Causes of Military Interference in Politics in Pakistan

Introduction

Although Pakistan owes its creation to a democratic struggle, half of its post-independence existence has been under military regimes due to multiple reasons. S.E.Finer, an authority on this topic has mentioned the four ways in which the armed forces can interfere in the political governance of a country

1. Influence: This intervention is the least severe and involves the military using its authority and expertise to convince civilian leaders to adopt certain policies or actions. Influence is often exercised behind the scenes and aims to align civilian decisions with military perspectives without overt coercion.
2. Pressures: In the pressure mode, the military escalates its involvement by using threats to persuade civil authorities. These threats can be explicit or implicit and are employed to ensure that the government aligns with the military’s viewpoints on national issues or protects its corporate interests.
3. Displacement: Displacement aims to remove those in power who are seen as obstacles to the military’s goals and install a government that is more amenable to military influence and control.
4. Supplantment: Supplantment is the most extreme form of military intervention, where the military completely overtakes the civilian regime and assumes all governing responsibilities, often suspending existing political institutions and implementing martial law.

A cursory glance at Pakistan’s history reveals the existence of all these aforementioned Finer’s four modes of military intervention in politics at different times. From subtle persuasion to outright control, these modes demonstrate how the military asserts its authority and reshapes the political landscape in Pakistan, depending on the context and its objectives.

Theoretical Frameworks

Scholars employ a range of theoretical frameworks to understand the empirical reality behind the persistent failure of democracy in Pakistan. Among these, William Thompson categorising coup theories into four broad, non-mutually exclusive categories provides a comprehensive approach to understanding the causes of military coups. These categories are Loss of Legitimacy of the Civilian Government, Institutional Theories, International Trends and Demonstration Effect, and Push Comes to Shove Grievances.

A. Institutional Theories

Institutional theories are the most popular and widely accepted frameworks to explain why the armed forces dominate politics, especially in underdeveloped countries. These theories hinge on two main arguments: the inherent strengths of the military as an institution, and the specific conditions that make such dominance possible.

Several scholars, including Huntington and Collier, have contributed to this field, but Samuel E. Finer’s work stands out for its comprehensive analysis. According to Finer, three key strengths of the military give it a significant advantage over civilian organizations:

1. Markedly Superior Organization: The military is characterised by a highly structured and efficient organisational framework with a clear hierarchy, a disciplined chain of command, and rigorous training programs. This allows for quick and decisive action, unlike civilian institutions often hampered by bureaucratic red tape and slower decision-making processes.
2. Highly Emotive Symbolic Status: The military holds a highly emotive and symbolic status within society, associated with values like patriotism, honour, and sacrifice. This status is cultivated through historical narratives, national ceremonies, and public perceptions of the military as the nation’s defender. This symbolic capital can rally public support and legitimise military actions, making it easier for the military to garner backing for its political interventions.
3. Monopoly of Arms: The military’s control over the legitimate use of force gives it a significant advantage. It is the primary entity legally permitted to wield arms and execute force, allowing it to impose its will when necessary. This monopoly ensures that the military can overpower civilian resistance and assert its authority when it decides to intervene in politics.

Though these strengths highlight the military’s inherent power and influence in political governance, does not mean that the military is always threatening the civilian regime. For this to happen, Finer also identified five conditions necessary for such interventions to occur:

1. Professionalization of the Officer Corps: Professionalisation encompassing expertise, social responsibility, and corporate unity, convinces the military elite to see themselves as better qualified than civilian authorities in matters of security and governance. This self-perception can lead the military to intervene in politics, believing their judgement is superior.
2. Rise of Nationalism: Nationalism strengthens the military’s self-image as the guardian of national values. When the military views itself as the protector of the nation’s identity and interests, it may intervene if it perceives the civilian government as failing to represent these values effectively. This can lead to both overt and covert political interventions, especially during crises or perceived threats to national unity.
3. Popular Sovereignty: Although the principle of popular sovereignty posits that all legitimate power originates from the people, the military exploits this to justify seizing power by claiming to represent the people’s will. When the military believes civilian entities are not upholding the people’s will, it can use this rationale to intervene, positioning itself as the true representative of popular sovereignty.
4. Insurrectionary Armies: Armies with a history of liberating their countries from colonial rulers are particularly prone to political intervention. Such armies see themselves as continuing their revolutionary mandate to shape the nation’s future and ensure its liberation from perceived misgovernance.
5. Emergence of New, Independent States: Newly independent states often experience heightened nationalism and exacerbated economic, ethnic, and religious cleavages. These conditions can lead to calls for a strong, central government to manage these challenges. The military may feel compelled to intervene, positioning itself as the stabilising force necessary to unify the nation and provide effective governance.

Finer’s identification of these conditions provides a framework for understanding why militaries might intervene in political governance. Although this theoretical framework was formulated in the context of the 1950s and 60s, it remains relevant for analysing military interventions in contemporary settings, including Pakistan. These conditions contributed to many military revolts and attempted coups in the 1960s, such as those in Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela, Portugal, and Ethiopia.

B. Loss of Legitimacy of the Civilian Government

This set of theories maintains that notwithstanding the above-mentioned inherent strengths of the armed forces, and the conditions in which their intervention in politics becomes probable, it is the socio-economic and political conditions of the country which can make this probability into a certainty. The failure of civilian governments to maintain good governance leads to civil disturbances, law and order breakdowns, and widespread agitations.

These failures erode the government’s sentimental legitimacy (public support for leaders) and instrumental legitimacy (public confidence in institutions. These factors become critical when the military perceives threats to their corporate interests and the national interest. S.E. Finer has identified the following as the most crucial circumstances inviting the military to intervene in politics

1. Dysfunctional Political Culture: Societies engaged in democratic processes and norms are less likely to experience military coups because civilian rule is broadly accepted and political engagement is high. However, in societies where people are passive and accept authority, military intervention is more likely due to the lack of public resistance. And societies focused on local affiliations rather than national politics are vulnerable to military coups due to weak national political institutions and a fragmented public.
2. Nature of Civil-Military Relations: While high agreement and cooperation between civilian authorities and the military reduce the likelihood of intervention, significant tension between civilian leaders and the military increases the risk of intervention as the military views civilian authorities as threats. The military as an autonomous institution with its own interests will intervene if these interests are poorly managed by civilian leaders.
3. Structure of Institutions: Well-established social, political, and economic institutions deter military intervention by resolving conflicts and maintaining order. On the other hand, ineffective institutions increase the likelihood of military coups by failing to manage political conflicts and instability. Similarly, highly centralized institutions may provoke military intervention if the central authority is seen as incompetent, whereas decentralized institutions disperse power, making it harder for the military to seize control.
4. Economic Conditions: Economic instability, poverty, and inequality create dissatisfaction and unrest, making military intervention more likely as the military steps in to restore order or address grievances.
5. Historical and Social Factors: Societies with a history of military intervention or where the military has historically been powerful are more likely to experience further interventions. Social divisions such as ethnic, religious, or class-based can also create conditions ripe for military involvement if the military is seen as a unifying or stabilizing force.

Finer’s comparative framework provides a multi-faceted analysis of military intervention in politics. By considering political culture, civil-military relations, the structure of political institutions, economic conditions, and historical and social factors, Finer’s approach explains why military coups occur in some societies and not in others.

3. International Trends and Demonstration Effect

This theory posits that the global geopolitical environment significantly influences the likelihood of military coups, especially in developing states. During the Cold War, superpowers like the USA and the Soviet Union often supported military coups to ensure that compliant regimes aligned with their strategic interests came to power. This led to a wave of military coups in the 1960s and 1970s.

4. Miscellaneous Causes Theory

This category includes niche reasons for military coups, often specific to contexts and not universally applicable. In some African countries, ethnic divisions and tribal affiliations within the military can prompt coups. However, such factors are less relevant in Pakistan, where the military is a national institution without significant tribal affiliations in its rank and file. Other niche factors include feelings of dishonour within the armed forces or the existence of an Islamic sub-culture within the military, as noted by scholars like Bennet Jones.

Which theory to apply in Pakistan

Theories of military coups provide a multifaceted framework for understanding why the armed forces might intervene in political governance. However, these four sets of theories explaining the causes of military dominance in political governance are not mutually exclusive.

Every attempt by the military to play a larger-than-life role in politics or straight away military coup can have elements of two or even three sets of theories. Accordingly, every coup, successful or failed, and other extra-constitutional steps by the armed forces in Pakistan can draw attention to almost all these four sets of theories in one way or another, depending upon the perspective one is using. Let me explain them briefly

1. Institutional Theories

The military coup in 1999, led by General Pervez Musharraf, is a classic example of institutional theory in action. The coup followed a period of tension between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the military, particularly over issues such as the Kargil conflict and the government’s attempt to assert control over military appointments and operations. Nawaz Sharif’s attempt to replace the then army chief General Musharraf with his own general proved disastrous for him and democracy in Pakistan. The military perceived these actions as threats to their autonomy and corporate interests, leading to Musharraf’s takeover. Even General Zia-ul-Haq’s takeover had overtones of institutional theory, as the military was perturbed over the way the civilian government was slowly and gradually eroding the autonomy of the armed forces as an institution.

2. Loss of Legitimacy of the Civilian Government

In Pakistan, instances of civilian governments losing legitimacy can be seen in the political instability of the 1950s, leading up to the first military coup in 1958. The chaotic political environment, characterised by frequent changes in government and widespread corruption, led the military to believe that civilian leaders were incapable of effective governance. Similarly, the 1977 coup by General Zia-ul-Haq was precipitated by allegations of electoral fraud and massive public protests against Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government. The public’s loss of confidence in Bhutto’s ability to govern effectively created a vacuum that the military stepped into, justifying their takeover as necessary to restore order and stability.

3. International Trends and Demonstration Effect

Pakistan’s military coups can also be linked to international dynamics. The 1958 coup received tacit support from the United States, which viewed Pakistan as a key ally in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Similarly, during the 1980s, General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime received substantial support from the United States due to Pakistan’s strategic role in supporting the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Similarly, the way America supported General Musharraf after he took over can be seen as an application of this theory in a roundabout way. These international alignments provided the military with the confidence and resources to assert control over the civilian government.

4. Miscellaneous Causes Theory

While Pakistan’s military is generally seen as a cohesive and professional force, certain niche factors have played a role in specific instances. For example, the first coup attempt in 1951 by a group of disgruntled army officers over the government’s Kashmir policy falls under this niche factor. Similarly, the 1974 coup attempt by another group of young officers can be termed a niche factor. In 1995, the coup attempt by Major General Zahirul Islam Abbasi, although ultimately unsuccessful, was motivated by ideological factors, including a desire to establish an Islamic state. This reflects how, in certain contexts, grievances based on ideological beliefs or perceived dishonour can influence military factions to attempt a coup.

Conclusion

Theories of military coups provide a multifaceted framework for understanding why the armed forces might intervene in political governance. In Pakistan, these theories help explain the recurring military takeovers and the military’s dominant role in politics. Loss of legitimacy of civilian governments, the inherent strengths and interests of the military, international trends, and specific grievances all contribute to the complex dynamics that lead to military coups.

By examining these factors holistically, we gain a deeper understanding of the challenges facing democratic governance in Pakistan and other similar contexts. Each military intervention in Pakistan’s history can be analysed through the lens of multiple theories, providing a comprehensive picture of why the military has played such a prominent role in the country’s political landscape.

From the book “Pakistan Affairs: 25 Essays”, published by Amazon and available at

Pakistan Affairs: 25 Essays