Commonalities among Military Rulers in Pakistan

Introduction

“There are armies that guard their nation’s borders, there are armies that are concerned with protecting their own position in society, and there are armies that defend a cause or an idea. The Pakistan Army does all three.”

Stephen P. Cohen/Pakistan: Army, Society, and Security.

It is one of the ironies of fate that Pakistan which owes its creation to a democratic struggle had to live half of its post-independence existence under military regimes. Every military dictator took over the reins of the country on the pretext of ridding the political system of corrupt practices and putting the country on a trajectory of high growth rates, but left it politically crippled and economically ruined.

All three came through military coups, removing the duly elected public representatives. Although Ayyub came into power after removing Iskander Mirza, who had already imposed Martial Law, the action of Iskandar Mirza was a joint venture of these two gentlemen

Although all three military dictators usurped power in three different decades, each followed by civilian rule, there are certain commonalities in their coming into power and the way they ruled the country once in power

A. Favourable Circumstances

All three periods of military dictatorship coincided with fortuitous geopolitical changes at the global and regional levels, namely the Cold War, the Afghan War, and the War on Terror.

1. The first time armed forces took control of the country was in the wake of the escalating Cold War, when the USA needed strong-arm military men to rule over geopolitically important allies to further American interests. How much of a role the USA played in his eventual overthrow of a civilian government in Pakistan, is anybody’s guess, but he was well rewarded in terms of financial aid and military assistance, which further enhanced the relative power of the armed forces in the country.
2. The second time the army intervened in the body politic of Pakistan was in 1977. Americans, fearing their impending defeat in Vietnam, were looking for ways to take revenge on the USSR and fulfill their desire to break it up by bleeding it to death in its soft belly –Afghanistan. Bhutto was never their choice, but the Americans were forced to accept him as chief executive of the country, which they considered extremely crucial for carrying out their plans. Bhutto’s refusal to go along with the American scheme cost him his life later: he was replaced with another dictator
3. The third time, it was General Musharraf, who overthrew the civilian government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999. Incidentally, he was also very lucky; 9/11 happened a year later, and suddenly he became the leader of a front-line state in the war against global terrorism, the non-NATO Ally-Pakistan. As a result, the restoration of democracy in Pakistan took a back seat in the changed circumstances.

They not only got acceptance by the USA but also massive doses of economic and military aid which no doubt accelerated the rates of growth during these periods. The global environment in general and Pakistan’srelations with the USA, in particular, provide another explanation for the dominating role of Pakistan’s army in its politics.

B. Suspending the Constitution

Once in power, the first thing all military dictators do is wrap up the existing political system by abrogating or sidelining the Constitution outright or, in some mischievous way, by calling it suspension. Consequently, following tradition, the first act of Ayyub was to sideline the 1956 constitution, which had provided legitimacy to the old system. Similarly, General Zia suspended the 1973 Constitution and then adopted it after its massive truncation to perpetuate his rule. General Musharraf was no exception; he not only suspended the 1973 Constitution but also amended it to suit his vested interests.

C. Crisis of Political Legitimacy

Suffering from a lack of political legitimacy, all three adopted dubious means to get popular support and perpetuate their rule. Starting with abrogating or suspending the Constitution and getting its judicial vetting by browbeating the judges, they invariably held sham referendums to legalize their authority. After consolidating their power, once in power, all three altered the political landscape of the country by sidetracking or disqualifying the political elite, forming their rump political organizations, hand-picking PMs/CMs, etc

D. Changing Structure of State

Although they kept the façade of a federal form of state, they treated Pakistan as a unitary state by creating unnecessary tensions between the centre and the provinces. The same is true of their treatment of the form of government they adopted. While Ayyub Khan converted it to a presidential form straight away, the other two created a façade of the parliamentarian system, hand-picked PMs/CMs, and got them elected by the parliaments that came into existence by rigging the elections. However, all powers remained with the Presidents

E. Dictatorial Governance Style

Although their regimes varied widely, all three military dictators had a unique style of governance consisting of the following standard techniques used by dictators universally and historically.

1. Autocrats: Enjoying absolute power, all three ruled as autocrats who were not subject to any accountability. They used to take all decisions by themselves or, at the very least, by a small kitchen cabinet consisting of their military comrades. They kept their power through control of the mass media, used secret police to spy on the citizens as well, and restricted or completely removed their freedoms. centralized policy formulation by the junta, its implementation by civilian institutions headed by military personnel, and supervised by local military units
2. Personality Cult: To maintain a firm hold on the position of authority for a long time, all three dictators tried to create a charismatic, flawless personality cult through state propaganda machinery. While Ayyub Khan tried to project himself as an enlightened despot, General Zia favoured being known as a modern Salah din Ayyubi to inspire a wide range of followers with devotion and enthusiasm. General Musharraf preferred a public image of an outgoing modern Ernesto “Che” Guevara.
3. Bribery: All three used the usual technique of buying the loyalties of important individuals in every sector and section of society. Using government posts and funds, they tried to buy anyone they considered important to perpetuate their foothold. Awarding contracts, doling out state funds, and providing jobs to their near and dear ones were the standard methods for this purpose. Similarly, they gave generous tax/non-tax concessions to the industry, while for the rural elite, loan forgiveness was the preferred method.
4. Populism: Using a time-tested strategy to maintain their firm grip on power, all three dictators played with the emotions of the general public. Ayyub played the Kashmir card, while Zia used the name of Islam for the emotional manipulation of the public. Musharraf used three factors—security, terrorism, and ethnicity to make them believe that there was no alternative to him. Or he can promise them everything under the sun (food, shelter, and clothing) if they keep on obeying him. They exploit the racial or religious sensitivities of the public and pose themselves as their saviours. Stephen P. Cohen, in his article, Pakistan: Army, Society, and Security, has rightly stated,” There are armies that guard their nation’s borders, there are armies that are concerned with protecting their own position in society, and there are armies that defend a cause or an idea. The Pakistan Army does all three,”

F. Institutional Restructuring

Keen to leave their footprints in history, all three military leaders considered themselves to be modern Douglas MacArthur, tinkering with centuries-old institutions with impunity and replacing them with their test-tube baby institutions. Ayyub Khan not only disqualified the old political elite that had created Pakistan but also did away with the parliamentary form of government. He argued that Pakistan was not yet ready for parliamentary democracy and created a five-tiered system of basic democracies, consisting of 80,000 local councillors in rural and urban councils. General Zia, a devout Muslim, tried to Islamise every institution, while General Musharraf dismantled the entire administrative structure and introduced his style of governance through Devolution.

G. Preferring Local Governments

While avoiding holding free and fair general elections, they were very keen on holding local bodies elections as soon as they came into power to not only sidetrack the national level political elite but also create their loyalists plus to legitimize their rule

H. Unceremonious Exit

All three exited very unceremoniously. Two dictators, Ayyub and Musharraf, had to leave office due to public agitation against their authoritarian methods of governance. Zia would have met the same fate if God had not been kind to him and let him die with boots on.

I. Dubious Legacies

Every military dictator who took over the reins of the country on the pretext of ridding the political system of corrupt practices and putting the country on a trajectory of high growth rates left it economically ruined and democratically exhausted. One left it truncated into two independent states. The repeated derailment of the democratic and constitutional processes heightened tensions on issues of economic management, provincial autonomy, and discretionary powers, particularly those vested in the office of the President of Pakistan.

Rasul Bakhsh Rais has rightly stated that “the history of military dictators is characterized by deceit, institutional decay, political fragmentation, moral and social rot, (that produced polarization), insurgencies, and alliances of the state with violent ethnic and religious groups”.