Civil-military equation
By SHAHID HAMID July 11, 2008 Since 1947 we have seen 13 years of military rule by Field Marshal Ayub Khan and then General Yahya Khan from 1958 to 1971, 11 years of military rule by General Ziaul Haq from 1977 to 1988 and a little more than 8 years of military rule by General Musharraf from 1999 to 2008 " summing up to 32 years out of 60. Since the adoption of the constitution in 1973 the period(s) of military rule add upto 19 years out of 35.
During the 60 years of our independent existence, and more so perhaps since 1973, the armed forces have performed four main roles " mostly through the person of the chief of army staff " in the context of the civil-military relationship.
First, a “role of giving advice” whenever asked or whenever needed. This is a role that is normally performed by a head of state in countries where the effective head of government is the prime minister.
Second, a “participatory role” in the three tiers forming part of the Higher Defence Organisation viz the Defence Committee of the Cabinet whose meetings are attended by the service chiefs on invitation, the Defence Council headed by the defence minister whose meetings the service chiefs attend as members, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee chaired by one of their own.
Third, a “role in implementation of policy” as aid to civil power. Over the years this role has extended beyond giving help during floods and other emergencies such as earthquakes, and control of law and order situations, to checking of electricity theft and uncovering of ghost schools.
And fourth an “extra-constitutional role” in which the civil governments have been replaced by martial law or military governments.
Every civilian government has readily conceded to the armed forces the first three roles. The army chiefs have, sometimes openly and publicly, advised the civilian governments on the policies they deem to be correct and necessary.
Martial law was lifted in 1985 and there was a civilian government in position but effective and ultimate state power remained in the hands of a president who retained the office of the chief of army staff and who openly declared that his real constituency was the army. Even after separation of the two offices in 1988 the army chief remained a key player in the troika that took the final decisions of State at times of crisis.
Throughout the period of the civilian governments in between 1988 and 1999 it is a question mark what, if any, was the civilian input/control over the size of the defence budget. It is certain that such civilian input was minimal with regard to allocations within the defence budgets. There was no debate in any National Assembly during these 11 years on either the quantum or the details of defence expenditures. In this background the decision taken by the present government to disclose the details of the defence budget to the National Assembly is a most welcome development. It constitutes the first step to re-assertion of parliamentary control over the armed forces.
