No single factor can be cited as the sole cause; rather, a cluster of causes led to the intervention of military into politics in Pakistan. Military in Pakistan has been an omnipotent institution and will continue to do so. Every COAS has his own style and within the established parameters in which army is better placed and looks for its institutional interests influences the way tussle between civil and military is played out.
When Pakistan emerged as a sovereign state in Augustit brought together disparate Muslim-majority provinces of the former British colony with limited experience of integration. When Pakistan emerged as a sovereign state in Augustit brought together disparate Muslim-majority provinces of the former British colony with limited experience of integration.
The basic causes of repeated military intervention in the politics of Pakistan, which turned the polity into a praetorian state, are explained in the next section.
Civil-military tensions in Pakistan's case are a regularity and all civilian governments have experienced it. The intervention of this oligarchy and more particularly, of the military, became more effective and intensified when the new state started facing problems of vast magnitude.
No civilian-political institution existed at the time of independence, other than the imperial bureaucracy and military. These included inexperienced and inadequate administrative staff, a massive refugee problem, poor economic resources, regional conflicts, the decline of the Muslim League and the advent of coalitional politics and unstable governments.
First, it would intervene, when its institutional interests are threatened. Once that happens, a path is established which the polity follows.
This process of militarization of Pakistan owes its transformation to multiple variables as have been discussed. It was burdened with ideological and ethnic cleavages, and created amidst administrative chaos. In fact, even till this date, in the collective psychology of the nation, the East Pakistan debacle remains the lowest point in its entire history.
On the other hand, during the same time period, the country went through seven prime ministers and several cabinets. Pakistan represents an example of how an apolitical military could slowly be drawn into the political field due to the failure of political institutions and politicians, low political mobilization, as well as external factors.
The domestic political consequences of Islamabad joining the war on terror, the withdrawal of Inter Services Intelligence support from the Taleban and militants fighting in Kashmir, and the sectarian violence across Pakistan, mean that national politics remains febrile, and stability fragile.
Inner contradictions His efforts to restore democracy and introduce a universal adult franchise showed up Pakistan's inner contradictions. However, the degree to which it asserts its authority and is able to do so would really depend on many factors.
Therefore, a study of military interventions in politics can help to make some general remarks about the causes which allow a professional military to assume an overtly political role. The argument is that if civil institutions, due to legacy or incompetency, do not get anchored in the polity, then the army and civil bureaucracy, due to their better discipline and competency, end up managing the civil affairs as well.
Moreover, he is also retiring on time, setting a very good precedent. Never in the history of Pakistan had its army seen such humiliation. Macmillan Publishers,p.
The frequent dissolution of the provincial and national governments made it difficult to lay the foundation for a parliamentary system. Pervez Musharraf's coup in strengthened the secular tendencies in the army, but has not guaranteed its permanence. That would explain the arrest of the leader of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy ARDMakhdoom Javed Hashmi, detained on 29 October and accused of defaming the military.
British decision to withdraw from the subcontinent was a decision made in haste, which resulted in subsequent territorial disputes and large-scale rioting.
However, the balance between civilian and military leadership is complex and always in a state of flux. In the case of Pakistan, once military became involved in politics, its role was further entrenched due to adaptive expectations of the other political actors both domestic and foreignpositive feedback and exercise of power backed by instruments of physical violence.
In a developing country like Pakistan, the army is after all one of the most cohesive and well-disciplined institutions, which enables it to successfully intervene in politics Moreover, since it has become an established and powerful political player, the politicians also try to court it in order to get some political advantage.
The army does not wield power ONLY because of its monopoly over physical violence and its maneuvers, but also because the balance of power changes towards it whenever the civilian side is weakened by internal strife and real or perceived incompetency.
InGeneral Muhammad Ayub Khan justified the coup on the basis that the country had to be rescued from chaos. His increasingly authoritarian rule gave rise to growing political opposition, giving the army a handle.
InGeneral Muhammad Ayub Khan justified the coup on the basis that the country had to be rescued from chaos. The second major reason was the weakness as well as incompetency of the civilian side exacerbated by low political institutionalization.
The only constant is that military has an upper hand. Ultimately, unlike India, Pakistan degenerated into a praetorian state with dreadful political, social and economic fallouts.
Given the history of coups, President Musharraf and his team will do everything they can do under the law to erase the symptoms if not the malaise itself.
Moreover, he is also retiring on time, setting a very good precedent. Even when Ayub Khan himself was becoming unpopular, the Pakistan Army still enjoyed a considerable amount of respect.
However, the reality is quite complex.Nov 28, · Civil-military tensions in Pakistan's case are a regularity and all civilian governments have experienced it. Military in Pakistan has been an omnipotent institution and will continue to do so.
Military influence has been strong for several historical reasons. When Pakistan emerged as a sovereign state in Augustit brought together disparate Muslim-majority provinces of the former British colony with limited experience of integration.
Any party in power must therefore accommodate the army's interests while cautiously seeking ways to expand its influence without antagonizing the generals.
The military's influence in Pakistani politics has its roots in the violent partition of the British Raj in Essay on Bureaucracy-Army Coalition in Pakistan By the turn of the decade, the Muslim League had lost all credibility in East Pakistan because of its language agronumericus.com the mainstream Muslim League broke away and formed the Awami League in Pakistan’s military is working behind the scenes to manipulate this month’s election to try to produce a government it can better control, politicians and human-rights groups said.
The military's influence in Pakistani politics has its roots in the violent partition of the British Raj in The threat of imminent conflict with India against the backdrop of the Cold War drove the army.Download