A promise by Pakistan’s outgoing army chief is met with cautious hope

In his final speech as head of Pakistan’s powerful military, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa publicly called for an end to the army’s seven decades of political meddling. 

Following a particularly tumultuous year for Pakistani politics, the beleaguered army chief, who retired earlier today after six years in office, made a point of assuring the public that the army had learned its lesson and would henceforth refrain from trying to influence the democratic process. “The army has started its catharsis,” he said in a farewell address last week, “and I hope our political parties will also take this opportunity to reflect on their behavior, because it’s a fact that every institution in Pakistan … has made mistakes.”

On the surface, any future in which the army confines itself to its constitutional role is so strange a proposition as to be almost unbelievable. In the 75 years since Pakistan gained its independence, the country has suffered through three periods of extended military rule. When the generals haven’t been in power directly, they have exerted their influence through a series of puppet politicians whom they have nurtured at great cost and ultimately discarded. So constant has been their hegemony, in fact, that they are euphemistically referred to as the country’s “establishment.”

It is because of this history, no doubt, that for all the hope elicited by General Bajwa’s address, there are many in Pakistan who remain unconvinced about its sincerity. 

“I for one welcome their statement … but similar statements have been made in the past and, to the nation’s dismay, not honored,” says Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, a former senator. “One can only hope that they’ve also come to the conclusion like many others that Pakistan’s continuation as a security state is no longer viable.”

Former Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz, who was part of the government deposed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in the coup of 1999, is more optimistic.

“General Bajwa’s farewell speech was bold, candid, and open. He presented a broad historical perspective on the positive contributions the army has made,” he says. “But the most important part of his speech was his assertion that the army, having learnt from past mistakes, has decided, as an institution, not to interfere in politics in the future. … I think they have learnt that meddling only makes them controversial and are committed to remain apolitical if allowed to do so.”

“Weakened to the core”

Genenal Bajwa leaves his post with a tainted legacy. As army chief, he advocated for improved ties with India, was credited with reopening the Kashmir border in 2019, and made several diplomatic visits to China, the United States, and other vital nations. 

Yet experts say he leaves behind a deeply divided military. Under his watch, the 2018 general election was allegedly manipulated to ensure that Imran Khan became prime minister. After General Bajwa fell out with Mr. Khan last October, the army stopped propping up Mr. Khan’s government, and all the members of parliament the army had convinced to support the prime minister jumped ship. Strong pro-Khan sentiment within the army’s ranks will complicate future efforts to reshape the military’s role in society. 

And that’s if the army actually strives to change; Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif appointed Lt. Gen. Asim Munir as General Bajwa’s successor last week. While the former spy chief has worked closely with General Bajwa in the past, it is not known if he shares the general’s vision for an apolitical army.

It is clear, however, that not everyone is willing to take the army at face value. Free speech campaigner Usama Khilji says nobody believes the general’s promise can become a reality. 

“I think the damage that they’ve done to civilian and democratic institutions over the last seventy years is so deep rooted that it’s going to take more than an instant decision to fix it,” he says. “The system has been weakened to the core; civilian leadership has been consistently undermined so that it’s not popular enough with the public.”

For human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari, meanwhile, there can be no catharsis without liability. 

“Until the military is held accountable for its crimes against the people of Pakistan – either through Truth and Reconciliation or otherwise – there is no hope for democracy,” she says. “The wounds inflicted on our people cannot be erased. Rule of law does not exist here because of their abuse of the legal system.”

Ms. Mazari cites impunity for enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, election engineering, and other violations of the constitution as evidence that “civilians should not be looking towards the military for solutions or assistance.”

“There is no space for generals at the negotiating table of Pakistan’s politics,” she adds. “The sooner we realize that the better.”

A vicious cycle?

There are still others who do not believe the army should necessarily be apolitical. Veteran politician Ijaz ul-Haq, son of former military dictator Zia ul-Haq, argues that Pakistan’s unique geostrategic location means that decisions on national security and foreign policy must involve consultation between military and civilian stakeholders. 

“The army must remain neutral as far as the politics is concerned, but not neutral as far as the national interest is concerned,” he explains. “If certain politicians take decisions which are going to be harming the country – particularly in the context of Kashmir and our nuclear program – if these are compromised … that is going to be where someone will have to intervene.”

Mr. Ul-Haq also argues that if politicians wish for the military to stay out of politics, they themselves have a duty to stop trying to politicize the institution, particularly in the context of Inter-Services Intelligence, the country’s premier intelligence agency. He blames politicians for trying to use the agency against their opponents. 

“Let the institution do what the institution is supposed to do, keep away from trying to get its support, keep away from appointing your own people where you think you can get some political mileage,” he says. “From Benazir Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif to Imran Khan, everyone fell out [with the army] because they tried to interfere.”

This reliance of the political class on military support, according to diplomat Maleeha Lodhi, explains why the army “retains considerable power and influence despite setbacks and public questioning of its interventions.” 

“The military is so deeply involved in all spheres of life that it is a vicious cycle from which there is no withdrawal,” says one retired military officer, who asked not to be named, given the risks associated with speaking out against the army.  

Some say this cycle distracts politicians from the issues that really matter to ordinary voters, such as homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity. 

Human rights defender Tahira Abdullah argues that Pakistan’s political system needs a complete reset. “Democracy will flourish in Pakistan only when our politicians and political parties are no longer led by feudal-minded dynasties driven by personal greed … and when our leaders start feeling empathy with the people of Pakistan.”