| |
Transfer
of Power of the Military High Command
Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa assuming command of the Pakistan Army
as the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) during a ceremony hosted on November 28, 2016
The change of command of the Chief of Army Staff
witnessed in November should be taken as a modest win for the maturing of system
in Pakistan.
Seen purely from the perspective of media rumours
of wanting or giving term extension, mysteriously appearing banners asking the
outgoing COAS to stay on and the somewhat larger-than-life image created of
the outgoing COAS during his tenure, one was hesitant to expect a smooth transfer
of command. However, to the credit of the outgoing COAS, who had publicly announced
as early as January 2016 that he would not be seeking an extension in tenure,
when the time came, the appointment and assumption of command by the new COAS
marks an important milestone in Pakistan’s democratic journey, and in
maturing of our civil-military relations.
PILDAT particularly commends the former COAS
for publically and candidly announcing his intention to retire on the due date
thus firmly closing the door for extension. Extensions to the terms of any officer
are an undesirable trend, which not only harm the principle of succession not
just within the Armed Forces, but any institution of State and also convey the
false perception that the whole institution hinges upon one individual. PILDAT
welcomes his decision.
The newly appointed COAS must be wished the
best in an effective and professional discharge of his duties in what can only
be termed as the continuingly challenging field of national defence.
COAS’
first Call-On the PM: A Welcome Change in Optics
General Qamar Javed Bajwa calling on the Prime Minister of
Pakistan after his appointment as COAS on November 26, 2016 at the Prime Minister
Office
Gen. (now retired) Raheel Sharif calling on the Prime Minister
upon his appointment as COAS on November 26, 2013
If pictures are worth a thousand words, the
two photos showing two respective Chiefs of Army Staff calling on Prime Minister
of Pakistan upon their appointments, one on November 26, 2016 and the other
3 years earlier on the same date, depict a welcome change in optics in terms
of seating arrangements. While the 2013 picture seems to wrongly depict the
“equal status” due to seating arrangement, this seems to have been
rectified in 2016 keeping in view the constitutional supremacy of the office
of the elected Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Miles
to go in Democratic Control of National Defence
However, much more needs to be changed not just in terms of optics
but in elected Prime Minister and his Cabinet collectively exercising executive
authority of the Federation 1 in maintaining a constitutional equation and democratic control of the
Armed Forces.
The 3 year trend alone (please see Box 1) depicts
rendering redundant the role of the Federal Minister of Defence when it came
to the Premier and COAS interactions.
The crucial National Security Committee, created
for the first time with a proper secretariat in 2013, has almost completely
been tossed-aside (please see Box 2) in consultations on critical matters of
national security during the past 3 years. In a country that has suffered severe
blows to its democratic system at the hands of military coups and a nearly omnipresent
office of the COAS and resultantly suffers from a severe schisms in perceptions
of the civil and the military, rendering dormant the very NSC that provides
a critical forum of consultation 2 on national security issues, as well as an opportunity to bridge the perception
gaps, defies all logic. PILDAT has consistently maintained that regular and
institutionalized consultation between the elected civil and military leadership
at the forum of the NSC is an urgent and consistent need, not just because we
face multiple national security challenges that beset our nation, but equally
because it is the forum that allows elected government and the military to thrash
out their differences to carve out a unified strategy and approach on critical
issues.
With new COAS in office, one expects that he
will do everything in his power to uphold the constitutional structure under
which the elected Government is charged with the responsibility for final decision
making on national security as in other matters of State. The Military is and
must be recognized, respected and appreciated for its critical roles and responsibilities
in ensuring impenetrable national defence of Pakistan while the Government must
seek and consider its advice through institutionalizing a consultative decision-making
process on national security issues. The Federal Cabinet of ministers must also
be involved more effectively in decision making including the ones relating
to national defence and security.
It must be kept in mind that above all power-plays
stemming from years of differences in perception, distrust and disregard and
often even contempt that has come to define civil-military relations in Pakistan,
the ultimate victim in creation and perpetuation of multiple centres of power
is Pakistan, is our vital interests and we, the people of Pakistan.
Box
1: Civil-Military Interactions between November 2013-November 2016
-
Since Gen. (now retired) Raheel
Sharif’s appointment as the COAS on November 28, 2013, he
met the Prime Minister nearly 102 times in 3 years.
-
Of these, 32 meetings, that are
31%, were one-on-one interactions.
-
The Federal Minister of Defence,
Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA, was present in only 29% of the 102 meetings,
serving to weaken the role of the Federal Minister of Defence, the
civilian boss of the Military commanders.
-
In Premier-COAS interactions,
the National Security Advisor was present in only 36% of these 102
meetings.
-
While Prime Minister and COAS
met 102 times in 3 years, only 5 meetings of the National Security
Committee (NSC) were held in 3 years.
|
|
Box 2: Timeline of the National Security
Committee
-
Originally constituted by the PML-N
Government as the Cabinet Committee on National Security (CCNS) on
August 22, 2013
-
The CCNS met twice in 2013 on August
22, 2013 and December 17, 2013
-
The initial structure of the CCNS
was announced to have Prime Minister in the Chair while Ministers
of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Interior and Finance alongside three
Services Chiefs as full members. Perhaps considering the anomaly that
Services Chiefs could not be a member of a Cabinet Committee, the
nomenclature of the CCNS was changed to the National Security Committee
(NSC), as notified on April 11, 2014.
-
Since its reconstitution, the NSC
has has only met 4 times, i.e., on April 17, 2014, October 10, 2014,
April 06, 2016 and July 22, 2016.
-
According to the daily Dawn’s
story of October 06, 2016, the National Security Committee also met
on October 03, 2016, although no presser was issued in this regard.
Overall, since its formation, the Committee has met only 6 times since
its formation in August 2013 till November 2016, making it to be a
periodicity of one meeting almost every six months & 15 days.
-
It must be noted that similar bodies
that exist around many democracies including USA, UK, India, Turkey
and other countries meet on weekly basis in most countries.
-
In order to be an effective forum
and the fact that Pakistan has no dearth of national security challenges,
Pakistan’s NSC must meet atleast fortnightly, if not weekly.
|
A
Snapshot of Civil-Military Relations during the Tenure of outgoing COAS
Given Pakistan’s peculiar civil-military
relations, the office of the COAS (or its former equivalent of the Commander-in-Chief)
has on four occasions usurped power overtly through Military takeovers. Even
otherwise, it has attained a larger-than-life image. Therefore, the Army Chief
has always been present as a power broker, whether through the Constitutional
provision of 58(2)b, or as part of the ‘troika’ of power centres
in the 1990s.
PILDAT had earlier analysed that 3 by the end of Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif’s tenure, the civil-military
imbalance in Pakistan seemed to have increased, with the Military leadership
seemingly establishing itself as the final arbiter on national security and
certain domains of our foreign policy. The elected Government on the other hand
appeared to be relegated to either an auxiliary role, or a parallel national
security regime.4
Therefore, although a narrative of the civil-military leadership ‘being
on the same page’ was perpetuated partly through these 3 years, the
relationship remained frayed at best. The silver lining of there not being a
direct intervention hardly constitutes as something to be thankful of.
One particular manifestation of the civil-military
imbalance associated with Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif was his larger-than-life
profile both internationally and at home. This was perpetuated through the extraordinary
proactiveness exhibited by the ISPR, which was seen to be taking the lead even
on announcements such as the formation of Military Courts or of Provincial Apex
Committees. It is a debateable point whether this scenario developed because
of civilian authorities complacency in giving out the information efficiently
and effectively. The resultant creation of a messiah-like image of the COAS
is perhaps best epitomized by the popular tagline of #ThankYouRaheelSharif.
This was also accompanied by a reported regrettable culture of media advice
by the ISPR, leading to concerted media management. As PILDAT had previously
noted, this will be a tough act to follow for Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa. If he
fails to maintain the media standing surrounding Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif,
the public might needlessly question his performance. Therefore, a careful rollback
of this policy is required, so that the military leadership is protected from
any unwarranted criticism. Despite the diverse views on the desirability and
quantum of the publicity generated, one must, however, grant that the current
DG-ISPR Lt. Gen. Asim Bajwa did an extraordinarily efficient and effective job
of public relationing both for the institution and the former COAS.
Did
Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif protect Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf from the Treason
Trial?
Now that Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif has relinquished the command
of the Armed Forces, it seems that officials closely associated with various
issues of contention between civil-military leadership have started to open
up about them.
One such instance has been the statement made
by the Federal Minister for States and Frontier Regions, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul
Qadir Baloch, MNA, who said during a television programme, hosted by Mr. Saleem
Safi, that saving Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf ‘had the signatures’
of Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif.5
The Minister’s statement, if true, suggests
an obstruction of justice, for perhaps one of the gravest crimes specified by
the Constitution, i.e., treason. The biggest casualty of the whole process has
been the state of rule of law in Pakistan. The fact that the trial has been
placed on the backburner and the PML-N led Government has backtracked from its
policy of pursuing it has also created the dangerous perception that there are
certain segments of society which lie beyond any accountability, especially
those belonging to the Military. The popular perception, that powerful civilians
especially top political leaders are also able to avoid accountability, offers
no justification of scuttling the process of accountability of a former COAS.
Premier-COAS
Interactions
Prime Minister with the three Services Chiefs during a farewell
dinner hosted by him at the Prime Minister House on November 28, 2016
In the month of November 2016, both outgoing
COAS Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif and incoming COAS, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, met
the Prime Minister for a total of two times.
- On November 24, 2016 during a farewell dinner hosted by
the Prime Minister for Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif at the Prime Minister
House.
- On November 26, 2016, the newly appointed COAS designate,
Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa called on the Prime Minister at the PMO for a one-on-one
interaction.
- On November 28, 2016, when Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif paid
a farewell call to the Prime Minister at the Prime Minister Office.
The Federal Minister of Defence and the National
Security Advisor were present in the farewell dinner, while the second meeting
was a one on one interaction.
References:
1. As per Article 90 and 91(6) of the Constitution
of Pakistan, the Federal Cabinet, which includes the Prime Minister and
the Ministers, is collectively responsible as the Federal
Government to exercise the executive authority of the Federation.
2. PILDAT believes that the NSC is a critical
forum of consultation on national security issues. Terming
it, as its rules do since its creation in 2013, as ‘the principal
decision making body on matters of national security’, encroaches
upon the powers of the Federal Cabinet. PILDAT also maintains that the model
of Pakistan’s NSC is an anomaly in terms of its “decision-making”
role as similar bodies working around the World are only consultative in
nature and their recommendations are not binding. If Pakistan indeed wishes
to give the NSC decision-making powers, whether or not it is recommended,
its existence should be backed by legislation, and not just an executive
order, as is the case at the moment.
4. There are various contours of this imbalance,
including public disagreements upon the implementation of the National Action
Plan; an increased domestic and international profile of the COAS; an operation
in Karachi, which has increasingly taken a political hue; increased preponderance
in internal security by the Military due to weak policing; a unique space
carved out by the ISPR through its proactiveness in the national media;
creation of a security doctrine, which links criminality, corruption and
terrorism; and, most importantly lack of institutionalization in matters
of national security. All of these issues seemed to come to a head with
the daily Dawn’s exclusive story of October 06, 2016, which
brought out into the open the civil-military friction that had been brewing
for a long time.
The fact that some of these were the main
areas of concern for Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif was also highlighted during
his farewell address on November 28, 2016.
The relevant section of Gen. (Retd.) Raheel
Sharif’s speech are reproduced below, with their English translation
also included
‘Main idaron kay istehkaam aur
bartari par yaqeen rakhta hoon aur is zim main hamesha yeh koshish rahi
hai kay tamaam idaray mulk ki salamati aur khushalee kay liay kaam karain
Balochistan and Karachi kay liay aman
ka qayaam, ya Operation Zarb-e-Azb, ya mulk ki tameer-o-taraqee kay liay
CPEC project, Alhamdulillah, hur maidan may kambyaabi kay samraat wazeh
nazar aa rahay hain.
Bayrooni khatron say behtur andaaz main
nibutnay kay liay androoni kamzorion, khasoosan, criminality, corruption
aur extremism ka jurr say khaatma karna hoga. Iss kay liay National Action
Plan per uss ki rooh kay mutabiq amal lazim hai’
Translation
‘I have also believed in the stability
and success of institutions and in this regard have always tried that all
institutions should work for the security and prosperity of the nation.
Whether it is achievement of peace in Balochistan
and Karachi, Operation Zarb-e-Azb, or the China Pakistan Economic Corridor,
All Praise to Allah, that the fruits of success can now be seen in every
field.
In order to better deal with external threats,
it is important to nip from the bud internal weaknesses including criminality,
corruption and extremism. For the purpose, it is important that we implement
the National Action Plan as per its spirit’.
The complete farewell speech of Gen. (Retd.)
Raheel Sharif may be seen at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsghClN4bAk
5. The transcript of the relevant portions
of the interview, conducted on November 27, 2016 on Geo Television, is reproduced
below, along with its English translation:
Mr. Saleem Safi:
General Pervez Musharraf kay khilaf karawayee par toh General Raheel Sharif
bhi naraz thay na?
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Qadir
Baloch: Jee, main itna kahoon ga kay General Pervez Musharraf
jitna arsa hospital main rahay, bhaghair kissi wajah kay, aur jitna arsa
Karachi main rahay, beghair adalaton main jayay, mairay khayal main ap keh
saktay hain institution ka us kay liay kuch tha; there was something.
Mr. Saleem Safi:
Nahin yeh hakoomat ko unki taraf say nahin convey kia gaya tha kay General
Pervez Musharraf kay saath yeh kuch na karain?
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Qadir
Baloch: Main ap ko eemandari say batana chahta hoon Saleem
Bhai keh joh political government hai Mian Sahib ki, main uskay bohat inner
circle ka admi nahin hoon. Mujh say aisi koi cheez share nahin ki gayi thi.
Mr. Saleem Safi:
Laikin iss baat main toh koi do rayay nahin ho sakti na kay General Pervez
Musharraf ko bachaya Raheel Sharif Sahib nay?
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Qadir
Baloch: Haan bilkul signatures hain uskay. Main clarify
kar doon keh political government ko ghari jamhoori tareeqay say change
karnay kay sazishon main general Raheel Sharif involved nahin thay. Jahaan
tak functioning ka taaluq hai meray liay bara mushkil ho gay eh justify
kar laina kay bilkul 100% aik page pay civil-military government aik page
pay thay.
Translation
Mr. Saleem Safi: Was not
Gen. (Retd.) Raheel Sharif also angry at the action taken against Gen. (Retd.)
Pervez Musharraf?
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Qadir Baloch:
I will only say that the fact Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf stayed
in the hospital for such a long time, without any reason, and then also
stayed in Karachi for such a long time, without going to court, I believe
that you can say that institution was involved to some extent; there was
something.
Mr. Saleem Safi: But was
the Government not conveyed that it should not initiate action against Gen.
(Retd.) Pervez Musharraf?
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Qadir Baloch:
Let me be honest that I am not amongst the inner circle of Mian
Sahib’s political Government. Nothing of the sort was shared with
me.
Mr. Saleem Safi: But there
can be no two ways about the fact that Raheel Sharif Sahib saved General
Pervez Musharraf?
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Abdul Qadir Baloch:
Yes, definitely it had his signatures. Let me clarify that Gen.
(Retd.) Raheel Sharif was not part of any conspiracy to remove the elected
Government through undemocratic means. As far as functioning is concerned,
it will be very hard for me to justify that the civil-military leadership
were on the same page.
The complete interview can be see at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJokqIrueDY
|
|
