ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development & Transparency (PILDAT) in its report titled “State of Civil-Military Relations in Pakistan, June 1, 2015-July 31, 2016” has remarked that civil-military relations in Pakistan as the federal government completes three years in office, it appears as if the military leadership has established itself as the final arbiter on foreign affairs and national security, with the elected government relegated to either an auxiliary role, or a parallel national security regime.
Although the mandate for final decisions on national security resides with the elected government, it is seen to be exercised by the military, as Pakistan moves further away from a constitutional equation on civil-military relations.
A perception has persisted, especially post-dharna in 2014, that this authority was wrested away from the elected government, the period of June 2015-July 2016 has made evident that the situation remains unchanged.
The report that was released on Wednesday says perhaps the PML-N-led federal government’s biggest failure has been its inability to institutionalise a consultative decision-making process on foreign affairs and national security despite the creation of the National Security Committee (NSC) in 2013 complete with a permanent secretariat.
The NSC however since its creation, has only met 6 times till July 2016, with a dismal periodicity of six months, even though Pakistan has had more than its fair share of security-related challenges. In countries with far less serious national security crises, such as the United Kingdom, the prime minister chairs weekly meetings of the National Security Council, before the cabinet meeting.
To further compound this aversion to institutionalisation, the prime minister has instead chosen to interact directly with the Chief of Army Staff, which has not only undermined the entire process of institutionalised consultation but also the office of the federal minister for Defence as well as the National Security Advisers.
From June 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, the prime minister met the COAS 29 times while only two meetings of the NSC were held.
In 10 out of 29 meetings, COAS met with prime minister one-on-one and federal minister for defence Khawaja Asif was present in only 6 of these meetings.
On the other hand, National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister (before October 22, 2015.Sartaj Aziz, and then Lt Gen (R) Nasser Khan Janjua) was present in 10 of these meetings (34% of the total meetings held between the prime minister and the COAS).
PILDAT has also pointed out the federal government’s failure in formulating a comprehensive National Security Policy that was to be drafted by the National Security Division, under the guidance of the NSC.
The report suggests certain legislative changes also need to bring about for the functioning of NSC. NSC through an act of Parliament should be restricted at consultative level and not as principal decision-making body on matters of national security. This, decision-making power should rest with the federal government.
This act should also set regular periodicity of NSC meetings to be held at least once a month if not weekly. Membership of the NSC, which has non-federal cabinet members as its full-time members, includes Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) and the three Services Chiefs. This composition is an anomaly both nationally and internationally where military commanders do not have membership positions but join NSC meetings upon invitations. Labelling the forum as the National Security Committee of the Cabinet, as the current government has done so with membership to non-cabinet members, is inappropriate in this respect.
Perhaps another aspect requiring improvement is the infrequency of NSC meetings. The prime minister and COAS have apparently preferred doing business through one-on-one meetings since Gen Raheel Sharif’s appointment in November 2013 till July 2016 from a total of 99 meetings, 37 were held as one-on-one interactions versus 6 meetings of NSC in 3 years. It increasingly appears that official consultation and institutionalised decision-making at the officially designated forum is not a priority.
Similarly, PILDAT believes that the elected government has not been elected as a monarchy and it should follow a consultative system of decision-making especially on the questions relating to the national security and supreme national interest.
This decision-making should be done through various institutional frameworks; instead, it appears that institutional decision-making structures have been rendered almost dysfunctional.https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/155259-Military-leads-in-foreign-affairs-national-security
Comments are closed.