February 15, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF
Pakistan’s Growing Civil-Military Pandemonium
The military’s power is weakening while democracy remains elusive.
By: Kamran Bokhari
They say there’s a first time for everything, and for Pakistan that was Feb. 8, when the military establishment failed to get what it wanted out of parliamentary elections. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, the party of former populist Prime Minister Imran Khan, won the most seats (93 of 266) despite the electioneering campaign against it, while the military-backed Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) won just 75. In third place came the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) with 54 seats. The PPP has said that though it will not join the Cabinet, it will support the PML-N government, and its co-chairperson, former President Asif Ali Zardari, is expected to return to the presidency.
(click to enlarge)
Yet none of this bodes well for the stability of Pakistan. The military’s power may be in decline, but civilian actors remain weak and deeply divided, and as such they are unlikely to steer the country out of its ongoing political and economic morass.
For 33 years of its 76-year history, Pakistan has been governed by four military regimes led by Field Marshal Ayub Khan (1958-69), Gen. Yahya Khan (1969-71), Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88) and Gen. Pervez Musharraf (1999-2008). But even when the generals were not directly at the helm, they kept civilian governments in check, frequently through the manipulation of elections. In fact, free and fair elections have taken place just three times – in 1970, 2008 and 2013 – and even then only when the military believed the elections served their interests. Put simply, the military is Pakistan’s kingmaker.
In 1985, for example, political parties were barred from participating in elections. Three years later, Zia died mysteriously in a plane crash, after which the military assembled a coalition led by Nawaz Sharif, which had come in second place after the PPP led by the late Benazir Bhutto, who became prime minister. She was removed from office less than two years later, and with the help of the general staff, Sharif won the 1990 election. Not content with just being the military’s proxy, however, Sharif fell out with the generals, leading to his own ouster three years later when the PPP returned to power in yet another army-overseen election. The second PPP government was in office longer than the first but was eventually ousted in 1996, triggering the 1997 elections in which Sharif’s party clinched a two-thirds majority.
Sharif had tried to insulate himself with a constitutional amendment that stripped pro-military presidents of the power to dissolve governments. Amid escalating tensions, the military ousted him again in a 1999 coup. Led by Musharraf, the new regime introduced 30 constitutional amendments by decree, which restored presidential authority to dismiss governments. It then held the heavily engineered 2002 elections in which both major parties were sidelined, and a pro-military coalition composed of their defectors formed the government. By late 2007, facing popular agitation, Musharraf was forced to step down as army chief, and his successor, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, made a rare decision to allow free and fair elections in early 2008.
The PPP won the election and led a government that became the first in the country’s history to complete its full five-year term in office. During that time, it passed the landmark 18th amendment that helped “civilianize” the political system. The 2013 elections were also free and fair and led to the PML-N’s victory, marking the first-ever transfer of power from one democratically elected government to another. It seemed as though Pakistan was finally breaking with its past, but behind the scenes, the military was working on a new project to cultivate a third political force: Khan’s PTI party, which the top brass thought would be the ideal civilian partner.
The 2018 election was designed specifically to install Khan. With the military’s assistance, the PTI quadrupled its seats in parliament. For the first three years, the military and the civilian government worked as one. The problem was that the generals relied on Khan, a populist who led a social movement seeking revolutionary change, not a seasoned politician who could shepherd the government through its chronic economic problems. Khan focused more on eliminating his opponents than on delivering governance, and though the economy grew appreciably worse, the military continued to support him.
Things came to a head in 2021, when Khan tried to expand his influence inside the military itself by attempting to elevate generals who were more staunch supporters of the PTI leader than others among the top brass. That is when then-army chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa pulled the plug on the Khan project and realigned the military with the PML-N and PPP. The assumption was that without the military’s support, Khan’s movement would lose steam. It didn’t, and the military leadership faced challenges on two fronts: support for the movement within the armed forces and within the wider public.
The top generals were able to insulate their institution from Khan’s ingress when his party targeted military facilities last May after Khan was arrested for the first time. However, with the economic situation worsening under the coalition government and the army trying to cut Khan’s movement down to size, his popular support continued to increase. Hence the army’s efforts to suppress the PTI through a host of pre-election moves, including accusing Khan of corruption, endangering national security and unlawful marriage.
Many of Khan’s former associates were forced to defect from the party. Others were arrested. The PTI was barred from contesting the election on its own platform, forcing its candidates to run as independents. The establishment had hoped that, as was the case in the past with other parties, it would be able to limit the PTI’s success at the ballot box. The thinking was that Khan’s party became a major force because of help from the army and the intelligence service and that, with the security establishment now arrayed against it, the PTI would at most come in second place. But the fact that its candidates running as independents won the most seats was a rude awakening for the establishment – which explains the delays in announcing the outcome.
The confusion and disorganization in which the results were announced have fueled widespread claims of vote-rigging. The outcome of last week’s polls indicates that despite their sophisticated electioneering tradecraft, the general staff failed to shape the 2024 elections, boosting the morale of the PTI, which can be expected to continue to challenge the establishment.
In a sense, this is a huge development in the weakening of the military’s hold over power. But the civilian space remains deeply polarized. Unable to compete with the youth-energized and tech-savvy PTI, the PML-N and PPP rely on the military to keep Khan’s party at bay. The PTI has greater ambitions and is trying to force the hand of the military to achieve its goal of running a single-party state. Democratic rule, then, will remain elusive even as the military’s ability to dominate the polity wanes. Meanwhile Pakistan – a nuclear power – could experience unprecedented levels of instability given its already dire economic and security conditions. This is bad news for Pakistan’s strategic environs, which are already deeply mired in insecurity.