Virginia Review of Asian Studies

THE UPPER HAND ON PAKISTANI POLITICS: AN ANALYSIS OF

SEASONAL POLITICS
NASREEN AKHTAR1
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
Abstract: Pakistans military intervention in politics has become an inevitable feature of political
life in this troubled nation. The militarys intervention has been remained both visible and
invisible in Pakistani politics. Since Pakistans inception four Chief of the army staff ( COAS)
have ruled the country directly and other COAS have been involved in influencing the political
environment of the country through the political leadership, all of them strive to design their own
political model/structure which suited them. Pakistans internal and external security has
immensely been threatened under the both civil-military regimes. They were more authoritarian
and did not recognize the people as political entity which eventually divided Pakistani nation.
Their political structure deprived the people. Today, Pakistan is paying heavy price due to
incompetent politicians. The military rule could not be effective or last long without political cooptation of the same elites who held public offices in the civilian governments. But their
cooperation with the military government could never be possible without political
fragmentation that the military regime and intelligence agencies under it caused. It was a
conscious and well designed effort of military rulers to divide political forces by rewarding those
who joined their rule and oppressing those who refused to render the political services they
desired from them. An Impending political development played critical role in bringing the army
in Pakistani politics.
Introduction
There is in Pakistan a permanent threat of politicization and corruption of the military. Moreover,
military officers have a morbid fear of the politicians interfering in military promotions and
appointments as this could split the army .Whenever a civilian government starts trying to
interfere in this institution, the army has to act in self defense.2This statement is justified by the
military officers to justify their intervention in the political affairs. The first army ruler, General
Muhammad Ayub Khan, had no fears from the civilian government. Zulfqar Ali Bhutto, an
elected Prime Minister did not politicize the military institution. In 1970s, there was deep
political chaos in Pakistan which should have been resolved through political means but the army
chief, General Muhammad Zial-ul-Haq, imposed martial law in the country. Every military coup
in Pakistan has therefore been carried out by the chief of the army staff, backed by a consensus
of the corp. commanders.3Army chief does not need to control the countrys command if his
interests are protected by the civilian governments. The three years COAS extension which will
be discussed later in this paper, shows harmony between the government and army despite that
the army establishment has been criticized by the civil prime minister,Yousaf Raza Gilani. The
current government has failed to deliver and violates the democratic values, constitutional
The author is an Assistant Professor, currently teaching in the department of Politics and
International Relations in International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan.
1

2
3

. Anatol Lieven, Pakistan : A Hard Country, (UK:Penguin Publisher 2011), pp.162-163

. Ibid.

117

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

powers, and has provoked the army several times, but army General did not try to take over. This
is an historical bench mark in Pakistans political history.
The Pakistan military has long been considered the one institution in the country that
functions sufficiently well to deliver international objectives. It has consequently been the
partner of choice for many states, not least the United States. Pakistans history, however, shows
that successive military regimes have each led Pakistan to crises, to the detriment of partners
interests; and far from guaranteeing the cohesion and stability of Pakistan, military rule has more
often jeopardized it.
Pakistan has suffered four coups in 63 disordered years as a nation. Even some
Pakistanis, who believed in democracy but were opposed to Prime Minister Nawz Sharif,
welcomed military intervention to change regime in 1999. But if a country is unruly, having
generals rule is no solution. The truth is that politicians pave the way for the generals. We have
encountered that in our past-- every time a politician has gone overboard on their styles of
corruption for the country. But as these military generals seized power, martial law would be
imposed or a dictatorship would arise in the country. Pakistan failed to establish a strong
structure due to this military coup system. Going through the four generals regimes, we can see
how Pakistan structure was jolted.
Pakistans military influence on Pakistani Politics has never been a benchmark as it was
considered at the time of crisis. Few Pakistani Generals thought that they would liberate their
people from authoritarian, despotic and undemocratic politicians who failed to facilitate and
deliver to their people. It is true that Pakistani people always welcomed military man whenever
he overthrew an elected prime minister. Some political parties supported them knowingly that a
general has no knowledge to run the state institutions. Party leaders also seek their survival to
support a man in uniform. Theoretically, all military Generals gave an impression that the state
would be prosperous, secure, stable, progressive, democratic and modern. Moreover, all corrupt
people would be held with iron hands.4 Empirically, their policies resembled a mirage. The State
divided ethnically, when they centralized all powers in their own hands (few military
Generals).Pakistan became more dependent instead of a self-sufficient state.
Indeed, Pakistans Army is well organized, professionally skilled, equipped and enjoying
with modernity. This is the only organization in Pakistan which is fully trusted by the people. On
the other hand, selected generals exploited their peoples aspirations, dreams and sentiments
whenever they got chance to enjoy political power. They could not replace shame democracy,
but rather implemented their own agendas which protected their personal interests instead of the
national interests.5 No doubt, the military institution is considered an integral part to protect
Pakistans border/areas from internal and external forces, so it enjoys unique structural positions
in Pakistan. In his book on the Pakistani military, Shuja Nawaz mentions how, when his brother
General Asif Nawaz was chief of the army staff during Sarifs first government in the 1990s,

.Four military rulers ( General Ayub Khan, General Yahya Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq and General Mushrraf) made
their first speeches to gain the peoples support and trust. But their stern policies implemented only when their own
political interest were at stake.
5
. In Pakistan, national interest is always defined by military not by the civil government.

118

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

some of Sharifs own ministers would come to see his brother to throw him out and replace him
with someone else.6
All four Generals, Muhammad Ayub Khan, Muhammad Yahya Khan, Muhamad Zia-ulHaq and Pervez Mushrraf, had dismissed or suspended the countrys constitution and treated
their people as tyrants whenever their power was challenged by them. They did not spare their
political rivals and controlled Pakistani society like their own troops (soldiers), those always took
their command blindly. They, unfortunately, perceived that Pakistani people did not deserve a
western democratic system. If the people wishes are ignored one after the other they always
forced dictators to leave and this is what exactly happened with Pakistani Generals in politics
who were going to change Pakistan according their own wishes. Why do people rebel? This
depends on their level of frustration, anxiety and fear; and when they have lost human dignity,
respect and hope and when the rulers are like robbers and hide their criminality with legal sugarcoating.7
Why have the military regimes not been achieved political stability, internal/external
security and economic objectives? How Pakistan becomes more vulnerable internally? I will
explore the answer of these questions. The influence of military establishment on Pakistans
internal security has destabilized the state stability. This statement would be elaborated
analytically rather critically. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the causes or the strains
implemented by the military rulers and to illustrate the ideological and security challenges in
Pakistan by determined of military regimes regarding federalism which caused ethno national
movement, and promoted religious extremism, it also enhances sectarian conflict and
polarization in society.
A Theoretical Concept:
Military intervention in politics is hardly unique to Pakistan. Military intervention is seen
commonly in Africa, Asia, Latin America and also in some Arab countries, though military rulers
have been forced by the people with the help of external forces to leave their palaces.8 The recent
example in Egypt is glorifying the democratic forces in other authoritarian Muslim states for
instance Libya, and Morocco etc. The military rulers only can be ousted with massive support
which is encouraged by the international or regional forces.9Indeed, military rulers come and
survive with indigenous and external supporters. There are several factors which lead the army to
come out from their barracks to command civilians. Edmund Burke once observed that "an
armed, disciplined body is, in its essence, dangerous to liberty". Indeed, at first glance, the
potential for conflict between democracy and the military seems all too obvious. If we define
democracy as a political system which essentially promotes individual freedom, and the military
as an organization based on the strict application of discipline and hierarchy, the contrasts are
6

.Shuja Nawaz, Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army and the War Within , ) Oxford University Press: Oxford
2008),pp446-58
7
. Rasul Bakhsh Rais, When People Matters The Express Tribune, February 21-02-2011.
8
. Saddam Husain was forced by the internal had political support by the external forces.
9
. President Hosni Mubarak was forced to quit after 30 years. The opposition leaders and the people of Egypt
were having an international support from the United States particularly. See detail at
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/middleeast/04diplomacy.html?
scp=7&sq=mubarak%20should%20respect%20the%20people%20says%20obama&st=cse. Accessed on 02-02-2011.

119

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

stark. Moreover, conflict between civilian elites and military leaders appears to be almost
unavoidable when the former claims unrestrained supremacy over the latter.10As the dean of the
sub-discipline of civil-military relations, Professor S. E. Finer, wrote in 1962: There is a
common assumption, an unreflecting belief, that it is somehow `natural' for the armed forces to
obey the civilian power . But no reason is adduced for showing that civilian control of the
armed forces is, in fact, `natural'. Is it? Instead of asking why the military engage in politics, we
ought surely to ask why they ever do otherwise. For at first sight the political advantages of the
military vis-a-vis other and civilian groupings are overwhelming. The military possess vastly
superior organization. And they possess arms .11 Finer also suggested four levels of intervention
e.g. (1) influence, (2) blackmail,(3)displacement, and (4) supplement. Both the first and second
levels, the military works upon and through the civil authorities and remain behind the scenes.,
the third level of displacement, refers to the removal of one particular set of civilians by another
with ought throwing the civilian regime as such .The level of supplement which sweeps ways the
civilian regime and establishes the military in its place.12Thus tangible and intangible features
support to the military to intervene in politics in any week state. Many weak states have failed to
sustain democratic civil-military relationship for long and independent states created after the
WW11 have experienced direct or indirect military rule.
William Jesse defined civil-military relation; national decision will be made by politically
responsible civilian officials and means of supporting these policies will be under the control of
politically responsible civilian officials.13 If the balance between the civil-military relationship
fails, it affects states domestic sovereignty, security and leads to military intervention. Pakistans
international sovereignty has been threatened twice, in 1971, East Pakistan (Present Bangladesh)
separated and security threatened again in 1973-77 when the Baloch nationalists took weapons
against their own state( Balochistan). Political crisis provided an opportunity for the then chief
of the army staff, General Zia-ul-Haq , to impose Martial law to curb the nationalist (separatist)
movement in an important province in Pakistan. As Finer says, armed forces have three massive
advantages over civilian organizations: a marked superiority in organization, a highly emotional
symbolic status, and a monopoly of arms, 14
Pakistan provides an example of how the military has been able to govern the country as
successfully as a civilian government. It has its own view of democracy, political stability and
good governance. The Army feels it has a political role which stems from the national security
paradigm of the state. 15In many parts of the world the military takes over and runs the so-called
civilian administration permanently or periodically. The liberal democratic assumption that

10

. Sundhaussen, ULF, The Military: A Threat to Democracy? Available at

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-62161541.html.Accessed on 25-01-2011

11

.S. E. Finer, The Man on Horseback:The role of the Military in Politics, (London: Pall Mall Press, 1962).
.Ibid,.pp.86-87
13
.See detail in William Jesse, The New Military Professionalism: Changing Conception of Military Profession in
the Post War period (Riverside, CA: University of California Press, 1973). Pp 6-8.
14
. S. E. Finer,.Op.cit.pp3-4S
15
.Smruti S. Pattanaik, Pakistans Sustainable Democracy: Army as the Political Architect, Strategic Analysis,
vol.28, No.2, Apr-Jun 2004pp.272 available at http://www.idsa.in/system/files/strategicanalysis_smruti_0604.pdf.
12

120

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

executive and their senior administrators control the military is simply invalid in many states.
The military is involved to some extent in the politics of every country, 16it is not only Pakistan.
According to C.E.Welch, the civil-military relationship is determined as:
1) Civilian Control: In the liberal democratic model the civilian government maintains the
dominant position. The military acts like any other large Bureaucracy. It fights for
personal and resources within the government. It has influence to the extent that it
manages to convince the public, government, and politicians that it has the best case.
2) Civilian Control and Military Participation: In wartime, for example, military power
increases even in liberal democracy. It is not as just equal layer with other parts of the
bureaucracy it can insist on having a dominant role in decision-making.
3) Military Control and Civilian Participation: When the military takes over the government,
it often keeps a degree of civilian participation either for practical or symbolic purposes.
To mask the fact that the military is really pulling the strings behind the scene, civilian
leaders may be put at the head of the government.
4) Direct Military Control: In such system the military publically and unabashedly controls
the government. It may employ civilian for tasks the bureaucracy but the military is
Cleary the political authority17
The Military in Pakistan
The military has monopoly over most important decisions of the state. A part from being
the guards in the external security of the nation, it is a well-accepted political institution.18 The
Pakistani Army has the direct control over Pakistans nuclear program and foreign policy. The
National Command Authority (NCA) was established by the former Chief of the Army Staff and
President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, to assure the west that Pakistans nuclear
weapon is safe.19
The Pakistani Army has unique characteristics. It has been called by the civil regimes in
the time of crisis. It feels itself the true guardian of the country, in fact, it has proved it whenever
the state faces internal security dilemma. The Pakistani military got such a strengthen position
has its deep roots in history. Pakistan faced several crises after its inception 1947.It was the army
which rescued the nation in times of true crisis. During the disaster of earthquake 2005and sad
flooding situation the army had has always protected the people and has left immensely positive
impacts on their minds and heart. In fact, Pakistani army has won the peoples mind and heart in
their favor no matter what the circumstance is.
Pakistan is a multi-ethnic nation. Internal riots had weakened the civil regime in 1950s.
East Pakistan and the West Pakistan, both Pakistani wings were being threatened by the ethno16

.Robert J.Jackson & Doreen Jackson, A Comparative Introduction to Political Science, (New Jersey: Prentice
Hall,Inc, 1997), p289.
17
.C.E.Welch, Jr., ed,. Civilian Control of the Military ( Albany: New York Press, 1976)
18
. Military in the politics of Pakistan, http://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/1/uNIT-8.PDF.
accessed on 17-02-2011
19
. After the proliferation of nuclear material by A.Q.Khan network, Pakistans nuclear weapon had become suspect
ted by the West.

121

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

nationalists. Army curbed the linguistic and ethnic movement when it rose in Sindh and
Baluchistan in 1952-54. In 1953 the army assisted the civilian governments when the people
stood up against Ahmadya in Lahore.20 One would be surprised to know that under the
operation service first the army also played its role in nation building process; army officers
were granted magisterial and executive powers in 1956 to control the widespread hoarding,
black-marketing and resulting food shortage in East Pakistan.21Earlier in 1951-52, the army
conducted an operation Jute to stop smuggling of jute to India from East Pakistan. Pakistan
was losing a considerable source of revenue. This operation was a healthy cooperation with the
civil agencies.22Thus armys role started to expand in civilian fields which could not be
prevented.
Pakistan could not have the high quality of leadership after Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In the
early 1950s, social chaos in Pakistan did make the political organizations weak and corrupt
which promoted nepotism. The newly born Islamic state was passing through the gravest
situation. Landlords, strong politicians and bureaucrats were holding powers and influence over
the public offices. The main stream forces Political parties lost the peoples trust. Doubtful
circumstances created by the politicians enhanced militarys power. Very often elections were
avoided by the state elite and when conducted they led political turmoil. The weakness of the
political forces is a sign of fragmentation and factionalism among civil society and the political
class.23
A Worth mentioning fact is that Pakistans neighboring countries e.g. India and
Afghanistan both created tension and trouble in Pakistans internal provinces such as NWFP
(North Western Frontier Province), currently Khaiber Pakhtunkhawa and Baluchistan. The
separatists and ethno movements had been supported either by Afghanistan or India to
destabilize Pakistan. Unfortunately, the civil governments have always failed to control the
situation. External forces and conflicting neighboring states also provided strong grip to the army
over Pakistans week institutions. Armys direct interaction and interference in public affairs had
affected politicians credibility. Armys cooperative image toward the people created trust deficit
between the people and political leaders, which is still going on.
Usually, because politicians are considered responsible for inviting the army to share their
burden during conflicting situation in the country, the military has legitimized its interference by
the threat of state destabilization and doubted leadership, the political leadership was perceived
as security risk to stage the military coup. As mentioned earlier military rule could not be
effective or last long without political co-optation of the same elites who held public offices in
the civilian governments. But their cooperation with the military government could never be
possible without political fragmentation that the military regime and intelligence agencies under
it caused. It was a conscious and well designed effort of military rulers to divide political forces
by rewarding those who joined their rule and oppressing those who refused to render the political
services they desired from them.
20

.Pakistani communities have particular belief which is considered non-Muslim and they were declared minority in
1973 Constitution, now they are called Qadiyani.
21
.Nation Building Activitiesavailable at http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPReview/TextContent.aspx?
pId=205&rnd=220. Accessed on 17-02-2011
22
. Ibid.
23
.Aysha Jala, State of Martial Rule,(Lahore: Vanguard Books,1991),pp.63-4

122

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

Their regular intervention into the inner functioning of the political parties, elected
assemblies, media and other institutions resulted into weakening the political institutions that are
necessary for the parliamentary democracy. The tradition of the Generals of Pakistan accusing
their political leaders has continued from the first army ruler to the last one.The army
meanwhile learned over time to establish patro-client relationships with the bureaucracy and with
Islamist parties whom it used in its efforts to fight populist leaders in both East and West
Pakistan and fuel the Kashmiri insurgency against Indian rule. Coup dtats in the history of
Pakistan have been validated by the superior courts by the misinterpretation of Roman Law that
which otherwise is not lawful, necessity makes lawful.24
Therefore, the Pakistan army pushed itself into direct control of governance through
sidelining the weak political class. Martial Law was first imposed in 1958.Since then, the
military has strengthened its position to become a dominant player in power politics. Over the 63
years of the states history, the army has experienced direct power four times, and learns to
negotiate authority when not directly in control of the government.25
The state plays a central role, acting in the interest of other groups, which are; the landed-feudal
class, the indigenous bourgeoisie and the metropolitan bourgeoisie. These three groups constitute
the ruling power block that competes in the framework of peripheral capitalism.26
The First Military General :Ayub Khans role
Ayub Khans father was a RISALDAR in British-Indian army so he chose the title of
Field Marital for himself ,he wanted to be superior.27 Ayub Khan stands out as the first Muslim
military ruler in South Asia who tried to put his country on the modern secular path without
renouncing the fundamental principles of Islam.28 The first Prime Minister, Liaqut Ali Khan ,was
assassinated on 16 October 1951.With that the politicians lost their hold on the government and
the management of the affairs of the country passed into the hands of civil servants, three of
whom rose to the top in less than four years. First, Ghulam Muhammad became the GovernorGeneral immediately after Liaqut Alis assassination. Then came Iskander Mirza who made
Ghulam Muhmmad abdicate in his favor and appointed Chaudhri Muhammad Ali as his Prime
Minister.
Ayub Khans entry in power was made possible only due to the incompetence of the
politicians. Altaf Gauhar states, it took Ayub quite some time to abandon the army tradition of
complete subordination to the civil authority. 29 Iskander Mirza, relied on the army, Mirza
increasingly involved the military in the function of the state.30General Ayub perceived the
people of Pakistan as being ignorant, innocent, and illiterate. They could not have the
24

.Shuja Nawaz, Cross Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within, (Karachi: Oxford University
Press,2008).pp.xxviii.xxix
25
.Ayesha Sidiqa, Military INC:Inside Pakistans Military Economy, (Karachi: Oxford University Press,2007).p.19
26
.HamzaAlvi, The Structure of peripheral capitalism, in Hmaza Alvi and Teador Shanin (ed), Socialogy of
Developing Societies, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1982). pp.172-91
27
. A naval officer revealed to author during talk.
28
.Altaf Goahuhar, Ayub Khan: Pakistans First Military Ruler, (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications,1998),p35
29
.Ibid.p.130s
30
Hassan Askari Rizvi, Military State and Society in Pakistan, (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publishers, 2003)p.83

123

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

understanding about democracy; thus he ruled out direct participation of the people in
politics.31
Mirzas government extended Ayubs tenure of service. Political unrest in the country
provided Ayub Khan an opportunity to force Mirza to quit power who already had abrogated the
Constitution on 7 October 1958 and appointed Ayub Khan as Chief Martial Law
Administration.32 Mirza enjoyed political power till 28th October 1958 when he was forced to
resign by Ayubs loyal staff and finally sent Mirza and his wife to London.
Ayub was in undisputed command. There was not a ripple of protest or any sign of agitation.
Miss Fatima Jinnah, the revered sister of Quaid-e- Azam, issued a statement, The exit of MajorGeneral Iskander Mirza from the political scene has brought sense of relief to the people of
Pakistan. The armed forces have undertaken to root out the administrative malaise, and to create
a sense of confidence and stability and to bring the country back to a state of normalcy. 33Ayub
Khan was welcomed by the people of Pakistan made desperate by the previous government.
Ayub Khan liberated them from insincere political leaders and promised with the people that he
would bring economic prosperity, social justice and political stability in the country. The nation
blindly trusted him. Ayubs objective was to modernize Pakistan through industrialization and
true democracy. He introduced reforms to provide the direct fruit to the public (common
man).He took drastic action to implement the new reforms regarding land and Muslim family
law. Under the land reforms action, land was distributed to deserving people in different areas of
Pakistan. Pathan ( Pashtun community from NWFP) were settled in Sindh (Karachi) which
hanged demographic map in Karachi which promoted ethnic conflict later.34 It was done to gain
and maintained political power. The main objective of the land reforms was to reduce the
political influence and power of the landlord feudal in Sindh, and Punjab particularly.
Ayubs early rule was known modern, industrialized and economically prosperous.
Economic policies resulted in massive economic growth and high GNP.Free administration and
effective use of foreign exchange helped to Ayubs regime to hold a strong control on the
peoples nerves.
Despite the revolution of modernity, industrialization and economic recovery the lack of
accountability and checks and balances weakened Pakistan. Economically, society was divided
between the rich and poor. Politically, nation was divided between East Pakistan and West
Pakistan.35Only the elite class, civil servants, businessmen and few land lords were enjoying. The
first army ruler was failed to eradicate corruption, political and socio-politic deprivation. Despite
the fact that he enforced Elected Body Disqualification Ordinance (EBDO), good governance
was lacking in the two Pakistani wings.36 The factors of deprivation and sense of insecurity in
East Pakistan strongly divided the nation ethnically between the West and East Pakistan. As far
31

. Altaf Goahuhar. Op.cit

. Altaf Goauhar, op.cit. P. 148
33
. Ibid. P. 156
34
.Dr. Habiba, Karachi based practioner, mentioned during personal talk with author in Nepal (Kathmandu) during
an international workshop in 2009.These days one would can see ethnic conflict and targeting killing between MQM
and Pathan (ANP) Awami National Party, political targeting killing has ruined the peace of cosmopolitan city,
Karachi.
35
.See detail in Altaf Goauhar, Ayub Khan:The military Ruler and Hamza Alvi, Authoritarian and Legitimating od
State Power in Pakistan, in Subterata Mitra (ed), The Post Colonial State in South ,(London,1990)
32

36

.See Lawrence Ziring, The Ayub Era: Politics in Pakistan 1958-1969(New York: Syracuse University Press,
1971),also Khalid B. Sayeed gives detail in his book, The Political System of Pakistan (1960),

124

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

as literacy rate is concerned it was declined .During Ayubs regime performance in education
sector was worse in Asia in terms of percentage of national expenditure allocated to education.37
In 1960, Ayub held an indirect referendum of his term in power. People had to say yes/no
to this statement;Have you confidence in the President Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan,
Hilal-i-Pakistan, and Hilal-i-Jurat?38 Ayubs plan to bring the grassroots democracy, Basic
democratic system, (BDS),39 created an ever powerful president in Pakistan. The 1962
Constitution was designed to make Ayubs office the more powerful, unchallengeable and
centralized. Did Ayub have political awareness in framing the constitution of 1962? No, certainly
not, they were his aides, assistant or politically ambitious few people those really wanted to
enjoy political power with Army General Ayub Khan.
The 1964 elections combined the all opposition leaders against Ayub Khan. The parties
nominated Miss Fatima Jinnah 40as a candidate for the Presidential elections. Many people
wanted Miss Jinnah, and their enthusiasm towards Jinnahs sitar alarmed the Ayubs associates
and Ayub Khan himself got puzzle. He was persuaded by his party to use the religious card
against Miss Jinnah. A fatwa (religious decree) was obtained from some ulema (religious
scholars) to the effect that a woman could not become the head of a Muslim State. Although the
opposition organized an even larger set of ulema to produce an equally authoritative fatwa in
support of Miss Jinnah. That a woman could become the ruler under exceptional circumstances.
According to the opposition, Pakistan was going through exceptional circumstances.41A state
always has the potential to change the internal dynamics so Ayubs regime used the state
machinery. Ayub had come so close to defeat and his reforms and his constitution had been so
comprehensively rejected by the people. The demand for democracy had been Miss Jinnahs
main source of popularity.42
The 1965 war against India, following the failure of operation Gibraltars43 was a
serious political set back to the military regime. Peoples resentment increased when Ayub Khan
signed Tashkent Declaration 1966.44Why did Ayub sign Tashkent Declaration? Pakistani people
have no answer. But this historical declaration for peace between India and Pakistan immensely
weakened Ayubs government. Declaration was, deliberately, criticized by the offended political
leaders particularly, Foreign Minster Bhutto, 45who had seen the changing environment in
Pakistan, had propagated against the declaration. Strikes, political movement for the restoration
of democracy, and agitation in the country had weakened Ayubs control. The danger to the
country was increased by demands from East Pakistan leaders for virtual autonomy. Ayub
37

.Yasmin Niaz Mohiddun, Pakistan: A Global Studies Handbook, (Oxford:ABC-CLIO, 2006),pp 100
. Altaf Gauhar.
39
.Under this system 80, 000 democrats were elected and these elected members voted the President
40
. Miss Jinnah was sister of Quaid-e-Azam the founder father of Pakistan.
41
.Altaf Goahar. Op.cit. pp.278-279
42
Altaf Goahar.pp.286-287
43
.In spring 1965, some Armey personnel were deployed in disputed area between India and Pakistan (Kashmir).
44
.Full text of Tashkent declaration is available at http://www.jammukashmir.com/documents/jktashkent.html.
38

45

. Zullfqar Ali Bhutto, Foreign Minister, did oppose Accord 1960 between India and Pakistan. He left Ayubs
cabined and formed his own political party, Pakistan peoples party (PPP)

125

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

considered declaring martial law once more, but the army leaders refused to give him their
support, believing that he had become a liability to them. Realizing that he was without support,
Ayub resigned on March 25, 1969, stating that as he had lost control of the situation, he could not
preside over the destruction of his country.46
The Second Pakistani Military Ruler:General Yahya Khans role
General Ayub resigned 25 March, 1969.He transferred power to another military General instead
of considering any civilian leader in East- West Pakistan.Ayubs end was swift.Yhayh Khan
imposed martial law, this was the second Martial law in Pakistans 22-years history. As soon as
the army took power, the agitation in the streets died out. The relief at Ayubs exit was so great,
the Pakistan army has always fulfilled the will of the people of Pakistan and after doing so, it has
always decided to stay,47What was new for the people of Pakistan that the constitution would
be framed by the representative of the people, as that was promised by the new military ruler,
also he assured the people that the smooth transfer of power would be ensured to the elected
representatives. Yahyas government was serious to satisfy the people of East Pakistan
demanding an autonomous province. Political turmoil was threatening Pakistans sovereignty
and security. He took major decisions including the disbanding of the unpopular One Unit of
West Pakistan that had played havoc with the interests of smaller provinces of Sindh,
Baluchistan, and Frontier.48
The only political way to diminish the unrest in East-West Pakistan was to conduct the
general elections. The first ever general elections were held in 1970 the fairest in Pakistans
history. The Awami League led by Shaikh Mujib-u-Rehamn swept East Pakistan, while Bhuttos
PPP emerged in West Pakistan.49 Both leaders from East-West Pakistan disagreed on the
transferring of political power. It was the Buhtto-Mujeebs political failures not to strike political
deal and General took opportunity to exploit the politicians. After the elections the armys role
should have been ended but Yahya was more interested to stay in power. The lack of consensus
between the two winning leaders and external support to the separatists in East Pakistan had
broken the country in to two separate states. The result was civil war 1971 in East Pakistan
which ended with the end of internal sovereignty.
East Pakistan declared complete separation and declared itself Bangladesh. General
Yahya khan50 had no option except to hand over the power to the elected leader, Bhutto.
Politically elected leader Bhutto assumed power on 20 December 1971.After this great tragedy,
the military leadership lost credibility in the country for not handling the crisis in East Pakistan
amicably which resulted bloody war with India. Although Yhayas regime was short but it had
left everlasting impacts on Pakistans security. Prominent problems between the East-West
Pakistan and lack of democracy hurt the harmony and stability of Pakistan. General Yahya Khan
was known and popular for drink and women.51He was the most inefficient chief of the army
staff in Pakistans armys history.
46

. Altaf Goauhar.Op.cit
.Khalid Hassan, Rearview Mirror: Four Memories: Four Memories, (Islamabad:Alhamra Printing,2002).p89
48
. Ibid.
49
. Awami League won 160 seats in East Pakistan which Bhuttos party won 81 seats in West Pakistan
50
. An ex-army officer told to the author who worked under Yahyas command in East
Pakistan.
47

126

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

The Third Army ruler:General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haqs role

Before mentioning the third military regime it is better to know the causes which brought
another army ruler to rule Pakistan for another ten years (1977-1988). Pakistani nation was
passing through the gravest time of its history after the separation of East Pakistan. Bhuttos
victory in Elections 1970 gave them a new hope that the political and democratic leader would
change their fate and Pakistan, and also would restore the countrys image which lost after the
disaster of 1971. Bhutto rebuilt the army and its moral. His mistake was that he tried to press the
strength of the army and the army as an institution in to service to strengthen himself and his
office.52 In fact Bhutto was a centralist, not a federalist. He believed that a country should have
only one central figure as leader and all power should flow from him. It was a tragedy that a man
with Bhuttos intelligence, education and sense of history did not appreciate that Pakistan could
only survive a federal state in the classical sense, with the units, or the provinces enjoying the
maximum autonomy.53 After all, East Pakistan had seceded because the central government in the
West wing was not willing to part with power and concede the amount of autonomy that the
leaders and people of East Pakistan had demanded from the day Pakistan was born.54
Bhutto dismissed the two democratically provincial, but rival, governments from Quetta
(Baluchistan) and Peshawar (Frontier) .He could not work with the opposition run governments.
Bhutto targeted his political rival. Ethno-national insurgency in Baluchistan challenged the state
elites policies toward the federal unit. Bhutto sent the army to curb the Baluch movement which
was a wrong decision. Almost all through Bhuttos time in power, the army remained in a state of
combat in that unfortunate province, Pakistans largest in term of size and poorest and most
backward. Bhuttos action gave the army psychological justification for one day moving against
the man who professed democracy but was willing to deploy coercive state power.55
Zia-ul-Haq was chosen and trusted by Bhutto like Iskander Mirza had trust in Ayub Khan.
Bhuttos government was dismissed by the chief of the army staff, General Zia, on 5 July 1977,
and he was hanged on the order of Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1979. Political rival of Zias
are of the view that Bhutto was hanged by General Zia. In my view, the Prime Minster was not
hanged by the army or army ruler it was the Judiciarys verdict which took Bhuttos life.
Zias policies were, comparatively, different than the previous military rulers. He
promised that general elections would be held within three months which never fulfilled.
However, after three months he announced the postponement of the electoral plan and decided to
start an accountability of the politicians. Thus the retribution first, elections later policy was
adopted. A disqualification Tribunal was established and 180 persons who had been members of
51

. General Rani tells about General Yahya and Bhutto

http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/general-rani-tells-about-general-yahyaand-bhutto . Accessed on 30 -06-2012.

52

.Khalid Hassan. Op.cit.p.20

.Ibid.p.18
54
.Ibid.
55
. Ibid.p.113
53

127

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

Parliament were charged with malpractice and disqualified from participation in politics at any
level for the next seven years.56 He had planned to stay in the President office by legitimizing the
power through referendum. General Zia had suspended the Constitution of 1973 and amended it
to expand his power. Religion was used to legitimize his rule. In fact, Ulema also supported him.
He introduced Majles-e-Shoora (Advisory body) but without true legislature. Federal Sharia
Court remained an effective source to interpret the Islamic laws. In 1984, he decided to hold
elections but before handing over the power to the public representatives he wanted to secure his
position as the head of the state.
He conducted referendum in December 1984 to stamped and support the Islamic policies
which he wanted to implement in Pakistan. He also followed Ayub's methodology of
Democratic structure local government bodies. The Councilors were elected for four years.
The purpose of that system was the people would be facilitated at grass-root level. The elections
for Local Bodies were conducted on the bases of non-political parties. All constituencies were
divided in union councils, sub district councils, and district councils were at the top.
Metropolitan centers were connected with system of committees and municipal
corporations.57 The elected councilors had to show their loyalty to General Zia and his policies.
They were also kept eyes on Zias opponents and report to the central government.58 The martial
law was imposed and General Zia-ul-Haq introduced another local government system in 1979,59
in a quest to legitimize his military regime (regime was legitimize through referendum, it was a
policy to have a support from the political parties/influential people those joined him politically
in 1985s elections) in referendum people were asked "Whether the people of Pakistan endorse
the process initiated by General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the President of Pakistan, for bringing
the laws of Pakistan in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran
and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and for the preservation of the Islamic ideology of
Pakistan, for the continuation and consolidation of that process, and for the smooth and orderly
transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people."60 Thus General Zia used Islam for
his political objectives.
Zia promised to broaden its constituency from military to civilian base. He wanted to
engage politicians in the local politics and to divert nations attention from the promises he
furnished with the nation for the general elections. 61The elections were held on adult franchise
albeit on non-party basis. These local institutions were without teeth as the powers to maintain
law and order and financial control rested with the bureaucracy. 62He inserted clause 58-2(b) in
56

.Tahir Kamran, Democracy and Governance in Pakistan,(Lahore: South Asia Partnership-Pakistan), p.106
.Pakistan: Zial-ul-Haq 1977-1988, http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9859.html.
58
.An ex. Army officer and Councilor revealed on the condition of anonymity.
59
. Asifa Hassan, Devolution of Power in Pakistan, IPRI Journal, (summer, 2005), 84.
57

60

. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A076&Pg=2. Accessed on 20-02-2011

61

He conducted local government elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987 and kept on postponing the general elections.
for national and provincial assemblies scheduled in 1977 and later till 1985. S Akbar Zaidi, The Political Economy
of Decentralization in Pakistan , 20.
62
Local Government Ordinance was issued in 1979 as a security valve to the nation in the absence of the
representative institutions. Lt. Gen Faiz Ali Chishti, Betrayal of another Kind: Islam, Democracy and Military,
(Rawalpindi: PCL Publishing House, 1990), 231-243.

128

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

the constitution 1973 which gave him power to dissolve the elected Prime Minister and
provincial assemblies when he desired.
Zia-ul-Haq introduced Islamaization in Pakistan, denationalized the economy,
withdrawal of army from Baluchistan and pardoned the Baluch nationalists. Zia was an Islamist
military ruler. He was backed by the Ronald Reagan administration with military hardware and
dollars during the US Soviet proxy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and against
communism in the region. The United Sates knew that Pakistan supporting Mujjahidin (religious
soldiers), that strategic, political and human support led to internal security in the country. The
wave of Afghan immigrants increased the social and economic problems. Pakistan received also
the infiltration of drugs, lethal weapons, militants Islamic groups and Islamic extremists.
Madrassas (religious schools)proliferation in the country was considered social and moral help
in nation-building. In fact, Madrassas played/ play an important role to motivate and instigated
the youth to join Afghan Mujjahidin against an evil empire (Soviet Union).
Whatever Pakistan faces today is the legacy of Zias regime. His policies left Pakistan
to suffer forever because Afghans have scattered and settled in the country and are using Pakistan
as safe haven. As far as ethnic issue is considered it was he introduced Altaf Hussian in politics
who formed his own party in Karachi Mohajar Qomi Movement (MQM).The major purpose to
support MQM was to eliminate the Bhuttos PPP which was a threat to Zias survival politically.
Jihad culture, drug- culture (business), religious extremism, and militancy are directly hurting
Pakistans internal and external security. The common perception in Pakistan is that these
harmful factors are the consequences of the Zias policies to defeat the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan and also pleased a special religious community in Pakistan.
The Fourth Army ruler: General Pervez Mushrrafs role
General Musharraf was the fourth general who dismissed an elected government on 12
October 1999 , and he would not be the last if the feudal mentality of the leaders and
authoritarian style of governance does not change.63 On 17 October 1999, the Chief Executive, as
he came to call himself, delivered a speech to the nation in which he said that it was indeed
unfortunate that a few individual leaders in the last government were intriguing to destroy the
last institution of stability left in Pakistan, the armed forces of Pakistan, by creating dissension in
its ranks. I salute all my officers and men for acting courageously in the supreme interest of the
nation. Most of all I salute our people who stood solidly with their armed forces at that critical
hour.64
Surprisingly, the people of Pakistan did not protest against Nawazs dismissal despite his
massive parliamentary mandate. General Musharraf promised to introduce true democracy in the
63

.The present PPPs government has failed to deliver prosperity to the people and the political and social unrest is
pushing the people to overthrow the government. The army Chief, General Ashfaq Keyani has personally met the
PPPs leadership to reverse their policies several times.
64

. www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/991017-mushraf_speech.html.
- 16k.Accesed on 22-01-2011
129

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

country. He gave a seven-point agenda to replace what he called the sham democracy of
Nawaz Sharif. However, he failed to implement his agenda even after eight years in power. A
possible exception may have been a devolution plan for local government that could be called a
partial success. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which he set up, was used for
political purposes. Nawaz Sharif was thrown in jail, tried and convicted. In December 2000, he
was exiled to Saudi Arabia for ten years. According to the Mushraff government, he entered into
a written agreement with a very eminent personality, a great friend of Pakistan and that
personality had given him a message not to violate this agreement.65
As President of Pakistan, Musharraf strengthened his position by issuing a Legal
Framework Order (LFO) on 21 August 2001 ,66 legitimized his presidency, thanks to a spineless
Supreme Court. Elections were held to local bodies in August 2001 under the new local
government ordinance. These bodies completed their 4-year tenure and new elections took place
in 2005. Power was decentralized at the grassroots level, but the local administration did not
facilitate the people. On the other hand, they were harassed and often victimized by the local
Nazims (district governors). The Nazims interfered in the recruitment process, were said to be
corrupt and believed to provide shelter to criminals. Not a single Nazim was dismissed or
arrested in a corruption case because they were used to increase the vote bank for President
Musharraf and the PML-Q,67 known as the kings party.
On January 12, 2002 , Mushrraf gave a land mark speech against Islamic extremism. He
unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and
lawlessness within Pakistan itself. Thus Mushrraf became well trusted ally in the eyes of western
countries. Within country his power was questioned by the mainstream forces. Musharraf held a
controversial national referendum on 30th April, 2002 , which extended his office term for 5
years. For the third time in 52 years, the people of Pakistan were asked to elect a military coup
leader as their President in a nationwide referendum. General Musharraf used the name of the
founding father, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah to mount this fraud.68 The text of
referendum was emotional which hardly could be denied by the people;for the survival of the
local government system, establishment of democracy, continuity of reforms, end to
sectarianism, and extremism, and to fulfill the vision of Quaid-i-Azam, would you like to elect
President General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan for five years?69
65

. Mushrrafs statement on 29 August 2007 , while Nawaz announced that he was coming Pakistan to
take part in Politics. Later Saad Hurari and Saudi Arabia confirmed Nawaz-Mushrraf deal
66

. see the full text of LFO in The News, Islamabad , 22 August, 2002

67

.Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q),under Chuhdhry Shujjat, previously supported Nawaz,Mushrraf

divided Nawazs league and got political support from the new political party.PML-Q remained a part of military
regime from 1999-2008.Presently PML-Q lost majority in elections 2008 after Benazir Bhuttos assassination in
2007.
68

. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A146. 20-02-2011

69

. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A146. Accessed on 20-02-2011

130

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

The judiciary in Pakistan unfortunately has not played its role in upholding democracy.
Mushrrafs referendum was upheld by the Supreme Court. On 12 May, 2000 , the Supreme
Court legitimized his action by ordering70 the government to hold general elections by October
2002. Thus the Doctrine of Necessity was used to provide legal protection to the LFO. As
Musharraf said, The Supreme Court allowed me to amend the Constitution. I will not remove
my military uniform, nor would give a time in this regard. I understand uniform has to be
removed, as it is not democratic.71 But he did not quit his office as Chief of Army Staff till the
confirmation of his next presidency. Some political parties, mainly the PML-Q, supported the
referendum in the interest of democracy.72 Had this not been so, the PML-Q would not have
been able to form its government. Musharraf wanted the Pakistan army to have a constitutional
role. He said, In Pakistans politics, the army had always played an important role. In the past,
the head of the army had always been called to help when there were problems between the
president and the prime minister. So why should we be so shy and not institutionalize this
reconciling role?73 On another occasion he said, we are considering constitutional role for the
army, and we are not ashamed of it. We are very realistic - I believe in realism, not in idealism,
which leads to nothing.74 Musharraf also created a National Security Council (NSC) in April
2004 as the supra-constitutional body that institutionalized the role of the army in the governance
of the country. The creation of NSC has become an albatross around the neck of an elected
Prime Minister as well as the National Assembly.
Musharraf failed to replace shame democracy by failing to rid the country of corrupt
politicians and bureaucrats. In fact, landlords, incompetent politicians had joined his hands. The
last three years of his regime remained tense and crucial which were determining his political
fate. He lost his control after taking stern action against Baluch nationalists in Baluchistan in
2006, used force against clergy in Islamabad, and dismissed the Chief Justice of Pakistan in
March 2007. The support he provided America on war on terror in the wake of 9/11/2001 put
Pakistans security and sovereignty at risk. Taliban and Al-Qaeeda became foes of Pakistan and
supported religious extremists to destabilize Pakistan internally. What Pakistan is paying today
due to Musharrafs policies; Balochi people are demanding independence instead of autonomy,
society is facing the worst situation with in Pakistan, suicide bombing culture has destabilized
Pakistans economy, law and order situation is not satisfactory, foreign agents are killing
Pakistani national on Pakistans soil,75 and corruption is being legalized by the state elite. The
worth mentioning is that deposed Chief Justice was restored by the Supreme Court by declaring
70

. Dawn, Islamabad , May 13,2000

71

. LFO cant be undone: Musharraf: No timeframe on uniform, Dawn, 19 June 2003

72

. Musharraf set to win fresh term today http://www.dawn.com/2002/04/30/top1.html.Accessed.

Accessed on

73

12-12-2010

. Ibid.

74

.Ibid
. An American Raymond Davis an CIA agent killed two Pakistani citizen in Lahore on 27th January 2011. See
detail on http://tribune.com.pk/story/121602/raymond-davis-a-cia-agent-guardian/.Accessed on 21-02-2011
75

131

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

as illegal and unconstitutional the presidential reference and the order to send the chief justice
on forced leave.76
Post-Musharraf Military and Politics
The National Assembly faces the challenging task of asserting its centrality by rejecting
the domineering role of President Pervez Musharraf. Constitutionally, the prime minister heads
the executive and the powers of the president are quite limited. However, Musharraf continued to
rule firmly even after replacing military rule with constitutional rule. The prime ministers and the
parliament (2002-2007) functioned as an appendage to the presidency and did not assert their
powers because the prime ministers and cabinet members owed their jobs to Musharraf77.
Elections in 2008 led to the defeat of the pro-Musharraf party, Pakistan Muslim League-Q and
brought a democratic government in Pakistan . It was assumed that transitional government
would be free in policy/ decision making process. The first challenge which tested the elected
rulers nerves was to restore the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chouhdry as mentioned earlier that
Musharraf had dismissed him. The Lawyers Movement had reshaped the new culture in
Pakistani politics. All political parties committed to bring him back including the present
government ( PPP),but Asif Ali Zardari ( party Chairman) was reluctant78.Nawaz Sharif, leader
of Pakistan Muslim League ( PML-N) took initiative to restore the Chief Justice. The ground was
ready for another military coup when the long march headed by Nawaz Sharif threatened the
government.79General Asfhfaq Kayani , Chief of the Army Staff, played pivotal role during
political crisis, he met several times with president and Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister made an address to the nation early in the morning and announced
that ousted Chief Justice is being restored. Aitzaz Ahssan later had a secret meeting with the
Army Chief . A late night call by the Chief of the Army Staff to Mr. Ahssan had given the
impression that the army had forced the government to restore the judges.80 Chaudhry Aitzaz
Ahsan was informed of the governments decision at around 12:30 am while he was part of the
historic long march and was travelling with PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif.81In same year America
passed Kerry-Lugar bill and offered economic assistance with harsh conditions and the main
objective of these conditions was to diminish the militarys influence.
The Pakistani media criticized Kerry-Lugar bill and American Policies toward Pakistan,
and finally the government refused to accept conditional aid. Wikileaks released Pakistans
army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayanis opposition led to the conflict on the Kerry-Lugar Bill as it
was going to result in greater civilian control on the military, according to the released
76

. http://jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/chiefjusticerestored/. Accessed on 31-01-2012

.Hassan Askari Rizvi, ANALYSIS: The new trio Daily Times, March 16, 2008.
78
.Mr. Zardari believed that if the Chief Justice was restored he would open up all the cases against him which were
granted by the Musharraf government under NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance) deal between Benazir and
Musharraf for their own political interest.Now,his fears come true because the court had declared NRO
unconstitutional in 2009 and Prime Minister Gilani was declared disqualified by the Supreme Court on 19June 2012.
79
. Long march included the civil society, lawyers and media.
80
. No COAS role in judges restoration: PM Gilani
Musharraf created Patriots at gunpoint http://paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=222718 Accessed 31-01-2012
81
.Aitzaz Ahssan disclosed it in an interview with Hamid Mirs program in Capital Talk Show, Geo TV in April
2012
77

132

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

documents, General Kayani has learnt from the mistakes made by former military ruler Pervez
Musharraf. He is using the parliament and the government while staying in the background.82
Generals Kayanis extension and Impact on Politics:
The civil government has been facing internal and external crisis .Without the military support the
government could not curb with terrorism, extremism and radicalization in Pakistan. In July 2010 General
Kayani succeeded to get three years extension by the present government and directly influence the
government decisions regarding internal and external security. Prime Minister Gilani justified the

Army Chiefs extension. He said, the extension of COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayanis
tenure had put all stakeholders in the power game the president, the prime minister, the chief
justice and the military chief in a secure position till 2013. All four key players of Pakistans
beleaguered politics are set to complete their terms at different times during the year 2013.83
Trust between civil-military institutions had been strengthening during the last three years.
The American raid to kill Osama bin Ladin on May 2, 2011 brought more closely the
both military and government. In fact, government of Pakistan protected the armys interest. The
SEALs84action in fact increased the peoples resentment toward the army. NATOs attack on
Pakistani security check post on 26 November 2011 brought the government and army further
on the same page. American airbase was closed on Pakistans soil. NATOs supply and
Americans trainers termination significantly had shown the trust between the army and the
government.
The trust deficit between the government and army developed when the memo gate was critically
highlighted by the opposition leaders. Pakistani ambassador, Husain Haqani, was considered behind this
memo which was delivered to Admiral Mike Mullen by an American Pakistani businessman, Mansoor
Ejaz85.Four parties which include the architectures of the memogate, the federal government, COAS and
the director General of ISI were asked by the supreme court to explain their position on this issue. Prime
Minister,Yousaf Raza Gilani criticized the army stance in the supreme court as unconstitutional ,Gilanis
statement infuriated the military high command who issued a stem press release that there can be no
allegation more serious than what the honorable prime minister has levelled. This has very serious
ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country, 86
Since 2008, this was the first reflection to political change in Pakistan. Militarys
displeasure87 over prime ministers statement forced the prime minister to take back his statement
which he gave in an interview to international media. Gilanis refusal was direct confrontation
82

.Kayani Behind Conflict on Kerry Lugar Bill WikkileaksDawn,30-11-2010.

. Kayanis extension to Guarantee democracy, Dawn, 24-6-2010
84
. American forces attacked Osamas location without informing to the government or army of Pakistan
85
. Mansoor Ejaz wrote an article in Financial Times and disclosed the story. Text is available on
http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=26358 Accessed on 01-02-2012
86
. Kayani syas Gilanis criticism divisive, Dawn, January 15,2012
83

87

. Kayani had 16 min phone conversation with PM on Jan 11 Dawn, January 19, 2012

133

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

with the military institution and he paid the price for his wrong words and action.88In the mean
time the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a contempt of court notice to the Prime Minister
Gialni.89 The entire nation was surprised when the elected prime minister backtracked and said,
Armys filling in the supreme court about memo gate was not wrong90once again the upper
hand of Pakistani army prevailed on Pakistani politics. In fact, prime minister had lost his
credibility and trust in the country and when he was convicted by the Court he did not accept the
Courts verdict and legitimized his office through the Speaker of National Assembly .91
Pakistani people were not happy with Gilani and his Cabinet because his government had failed
to deliver in four and half years. People felt a sigh of relief ,even people from his own
constituency were happy over his removal.92

Conclusion:
The military rule could not be effective or last long without political co-optation of the
same elites who held public offices in the civilian governments. But their cooperation with the
military government could never be possible without political fragmentation that the military
regime and intelligence agencies under it caused. It was a conscious and well designed effort of
military rulers to divide political forces by rewarding those who joined their rule and oppressing
those who refused to render the political services they desired from them. Their regular
intervention into the inner functioning of the political parties, elected assemblies, media and
other institutions resulted into weakening the political institutions that are necessary for the
parliamentary democracy.

For 61 years the Pakistani few Generals have justified their interventions by depicting
civilians as incompetent and corrupt and insisting that only they have the capacity and ability of
managing the country and its polarized people. The people of Pakistan have welcomed the new
government because they have hope that rogue politicians will be punished, corruption wiped out
and true democracy introduced. The fear of the Generals therefore is not just to lose power, but
also control over huge industry and a lot of resources.

88

. see detail on http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-0115/news/30629670_1_yousuf-raza-gilani-memo-issue-parliament. Accessed on 01-02-2012

89

.se detail in Express tribune, January 16,2012.

. PM Backtracks,Dawn, Januray 26,2012
91
. Under the Constition 1973 Speaker National Assembly is bound to refer the case to the
Election Commission of Pakistan but She ( Fehmida Mirza) over ruled the Court decision. Her
decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by opposition which finally nullified the
Speakers ruling and Prime Minister declared ineligible
92
. People celebrated Gilanis disqualification see on
http://www.samaa.tv/samaavideolist.aspx?ID=5003. Accessed on 30-06- 2012
90

134

Virginia Review of Asian Studies

If the record of military rule in Pakistan has not been a good one the civil regime also
disappointed the Pakistani people by not delivering properly and elected governments have also
been destabilized the state institutions. The present government has promoted undemocratic
political culture. Both military and civilian establishments introduce their own political model in
the name of national/democratic interests. The current political environment in Pakistan has
providing an opportunity to the army by provoking or violating the constitutional powers. This
time army has decided not take over rather it would be the people of Pakistan, they would decide
the fate of their politicians in the next elections. Unfortunately, the process of accountability is
not fair in Pakistan and the rule of law has always been mocked. No doubt, external powers also
have grave affects on Pakistani politics. Only one general is considered patriotic and loyal to
Pakistan that was General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. 93 It is important to note that all four generals
were supported by the United States , militarily, economically and politically. Moreover, not a
single general punished by the Court. The last general ruler Musharraf could be punished by the
court and parliament but civilian rulers ,president Asif Zardari and Prime minister Yousaf Raza
Gilani both were interested to retain their offices. Musharraf has settled in UK but left Pakistan
with his shameful legacy.

93

. US found Zia most patriotic liar on nukes, reveal declassified memos Dawn,
http://dawn.com/2012/04/27/us-found-zia-ul-haq-most-patriotic-liar-on-nukes-revealdeclassifiedAccessed on 30-06-2012

135