Guardians or Masters: Military and Politics in Developing Countries

Guardians or Masters: Seven Reasons Why the Military Should Stay Away from Politics

Since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, one constant feature of its political landscape has been the entanglement of its armed forces in politics. Whether direct or indirect, this interference has been a persistent issue, posing significant challenges to the country's democratic fabric, rule of law, federalism, institutional development and overall political and economic development. This is not to let politicians off the hook, who have also played fiddle to curry favor from the real power brokers. Pakistan’s history is fraught with instances of military involvement in politics, often resulting in turbulent transitions and institutional erosion. While the military may have played a crucial role in safeguarding national security at times, its foray into politics has been detrimental to its own institutional integrity, reputation and long-term effectiveness.

Despite various attempts to curtail its influence, the military's involvement in political affairs remains a contentious issue. Here are seven compelling reasons why the army should stay clear of politics.

1. Legitimacy Crisis: Historically, military interventions in Pakistan have left a stain on the country's quest for legitimacy. Despite assuming power under the pretext of restoring order or combating corruption, military regimes have struggled to gain widespread acceptance both domestically and internationally. Legitimacy, crucial for any government's effectiveness, remains elusive under military rule or hybrid governance models, undermining Pakistan's democratic credentials. Given Pakistan’s own history, this quest for legitimacy by the armed forces will continue to remain elusive.

2. Undermining the Rule of Law: When the military extends its reach into politics, it inevitably places itself above the law, undermining the very principles of justice and equality that form the bedrock of any democratic society. Institutions meant to uphold the rule of law lose their autonomy and effectiveness as the military exerts undue influence, creating a culture of impunity that erodes trust in the justice system. Once the trust erodes in the justice system, it is likely to lead to political instability and impaired economic development and growth.

3. Eroded Professionalism and Image: Political entanglements tarnish the professionalism of the military, undermining its reputation as a disciplined and apolitical institution. The perception of impartiality and dedication to duty suffers when the military is seen as a player in the political arena. Such actions can diminish morale within the ranks and erode public confidence in the armed forces, damaging their long-term effectiveness. Political involvement breeds internal divisions, compromises chain of command, and undermines the cohesion necessary for effective military operations.

4. Economic Distortions and Corporatism: The military's outsize role in Pakistan's economy, from owning businesses to engaging in lucrative ventures, distorts economic fundamentals and stifles private enterprise. This corporatist approach not only hampers economic growth but also creates an uneven playing field, perpetuating inequality and hindering sustainable development.

5. Weakening National Unity: Military involvement in politics can exacerbate divisions within society, particularly along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines. By aligning itself with one political faction or interest group, the military risks alienating other segments of the population and fueling social unrest. A politically neutral military, on the other hand, can serve as a unifying force, representing the interests of all citizens regardless of their political affiliations. The events of 1971 and its aftermath are a testimony to this.

6. Weakening of State Institutions: Military intervention in politics erodes the institutional integrity of both the armed forces and other state organs. By assuming roles beyond its constitutional mandate, the military weakens civilian institutions, including the judiciary, bureaucracy, and legislature, thereby disrupting the delicate balance of power essential for democratic governance. By exerting undue influence and subverting the democratic process, the military undermines the checks and balances necessary for a functioning democracy. This erosion of institutional integrity fosters a culture of dependency and authoritarianism, stifling democratic norms and values. Maintaining institutional integrity ensures the military remains a respected and trusted institution, capable of fulfilling its core responsibilities.

7. Diminished Focus on External Threats/National Security: As the military becomes entrenched in internal affairs and political maneuvering, its ability to effectively address external threats diminishes. The gradual decline in its role as a fighting machine dedicated to protecting the country from external enemies compromises national security and exposes Pakistan to heightened risks in an increasingly volatile region. The primary role of any military is to safeguard the nation's borders and protect against external threats. However, when the military becomes embroiled in political matters, its attention is diverted from these critical duties. Internal political wrangling consumes resources and energy that could otherwise be directed towards enhancing military readiness and addressing external security challenges. By being focused on external threats and remaining within its constitutionally defined mandate, the military can better protect Pakistan’s interests, deter aggression, and promote regional stability, thereby fulfilling its fundamental duty to the nation. Seven decades are more than enough for countries to figure out the right path and the road to prosperity for its common citizens and not just the so-called elites. Whether it is direct military rule or hybrid system both are destructive to rule of law. Country cannot afford to have a power structure where authority and empowerment lies with one institution and responsibility and accountability rests with civilian governments. This vicious cycle has to stop and Pakistan needs atleast 15 to 20 years of uninterrupted democratic process before democracy can truly take roots in the country.

Recent elections held on February 8, 2024 in Pakistan is a clear indication that its citizens want to renegotiate the decades old social contract between those who wield the power in Pakistan and the people of Pakistan.

Military's extra constitutional role poses grave risks to Pakistan's democratic stability, rule of law, and long-term security. Upholding the constitution and respecting democratic norms are not only essential for the military's own reputation and professional integrity but also for the well-being of the federation and sustainable economic growth promoted by upholding the rule of law. It is imperative for Pakistan to chart a new course and a social contract where the military remains firmly within its constitutional mandate as the guardian of the nation, rather than political masters. Only then can Pakistan realize its full potential as a thriving democracy, regional economic power house and a responsible member of the international community even though it may take a decade or more.

(This article is dedicated to Prof Donald Smith of University of Pennsylvania who taught us the course on military & politics in third world )

Add reaction