Even after debating Democracy for about two thousand years and practising it for decades and even centuries, the question of what is a Democracy is debatable. There are a plethora of definitions and explanations of what constitutes a democracy. Speaking in extreme layman’s terms, Democracy is a political system in which the ultimate authority to rule lies with the people. It is a system in which people are allowed to choose who rules them. However, that doesn’t mean that all political systems with a proper mechanism of election can be called genuine democracy. Since with democracy, is associated the concept of liberty, the degree of various liberties can determine the degree of democracy in a society or a country.
Technically, Pakistan is a democracy. It has been successful in holding elections every five years for the third time in a row. But mere elections don’t signify the presence of a genuine democracy. Pakistan has poorly performed in the Democracy Index every year since 2008, when democracy returned to the Islamic Republic.
Pakistan, since its birth, has faced many political upheavals. But the most prominent of them are the four coup de-tats that have taken place under the leadership of four different military generals. Since Pakistan has spent almost half of its post-independence period under a military dictator, there exists an entrenched – in the government institutions, and even private sectors– of the Military people and their affiliates. This institutionalization of Military people in Civilian institutions is one of the greatest impediments to the democratization of Pakistan. There are a few ministries, such as the Ministry of Defense, that bureaucrat of military origin dominates. Seldom has the Defense Secretary been a non-ex-military official since the time of President Musharraf. Similarly, the foreign policy of Pakistan vis-à-vis India and Pakistan is said to be a prerogative of the military, not the Civilians. The military is also Omnipresent in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) sphere. The Pakistani Army sees the project as an opportunity to expand its economic reach.
Another impediment to the genuine democratization of Pakistan is how the political economy of Pakistan operates. There exists a Milbus that is used to operate the economic interests of the Pakistani Military. Ayesha Siddiqa defines Milbus as ‘capital used for the personal benefit of the military fraternity which is not recorded as a part of the defence budget nor does it follow the normal accountability procedures of the state. Since the economic liberalization of Pakistan, the military has expanded itself over a large number of sectors generating tough and unfair competition for private firms and has even monopolized a few sectors in a few regions. The Military has its holdings in more than 700 companies. The addition of its real estate holdings gives them more than 10 percent stake in Country’s private sector assets.
Another major impediment is the interference of the Army in security policy, both foreign and domestic. Firstly, the interference in foreign policy has resulted in the grounding of militant groups such as the Taliban that have unleashed a campaign of terror in the country. This happened due to interference of the Army in Pakistan’s Afghan policy, and to gain ‘Strategic depth’ vis-à-vis Afghanistan. On the domestic front, the army and the deep state have undermined peaceful protest movements such as the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement and unleashed a media campaign against them. Such incidents have stoked a feeling of discrimination in the minds of people of few ethnicities.
The domestic fundamentalism that is practised by various religious organizations has also contributed to the failure of democracy to take root. These fundamentalist groups have prevented
liberalism and tolerance from taking root in the society and influencing its political culture. It has unleashed campaigns against minorities, Shias, Ahmadis etc.
Many Civilian politicians have also undermined democracy in their ways. Under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the elections of 1977 were rigged. This undermined the basic democratic norm of any democracy that Bhutto had purportedly fought for. Even these days, conspicuous by the so-called Azadi March of 2013-14 led by the current Prime Minister Imran Khan against a duly elected government also impedes the development of political culture.
The impediment has caused Pakistan’s democracy to weaken, thereby strengthening the Military in political, economic and security-related terms.
Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan
Militaries of some states get deeply involved in its politics. This phenomenon is common and hence there exists a need to theoretically examine the causes and impacts of the deterioration of these relations. The relations between these two entities include the dealings between their respective institutions. However, the relations are greatly impacted by factors that are not always related to the operation of their respective institutions. These factors include the political culture, the strength of the civilian and military institutions, the nature of the Economy and the sources of the main income of the state. These factors decide how the can military establish its influence over civilian institutions. For instance, the major income of the economy determines the types of institutions whose control needs to be brought under control to perpetuate their influence.
The beginning of the scholarship on study of relations between the Civilians and the Military began with the publication of Samuel P. Huntington’s book The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Since then, every theory that has been propounded that deals with Civil-Military relations is at least a critique of Huntington’s theory. Although his theory is a milestone in this realm, his approach remains centred around the Cold War and is generally more concerned about authoritarianism rather than Military intervention in politics.
To the core of Huntington’s theory is professionalism. The professionalism in both the Military and the Civilian politicians is a modern phenomenon. Until the early modern period, Military and Civilian spheres used to overlap. With the advent of professionalism in these two spheres, Huntington says, there has emerged cleavage between the two spheres. This tension is due to the policy-making and the competency that is provided by military expertise. He further says that Civilian control can exist only where there is “subordination of an autonomous profession” to the ends of the policy. The Military Men have to accept the political guidance from the Civilian leadership and in return, the Civilian politicians have to accept their expertise in the field. Thus a balance is maintained in an ideal situation. Huntington says that the changes in the relations of the two occur when this very balance is somehow destroyed. There are four aspects of his theory, namely the Military and Civilians being two distinct groups, that there is a permanent conflict between the two, that subordination of the army is the only way to ensure Civilian control, and that it is the effectiveness of the civilian who determines the course of the relations
Huntington claims that there exists, in the minds of professional military men, a particular mindset that is realistic. The most important things for a state are a strong military and its efficiency. The destruction of civil-military relations rests on subjective Civilian control rather than
objective Civilian control. In the former, the clear boundaries between the two spheres are not properly defined. Thus the breach of constitutional powers is comparatively easy. When the boundaries are well defined, the breach is less possible. Thus, according to Huntington, effective Civilian control can be achieved by drawing clear lines between the domains of Civilians and the Military.
This is the point of departure for Morris Janowitz in his book, Professional Soldier (1960). He agrees with Huntington’s four aspects but disagrees primarily with his argument that the institution of the military is detached from society. Janowitz argues that the military must not be alienated from society and puts forward the social and political aspects of a military conflict. Hence the military must be accorded its due place in society. According to him, there is no possibility of clearly delineating a clear line between the functions of Civilians and the Military.
There have been many other theories and writers that have challenged the views of these theories. For example, at the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union Eliot Cohen who has based his exploitation on four leaders, and Peter Feaver, who has based his arguments solely on post-Cold War basis.
The scholarship in Civil-Military relations remains limited and narrow due to its novelty. The theory proposed by Huntington in 1957 is still the most relevant and used. This shows the poverty of scholarship in this realm.
Ethnicity and Democracy in Pakistan
The term Ethnicity at first seems easy. It can be generalized as identity, culture, traditions, values, languages and so on practiced by a particular group of people that are distinct from the same attributes related to another group. But it becomes complex and tedious to differentiate these aspects of Ethnicity from that of another. To the core of this complexity is the otherness associated with it. Socially, two such groups may differ on some of these characteristics but might display a few similar or same characteristics. Many researchers have thus argued over the line that separates two ethnicities and for that matter an Ethnicity from a race. Also, the characteristics of a particular Ethnicity don’t remain temporally constant.
As a social construction, ethnicities are mostly identified through languages and locations. Hence rather than having a single identity, people, mostly, have multiple identities. For instance, many Americans identify themselves as ethnically Indian. Seldom do they identify as a Malayali American or a Punjabi American. Thus nation, nationalism and states intervene in Ethnic identity, albeit nominally. Ethnically, differentiation can be done based on biological factors as well. Different Ethnicities may or may not differ based on biological factors if they belong to the same race.
Ethnicity has been a major determinant in politics, especially when it comes to countries with multiple ethnicities. Many of them witness ethno- nationalist movements that turn into Separatist Movements. Pakistan, for instance, has in recent history witnessed separatism or ethno -nationalism in three out of its four provinces, namely Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh and the Karachi-centred Muhajir ethno-nationalism. The history of these ethnic conflicts goes back to the creation of Pakistan.
Baluchistan has been the most prominent and widely known case. Its ethno-nationalism is mostly Tribal. Tribal Sardars have been at the forefront of their nationalistic movement. Today, the Baloch grievances are mostly regarding economic factors, autonomy and getting a fair share of their resources. However, before these factors emerged, ethno-nationalism derived its main
force from its history, especially from the Khanate of Kalat. Some tribes have played more role in the separatist movement than others, for example, the Brahui, Marri, Bugti, Menzel etc. There have also been numerous insurgencies in the province.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is home to the people of Pashtun Ethnicity. Though no major instance of separatism or insurgency has occurred in this province, it nonetheless witnesses a high degree of Ethno nationalism. In recent decades, following the brutal crackdown of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan by the Pakistani Army, this feeling has seen a surge. Pashtuns are also stigmatized in Pakistani culture and have faced discrimination in metropolitan cities like Karachi. The Pashtun nationalist movement the name of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement has protested against the endemic discrimination against their community. The fact that neighbouring Afghanistan has a Pashtun majority and that such ethno-nationalism is generally supported by the Afghan leadership has only exacerbated the problem. As a result, the Pashtuns have faced intense media propaganda, with shows calling them anti-nationalists.
Sindh is a peculiar case in Pakistan. It has witnessed two ethno-nationalisms within its borders- the Sindhi Nationalism and Mohajir Nationalism. Interestingly, both Nationalisms depend upon one another for their survival. The more dominant Sindhi Nationalism has its origins in the Pakistan Movement. The Sindhi politicians have always struggled for provincial autonomy for Sindh and this was one of the reasons why Sindh voted for Pakistan.
One of the primary rallying points of Sindhi nationalists was, and has been, the migration of people of other ethnicities to the land of Sindh. Sindh had witnessed migration from adjacent regions of Punjab and Baluchistan under the Arghuns, Mughals, Tarkhans and Talpurs of Baloch and Turkic dynasties, but neither of the rules had had some serious impact on the ethnic composition of the state. But under colonial rule, the British encouraged migration and settlement of Punjabis in Sindh who had started acquiring lands for agricultural purposes in the 1890s. As mentioned above the Mohajir Nationalism and Sindhi Nationalism rely heavily on each other for their survival. The Mohajir politicians also rely mainly on fears of domination of other ethnicities, the Sindhis and Punjabis.
Conclusion
The Pakistani State has not been a fan of such nationalist movements. The members of PTM, for instance, suffer from state-led propaganda against them via the media. The leaders such as Manzoor Pashteen, and Gulalai Ismail face numerous inquiries, with the latter being in exile. Even the Members of the National Assembly, Ali Wazir and Mohsin Dawar, sympathetic to the cause have not been spared. The crackdown in Baluchistan is well known. Sindhi and Baloch nationalists have also seen the same fate. Pakistan, despite these ethno-nationalist and separatist movements, has survived.
