No civil military balance, without divesting military commercial interests

A poor attempt at a balancing act

Asma Jahangir has spoken on the issue of military-civil imbalance today. Quite rightly, any deference to the words of General Kayani and Pasha that compromises individual rights doesn't say much for either the supremacy of the law, or a “free judiciary”.

Back in May, right after the Abbottabad raid, a lot of people quite excitedly, heralded this as a unfortunate, but at the same time fortunate opportunity to put the military in its place. Get it back into the confines of its constitutional mandate. Then came the in camera briefing in the National Assembly, but after a few weeks it was obvious that the military was running the show.

The PPP government started off by emphasising its determination to guide Pakistan's security and foreign policy. Zardari spoke of a grand free trade area and our then foreign minister SMQ smiled sheepishly with Hillary Clinton as Kayani looked on from the margins. Alot of choreographing, but Zardari's ideas didn't come to much and SMQ is well, batting for the other team now. Even then, few believed that the Army had relinquished influence over foreign and security affairs. Effectively, it could exercise its veto over civilian decisions if and when it wanted.

In the recent past, one has to be quite naive to still believe that its Zardari who shapes Pakistan's foreign policy. Unlike most PTI supporters and reactionary critics, its not as if Zardari allowed drone strikes or handed over Pakistani airbases to US control. Neither was it Zardari who extra-judicially handed over foreign and Pakistani citizens to the US without due process who later ended up in Bagram, Guantanamo etc. And before I forget, the most hated of documents, the infamous NRO was facilitated and negotiated by our very own COAS General Kayani, however, being in khaki he's above criticism or responsibility.

That said, whenever the issue of civil-military relations come up and people talk about balancing it, a lot of emphasis is placed on politicians doing the “right” thing and exercising their mandate and forcing the military to relent before there constitutional superiority. That's why the mere mention of the possibility of the PM sacking Kayani and Pasha unleashed a storm. Mind you that storm was much louder in regards to a possible decision that a sitting PM might which is his prerogative and constitutional, while a coup, orchestrated by the military unleashes jubilation and a fiscal stimulus for mathai shops.

The biggest slice of the cake

I would argue that any balance between the civilian side and the military side of the state can only be achieved if the military economic influence is decreased. The military through its various arms has its fingers in every commercial pie. Resources are skewed favourably in the hands of those in khaki and their institutions; for the industrial, capitalist class knows who to deal with if they want to get things done.

Now the military property empire is a ubiquitous part of Pakistani urban life. The nexus between Bahria Town-HRL-DHA for a few is “national progress” but for those forcibly displaced, the state that misses out on tax revenues, the banks that are forced to offer concessional loans and later write them off, the abrogation of the constitution within these areas; the costs are massive and they keep on piling up. The following DAWN Reporter Episodes paint an ugly picture of the cartel that is now the military-commercial interest which is a law unto itself. (Thanks to @shahidsaaed)

You can tick through a list of industries in Pakistan, and one way or the other, either through outright ownership or in partnership the military is a major stakeholder. Nothing comes of cases of corruptions against generals, so there is no surprise that ex-military types pack commercial organisations. Capitalists vote with their feet, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they vote for the team with the bigger stick.

Incentives in action

Now politicians are a fragmented and competitive group. Sure, they make poor decisions and may be corrupt, however, they act in their self interest, where ever that might take them. Given the might of the military, its monopoly over the use of force, coupled with its huge economic clout, a fragmented group of politicians have no chance to exercise their will over the military. Instead, they are co-opted by the military to do their bidding, and why wouldn't they? 

Now the next obvious question is: Do we want these incompetent civilians dictating policy to the military?

The answer to that is yes. The simple reason is this: Given Zardari's 11% approval rating, the dismal approval rating of the PPP, and overall image of politicians as incompetent, we can be assured that every decision they take is the talk of the evening news cycle. Columns are written, opinions are formed, news is shared and retweeted.

However, decisions taken by the military fall under two categories. Either the military makes a decision, and then civilians are made to face the negative fall out of it. Or the military makes decisions and no one is the wiser. When questioned, you are not offered a policy outline. Instead you get a long emotive speech about sacrifices and bravery which somehow qualifies someone to make decisions on a nations foreign policy or other associated matter that is not even that persons job.

Do as the Chinese do

In China the Divestiture Act of 1998 banned all the commercial activities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Like their Pakistani counterparts, the PLA had invested itself in banks, hotels, factories, property developments, retailing etc. During the Tienanmen uprising in 1989, China came dangerously close to a military coup. As the vanguard of the revolution the PLA, was a central part of the Communist Party and the Party heavily invested in the PLA. The PLA eventually sided with the pulitburo and the Tienanmen protesters, and protesters across the country were crushed. These events helped accelerate the PLA's independence from CCP control and widen its economic activities. By the mid-1990s as China bombed, so did the PLA's financial interests. In an effort to encourage professionalism in the PLA and in a display of its authority, the CPC promulgated the Divestiture Act of 1998 banning its commercial activities. Without it, the PLA would have gained undue influence, both by wielding weapons and cheque books.... Sound familiar?

Without reducing the military's economic dominance and access to resources the dream of civil authority over the military will not come to pass. This is not a matter of budgetary allocations. Its about a parallel economy that sucks away resources without any accountability. It rewards itself for taking the risks, but given that its “too big to fail”, the costs are passed on to the losers. The military and those associated with it, sail through bureaucratic red tape, judicial and legislative oversight, and political interference.

This is also why, I don’t agree with suggestions that the only way to save the Railways or PIA is to privatise it. Pakistan has toothless regulators that are easily co-opted. Recently, a newspaper report claimed that the National Logistics Cell, which has single handedly destroyed the Railways freight transport market is going to take over parts of the organisation to run as a “private” initiative. Then again, NLC, with its association with the military is above any critique. Until the state has a capacity to regulate privatised industries, there is no point in transferring a public monopoly to a private one. Tax payers keeping a state organisation afloat for better or worse is one thing, however, tax payers of inflationary borrowing doing the same to prop up a privatised industry to line the pockets of shareholders is criminal.

If I may digress for a paragraph, this is also another reason why I dont buy Imran Khan's and PTI's rhetoric on jusitice and ending corruption. How can they talk about justice and reducing corruption when they remain silent on the military and its role in the economy? Why the silence? PTI supporters like to talk about Turkey's example and the Erdogen model of gradual civilian dominance, but Erdogen as an activist and campaigner would not shy away from putting the Turkish military in its place.

Given that the military is the “winning horse” in the race to the bottom, its not surprising that those seeking an economic advantage find one way or another to cling to it. Some argue, that this proves that the military is a disciplined institution and people trust it with its money. However, the flip side is that no competitor is allowed a fair chance to compete with the military's might. And those individuals and organisations who are lucky enough to tag along under the khaki umbrella...well not only are they minting money, but they are also called national heroes. And when there great money making enterprises go belly up, it will be the patriotic duty off every Pakistani to bail them out.