By Amjad Mehmood
—The game has entered in an interesting phase where political leaders are scuffling over the appointment of the next army chief. Perhaps, Pakistan is the only country on earth where an appointment of a government organization’s head matters a lot. A candid review of the overall scenario provides insight to discrete between the institution’s power and the actual state of democracy in Pakistan.
According to the constitution of Pakistan, it is sole prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint Chief of Army Staff (COAS) amongst the nominations received from the Ministry of Defense consisting of the senior Generals in the chain of command. The President in this case acts on the advice of the Prime Minister to execute the nomination summary for the appointment of army chief. The constitution and process concerning this appointment are very well defined and practiced too without any ambiguity.
On March 20, 1972, the “Commander-In-Chief” (C-in-C) post was renamed as “Chief of Army Staff (COAS)”. Before this date, six Commander-in-Chiefs’ served the Pakistan Army including two foreigners from the British empire named General Sir. Frank Walter Messervy (15 August 1947 to 10 February 1948) and General Sir Douglas David Gracey (11 February 1948 to 16 January 1951). Field Marshal Ayub Khan was the first native Pakistani to hold the appointment on 17 January 1951 and he remained in the position till 27 October 1958. The other three “C-in-C” were General Muhammad Musa Khan, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, and Lieutenant General Gul Hassan Khan. General Tikka Khan Janjua was the first Chief of the Army Staff appointed in March 1972 when the position was renamed as COAS. The last appointment as COAS was made on 29th November 2016 when General Qamar Javed Bajwa assumed the charge as 16th chief of the Pakistan Army.
The love and hate stories between the political parties, their leaders, and the Pakistan Army have a long history since 1951 when the first Pakistani native General started to lead the institution. The chronicle includes the inception of new political parties, political alliances to make and break governments, and decade-long dictatorships. In the meantime, new political parties emerged by adopting catchy slogans to attract the public and a few of them were purely sponsored by the military establishment to cut the popularity index of unacceptable political parties in the name of religion or nationalism.
In early 1953, the Pakistan Army was involved first time in national politics in the name of restoring law and order situation when Governor-General Malik Ghulam Muhammad, dismissed the state government of Chief Minister Mumtaz Daultana in Punjab, Pakistan with the approval of the then Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin. This invitation to the army from political leadership opened the gateway to the unconstitutional role of the military in political affairs. The huddles between military and political leaders continued for years and left the afflictive memories of the 1965 war and the fall of Dhaka. Being a popular political leader of a democratic party and elected Prime Minister, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto established a political wing in the country’s top spying agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during his regime. Later, his government was toppled and he was hanged through a Supreme Court decision in the late 1970s. The charm of absolute power enabled the military Generals to rule the country for decades.
The historians noted that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain, and Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi who became popular leaders in Pakistani politics started their journey from the nursery of the Pakistani military establishment. These obedient trainees later became public leaders and started popular politics to amaze their voters by giving an impression of being anti-establishment. Zulfiqar Bhutto was supported and launched by General Ayub Khan, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain are the finds of General Zia-ul-Haq and a chain of the military establishment has fostered Imran Khan over the years to reach the current zenith of Pakistani politics.
After 1999, General Musharraf’s coup, the military establishment engaged actively in the political affairs of Pakistan when a political party known as Pakistan Muslim League (Q) was formed and later took the charge of civil government in 2002 under the direct command of General Musharraf. Since this successful experience, the military establishment learned the art to rule the country indirectly without being infamous publically. Through a sustainable and gradual strategy, the military establishment remained successful to constitute their inevitable role as real ‘government’ in public minds. This impression is not only established within Pakistan but also internationally as the foreign governments and diplomats deem it appropriate to discuss bilateral matters with Pakistan Army’s command considering them ‘real’ policymakers, influential, and authority in Pakistan.
Civil-military relationships and power division between the civilian government and military establishment always trend on top in TV talk shows, newspaper reports, social media discussions, and as part of casual gossip between laymen in Pakistan. Media gurus, defense analysts, and political representatives express their intellectual might to decode this open secret.
In civilized countries, no one knows the names of their military chiefs and it never remains a priority topic of public debates. The countries having the world’s largest armed forces including the USA, China and Russia never came across this discussion where the appointment of a military chief is discussed at public forums. This is not even the case in India and Bangladesh which has substantial military strength. The strategic importance of Pakistan and security challenges in the region due to inimical neighboring states have augmented the importance of military forces in Pakistan. The need and importance of armed forces in Pakistan is an established reality but at the same time, their role is well defined in the constitution which restricts them to remain within the ambit of security domains and safeguarding the country from internal and external threats. Since 9/11 and the post-Afghan-US war, Pakistan’s armed forces have already faced critical phases and their sacrifices for the motherland are part of history written with the blood of thousands of martyrs. Their amusement for being called the ‘real’ government and experts of ‘make & break’ has diminished their unmatched sacrifices and the institution as a whole is being vilified publically.
Conventionally, political parties in government keep their plans most secret regarding the appointment of COAS amongst potential nominees. At different tenures, the close aides remained unable to make a correct prediction of party leadership’s decision. All such discussions were made behind closed doors by taking utmost care of secrecy. However, the charisma of recently ousted Prime Minister, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi converted this top-class secret topic into an open public debate where a layman is also commenting on the capacity and integrity of potential candidates. On the other hand, the current coalition government also accused Imran Khan for planning to appoint a ‘selective’ general as the next Army Chief by following his greater game strategy. The government and opposition both have geared the discussion about the army chief appointment to an extreme where a prediction meter and wish lists are rolling all around.
Recently, Mr. Khan in a public address while criticizing the government said, they want “a new army chief of their own choice” to protect their alleged corruption and ill-gotten wealth. Such statements from any political party are damaging to the repute of the possible appointee and the prestige of a disciplined organization. His statement was discussed and analyzed by political parties and media geeks that the former Prime Minister questioned the capability and integrity of potential nominees for the slot of army chief. The analysis also includes that Mr. Khan or his opponents just wanted support from the institution by appointing their favorite person for the country’s most influential slot which is again a surrender before the establishment at the cost of civilian supremacy. The internal difference between politicians always provided a vacuum for the military establishment to remain inevitable and relevant.
History is full of bitterness where both sides made blunt mistakes by protecting their vested interests. Resultantly, socio-economic development in Pakistan either ceased or progressed at a snail’s pace. Perhaps, this is a defining moment for all stakeholders to decide in the best interest of the country by affixing their role and participation as narrated in the constitution of Pakistan. Part-time loyalties or any act beyond the mandate would bring more gloom to the country in future.