The supreme praetorian state of Pakistan
Pakistan is not a republic, nor is it a theocracy;
rather it is a praetorian state. A praetorian state is one where
political power is concentrated in the hands of a select elite within
the military. Hasan Askari Rizvi, a prominent analyst, writes: “Pakistan
can be described as a praetorian state where the military has acquired
the capability, will, and sufficient experience to dominate the core
political institutions and processes. As the political forces are
disparate and weak, the military’s disposition has a strong impact on
the course of political change, including the transfer of power from one
set of the elite to another. Such an expanded role is at variance with
the traditions and temperament of the military at the time of
independence in 1947.” Unprecedented scrutiny of the security
establishment in recent months has raised perhaps the most important
question in the history of Pakistan: what is the true role of the army?
In
the US, the founding father James Madison was always suspicious of the
prospect of a standing military to the extent he writes: “In time of
actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the
Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency
to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force,
with an overgrown executive, will not long be safe companions to
liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always
the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing
maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all
Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have
enslaved the people.”
For Madison a powerful and large military,
which sees its interests in perpetuating conflict by capitalising on
nationalist myths to consolidate economic influence, is a grave threat
to liberal democracy. Madison is absolutely right when he says that
militaries consolidate autocratic power by portraying and inventing a
constant state of war. In Pakistan, the great obsession is with India,
even though this is largely unfounded because war between nuclear-armed
nations would be unprecedented.
Ejaz Hussain in the paper,
‘Pakistan — Politics in a Colonial State’, describes Pakistan as a
“praetorian state which structurally inherited the pre-partition
‘praetorian oligarchy’. This praetorian oligarchy constructed ‘Hindu
India’ as enemy to pursue politico-economic interests. The military, a
part of praetorian oligarchy, emerges as a powerful political actor due
to its coercive power. It seeks political power to pursue economic
objectives independently.”
The real liberation of having an
atomic weapons system should have been our military disengagement from
India in the pursuit of robust civilian and diplomatic initiatives. The
nuclear weapons programme for Pakistan’s security establishment has
presented a deep dilemma, which is not being questioned by the Pakistani
media. Why should we be concerned about India if we have a nuclear
weapons programme and hence what is the justification for the
institutions of the security establishment to expand their influence and
power in Pakistani society? The nuclear weapons programme was trumpeted
by the security establishment as an achievement, but unwittingly it
will act as a catalyst for the dismantling of Pakistani praetorianism.
Paradoxically, the nuclear weapons programme should have marked the end
of Pakistan’s praetorian state, but it has only entrenched it even
further and emboldened it to pursue proxy-based warfare that has come
back to hurt Pakistan.
The ‘Ghairat Brigade’ (Honour Brigade) is
being intellectually dishonest, morally irresponsible and in the
process mutilating the concept of ‘honour’ by ignoring the real
structural and institutional instabilities that Pakistan faces. The
Ghairat Brigade has ignored the real causes of Pakistan’s situation and
focused only on symptoms such as feudal leadership in political parties
and religious extremism, which any person can point out with ease. The
Ghairat Brigade only questions individual generals and officials of the
army but does not question the wider institutional role of the security
establishment in a democracy. The Ghairat Brigade is only unhappy about
the policies of the praetorian state (and its relations with the west)
and wants to take it over to use it to pursue their own fantastical
policies. The Ghairat Brigade is hence not concerned about true civilian
supremacy; it exhibits cheap populism at the expense of substance.
Asma
Jahangir recently has been very vocal about civilian supremacy over the
military. In order for such a possibility to materialise the judiciary
has to play its role, but the problem is, historically speaking, the
judiciary has been complacent and tacitly colluded with the praetorian
tendencies.
Scholar Tayyab Mahmud writes in his excellent paper,
‘Praetorianism and Common Law in Post-Colonial Settings: Judicial
Responses to Constitutional Breakdowns in Pakistan’ that “the judicial
failure to challenge praetorian tendencies facilitated in a systematic
erosion of constitutional governance and the rule of law. The result was
the institutionalisation of the praetorian state, diminished power and
prestige of the judiciary and the waning of judicial review.”
Mahmud
ultimately suggests that the “continuity of constitutional frameworks
promotes political stability, which is the best antidote for praetorian
tendencies in any society”. But the real point that Mahmud makes is that
“in new post-colonial states...(the) search for stable and democratic
constitutional frameworks is repeatedly derailed by the military’s
extra-constitutional usurpations of power”.
Even though there are
voices like Asma Jahangir, the judiciary is still one of the most
controversial institutions of the country, rivalling the police.
The
fact is there is no other alternative viable centre of power that can
redress the civilian-military relationship in favour of liberal
democracy. The PPP had a chance but it has chosen to maintain the
autocratic status quo. Zardari could have established civilian supremacy
in the aftermath of the Abbottabad incident but chose to gain the
favour of the security establishment to consolidate political power.
Both
the PPP and the PML-N are tribal clans based on kinship and feudalism,
exploiting ties of faith and ethnicity to establish a political
oligarchy with the security establishment. Neither the PPP nor the PML-N
have a democratic process within their own parties or have mechanisms
for accountability or transparency within their party. It is foolish for
liberals to pin hope on Nawaz Sharif because the PML-N is ‘opposing’
the army only because he is in the opposition.
Pakistan needs a
new brand of civilian politics and a more consistent judiciary, which
can maintain independence and integrity across the board rather than
having just a few exceptionally brave voices.
Pakistan’s
praetorian state has managed to survive because it has been supported by
a corrupt political system (and a much wider political elite comprising
feudalism, the civil service and other powerful stakeholders), a
historically weak judiciary and morally bankrupt politicians like
Zardari.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ahmadalikhalid@ymail.com
In : Ahmad Ali Khalid
Notes