Military coups in pakistan

 Military Intervention in Pakistan

Several issues have prompted the recent Military intervention in Pakistan. These include the question of Morale, National security, and political interference. However, its actions and behavior suggest that the military in Pakistan considers itself above the law and has immunity from accountability.

Morale

Pakistan's Armed Forces have been on one page with the government, but the nemeses of peace are trying to tear the triangular bond of unity between them. It could have devastating consequences for Pakistan's military and civilians.

The military's primary motivation is to maintain its influence and position over the government. It does not want the civilian leadership to have any power. As a result, the Pakistani military is trying to maintain a large share of the national budget. Moreover, the Pakistani Army views India as an existential threat to its sovereignty. As such, it is unlikely that Pakistani civilian leaders can realistically pursue an accommodation with India. Moreover, the military's involvement will continue as long as the elected civilian government threatens the military's interests.

Through the eighth amendment to the constitution, the President had the power to appoint the head of the armed forces and dismiss the elected head of government. It gave the military more influence over the civilian government and the political system.

The Army entered politics during bleak economic conditions and hopeless political situations. It has also flourished as a part of Pakistan's political history. There are even sections of the population that openly support military takeovers. In addition, the Army is seen as a clean institution, and its frequent interventions in civil administration have shown its efficiency.

The National Security Council is the body where the military has a say. This body is an essential tool in the country's foreign policy, but it cannot be used by itself to make decisions. The National Security Council is a long-standing institution that dates back to the Ayub period. Its establishment was meant to conceal military power.

National security

Pakistan is facing a difficult situation. Having lost its external sovereignty to the U.S.the government is trying to regain internal independence. However, this is proving to be a losing proposition for both sides.

The military seized control of Pakistan's political system. They established the National Command Authority, or NCA, and appointed nine members, including a President, to head it. But the council was not legally binding. Its creation was opposed by the Sharif government, which felt it was a handpicked caretaker government.

The military has dramatically influenced the country's foreign and defense policy. While in a democracy, the military has an evident influence on defense decision-making. There has never been an uninterrupted period of democracy in Pakistan, and the civilian hold over military decisions is limited. Because of this, Pakistan's military has dictated the country's foreign and security policy.

The ISI's involvement in the Pakistani political scene came at a time when Benazir Bhutto was pursuing her policy, which was not following the wishes of the Army. This era saw Benazir sidelined in policymaking. Yet, she knew the Army's role was essential even under a democratic regime. Before the June 1988 election, she stated that the Army was "a powerful institution."

Ultimately, the military's presence in Pakistan has created a hybrid regime where the Army and the civilian leadership have control. This regime, known as the Zia brand of democracy, has imposed military power on the country.

Political interference

Amid a contentious political season, the military is weighing in on Pakistan's political scene. Many observers say the military is interfering in Pakistan's democracy to postpone elections. It would allow the military to replace the current government with technocrats and military leaders. The Army has used this tactic to overthrow the Prime Minister of the moment.

While the military has vowed to protect democracy, their actions have demonstrated a broader agenda. They have repeatedly weakened the civilian government and attempted to seize direct control over the state. They can even exercise considerable authority over critical sectors of the country. It is the opposite of the democratic goal.

The military has always been a controversial presence in Pakistan's politics. Despite the country's democratic progress, the military has maintained its political role and shaped public opinion through disinformation campaigns, fictitious trials, and kidnapping. The rise of fringe religious and political movements has complicated the military's role in Pakistani politics.

However, this will require further legislation. Until Pakistan can consolidate democracy, the military has the power to continue this policymaking and intelligence-gathering function.

Counterinsurgency campaign

During the Afghan war, the United States steadily increased its support for counterinsurgency operations in Pakistan. This support coincides with a dramatic escalation of conflict between the Pakistani government and local insurgents. Most of the fighting is in Northwest Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, but the bloodshed has spilled into civilian areas throughout the country.

Pakistan has been the home to several Islamist militant groups that have pursued an ongoing insurgent-cum-terrorist campaign against its state. The violence within its borders has led many to consider the country dangerous and unsafe.

A common criticism of counterinsurgency campaigns is that it fails to address the core causes of insurgencies. Historically, this region has been characterized by intense intra-state conflict. These conflicts often dwarf inter-state violence, and their escalation to full-fledged rebellions requires a focused counterinsurgency campaign.

Nevertheless, the counterinsurgency campaign conducted by the Pakistani military has shown a clear shift from the doctrine used by the United States. The U.S. military has begun employing unconventional counterinsurgency operations to achieve its objectives. This shift has been accompanied by increased public criticism, which has led to some adjustments in strategy.

The overthrow of elected governments

The military's ability to overthrow elected governments is a powerful tool for state power. It has been used in several countries, including Pakistan. General Ayub's 1958 coup, carried out in collaboration with President Sikandar Mirza, and the rigging of elections in 1978 and 1979 are examples. The current military leaders are unlikely to be able to prevent these types of events from occurring.

The military's intervention has created more problems than it solved. It has created sectarian conflicts and weakened the country. It has also scared even the most moderate generals who would prefer to maintain power. The key to successful democratization in Pakistan lies in a power-sharing agreement between the military and civilians.

The overthrow of elected governments by military intervention is a dangerous precedent for democracy in Pakistan. Historically, there have been four coups in the country. While each coup was distinct, they were all linked by various factors. The first coup was carried out on October 7, 1958, and marked the start of military adventurism in Pakistan. It took place before democracy had even fully taken root. Further coups followed in 1967, 1977, and 1999.

These military coups were proactive and reactive. The Army did not initiate the coup; it was forced to intervene after the elected leadership had acted undemocratically and undermined the country's institutions. The military's intervention was preceded by a year-long power struggle in the country.