Author: Viktoriya Malikova
Links: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-army-chief-asks-officers-to-read-book-on-success-of-indian-democracy/story-wa7Ii1EiHEkBYmmiHVZTmK.html
Shvetsova and Barany in their analyses of such countries as Russia, Romania and Slovenia, describe how depolarization of the military is difficult in the states which had a long history of autocracy. Barany, in particular, claims that as the support of military was vital for the soviet regime, possibility of military being apolitical was never mentioned. Therefore, after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the depolitization of army takes a time to be changed. This process, however, can be even more difficult in the case of a country which went through a military type of the regime and experienced a number of coups. This can be clearly seen from the example of Pakistan. The author of the article explicitly emphasizes that “the fact that Pakistan is a country which has been ruled by the army for almost half its history” make the civil military relations in it very difficult.
The author also makes a hint that one of the reasons for why the previous army chief left his post because of his bad relations with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It is another clear example of the tensions in the civil-military relations. The fact that this person is no longer in power may be example of government’s using one his tools to “punish” the disobedient armed servant by firing him.
The current Army Chief Bajwa, seems to take this problem of civil-military relations very seriously and he makes certain attempts at tackling it. In particular, this article discusses Bajwa’s unusual public advice to the Pakistani officers to read a book called “Army and Nation: The Military and Indian Democracy since Independence” which, as it can be predicted from its name, discusses building of the civil-military relations in democratic countries, focusing on India example. This advice is twice unusual as Baija encourages Pakistani officers to learn from India – a country with which Pakistan has tense relations.
In general, such recommendation may demonstrate that the current Pakistani Army chief supports the classical Huntington’s theory about importance of the civilian control over the military. For example, his own words were that “competition between the civilians and the military is counter-productive for the country.” The practice, however, shows that, in spite of this beautiful rhetoric, the army in Pakistan continues to actively oppose the government. In the recent land disagreement, for example, Balja himself explicitly disagreed with the government. It follows that there is a gap between the military words and actions.
Therefore, Balja’s promise of supporting and assisting the government under the moto of “United we rise” should be followed by clear definitions of such assistance which should not imply intervention into the politics. Pakistan clearly has a long way ahead before finding the balance in the civil military relations and establishing of the civilian control.
______________
References:
Shevtsova L. 1996. “Russia’s Fragmented Armed Forces.” In Civil-Military Relations and Democracy. Edited by Diamond, Larry, and Marc F, Plattner. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Barany Z. 2012. Chapter 7. in The Soldier and the Changing State. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Links: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-army-chief-asks-officers-to-read-book-on-success-of-indian-democracy/story-wa7Ii1EiHEkBYmmiHVZTmK.html
Shvetsova and Barany in their analyses of such countries as Russia, Romania and Slovenia, describe how depolarization of the military is difficult in the states which had a long history of autocracy. Barany, in particular, claims that as the support of military was vital for the soviet regime, possibility of military being apolitical was never mentioned. Therefore, after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the depolitization of army takes a time to be changed. This process, however, can be even more difficult in the case of a country which went through a military type of the regime and experienced a number of coups. This can be clearly seen from the example of Pakistan. The author of the article explicitly emphasizes that “the fact that Pakistan is a country which has been ruled by the army for almost half its history” make the civil military relations in it very difficult.
The author also makes a hint that one of the reasons for why the previous army chief left his post because of his bad relations with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It is another clear example of the tensions in the civil-military relations. The fact that this person is no longer in power may be example of government’s using one his tools to “punish” the disobedient armed servant by firing him.
The current Army Chief Bajwa, seems to take this problem of civil-military relations very seriously and he makes certain attempts at tackling it. In particular, this article discusses Bajwa’s unusual public advice to the Pakistani officers to read a book called “Army and Nation: The Military and Indian Democracy since Independence” which, as it can be predicted from its name, discusses building of the civil-military relations in democratic countries, focusing on India example. This advice is twice unusual as Baija encourages Pakistani officers to learn from India – a country with which Pakistan has tense relations.
In general, such recommendation may demonstrate that the current Pakistani Army chief supports the classical Huntington’s theory about importance of the civilian control over the military. For example, his own words were that “competition between the civilians and the military is counter-productive for the country.” The practice, however, shows that, in spite of this beautiful rhetoric, the army in Pakistan continues to actively oppose the government. In the recent land disagreement, for example, Balja himself explicitly disagreed with the government. It follows that there is a gap between the military words and actions.
Therefore, Balja’s promise of supporting and assisting the government under the moto of “United we rise” should be followed by clear definitions of such assistance which should not imply intervention into the politics. Pakistan clearly has a long way ahead before finding the balance in the civil military relations and establishing of the civilian control.
______________
References:
Shevtsova L. 1996. “Russia’s Fragmented Armed Forces.” In Civil-Military Relations and Democracy. Edited by Diamond, Larry, and Marc F, Plattner. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Barany Z. 2012. Chapter 7. in The Soldier and the Changing State. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment