challenges to Pakistan's domestic security, The

Journal of Third World Studies, Spring 2002 by Hilali, A Z

In April 1953, Ghulam Muhammad in close concert with the military and bureaucrats dismissed Khawaja Nazimuddin's government shortly after it had the budget passed by the sovereign constituent Assembly. He also imposed governor's rule on East Pakistan and dissolved the provincial assembly in 1954. In the same year Ghulam Mohammad also sacked the first constituent assembly when it tried to curb some of his powers. Molvi Tamizuddin Khan, the President of the Constituent Assembly challenged this wanton act in the Sindh Chief Court, against the dissolution of the Assembly, alleging that the proclamation of the governor-general and the appointment of Council of Ministers were unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and illegal. The court ordered the restoration of the assembly but the Supreme Court overturned the order of High Court and gave a verdict in support of the federal government action.46 This was the time when the civil and military bureaucracy became more powerful at the expense of democratic institutions and they assumed the guardianship of the nation. In this regard, General Ayub's military intervention in 1958 is best understood as a plan by the civil-military bureaucracy to overthrow democratic institutions. The attempts to do away with both liberal parliamentary democracy and mass participation through adult franchise resulted in chronic political instability in Pakistan, alienated the representative elites, denuded the government institutions of legitimacy and led to periodic outbreaks of violence to overthrow the government. A still darker time for Pakistan was the Zia era (1977-1988), when the bureaucrats came to the forefront and the political stalwarts were pushed to the background. The military rulers relied totally on the civil bureaucracy for the determination of their policy and decisions. They emerged on the political scene as a non political force and politicians also used the administration as their strongest instrument to consolidate their rule at all levels of the country. Bureaucracy and politicians, therefore, entered a partnership wherein the politician provided protection and patronage in return for which he received special treatment from his agent and bureaucrats reaped the fruits of the patronage.

MILITARY INTERVENTION

The Military remains one of Pakistan's most cohesive national institutions and has oscillated between indirect and direct political control over the country. Since 1958, it has been deeply involved in civil and administrative affairs as well as the court system throughout the country. The Pakistan military has had a major determining voice in domestic and security policy formulation.47 Military leaders became the arbiters of how internal and external aspects of security and other political, economic and social values of the state, were balanced and integrated. Thus, the military's sense of mission in defending and preserving the Islamic state of Pakistan has always been strong. In the late 1950s, in many Third World countries liberal constitutions provided the frameworks for participatory democracies in which there was, typically, a clear separation of powers and in which the military was subservient to the civilian authorities. In many cases, however, the military has become a partner in government or remains a potential threat to weak civilian rule. Further, the structure of the military was based on a colonial bureaucratic mode, as the ultimate custodians of domestic law and order, more than for external defence. In the case of Pakistan, the military has governed the country for more than half of its existence. The military is indisputably the dominant force in Pakistan politics and it is difficult for politicians to rule over the country without the good-will of military elites. Throughout the last five decades, Pakistan's armed forces have been very much involved in controlling the internal and external affairs of the country. According to Stephen P. Cohen: