and rightly proud of serving and maintaining the discipline of a fine national institution, resorts to public criticism instead of working within the system to build and strengthen it?

COAS’ Interactions with Foreign Political Leadership

The COAS held the following meetings during the month of August 2016 as a part of his foreign visits:

Apart from these, the GHQ also remained a must-visit, with the following foreign political dignitaries calling on the COAS:

The Saudi Defence Minister and Crown Prince calling on the COAS at the GHQ on August 29, 2016.

Apart from this on August 25, 2016, the COAS also called the Afghan President, Dr. Ashraf Ghani, on telephone to express solidarity in the aftermath of the attack on the American University in Kabul the same day.

This brings the tally of COAS’ in-country meetings with foreign civilian dignitaries to 77, with 33 foreign visits since his appointment in November 2013.

Premier-COAS Interactions

For the month of August 2016, a total of three meetings took place between the Premier and the COAS, the details of which are as follows:

In all three meetings, the Federal Minister for Defence, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA was absent, while the National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Nasser Khan Janjua was present.

References: