PAKISTAN'S ARMY CHIEF VS DEMOCRATIC VALUES: A GEOPOLITICAL PERSPECTIVE

SINCE ITS INDEPENDENCE IN 1947, PAKISTAN HAS ALTERNATED BETWEEN FRAGILE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND MILITARY RULE. AT THE CENTRE OF THIS DYNAMIC IS THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF (COAS), A POSITION THAT OFTEN HOLDS MORE POWER THAN THE ELECTED CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP

- SYED SHOWKAT

Pakistan's political history is deeply intertwined with its military establishment, which has played a decisive role in shaping the country's political, economic, and strategic direction. Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan has alternated between fragile democratic systems and military rule. At the centre of this dynamic is the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), a position that often holds more power than the elected civilian leadership. General Asim Munir, appointed Army Chief in November 2022, epitomizes the military's enduring influence in Pakistan's internal and external affairs. Pakistan presents itself as a democracy, with a Prime Minister elected through popular vote, yet this democracy remains fragile and largely fabricated. While the global narrative suggests that decisions are made in the National Assembly, in reality, they are often dictated from the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS). In the eyes of many geopolitical analysts, the Prime Minister of Pakistan is not so much elected as appointed by the COAS, highlighting the deep-rooted influence of the military over Pakistan's political processes.

THE MILITARY'S HISTORIC ROLE IN PAKISTAN

Pakistan’s military has long been more than a traditional defence force. From the first coup in 1958 led by General Ayub Khan to the rule of subsequent generals like Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf, the military has governed Pakistan for over three decades. Even during periods of civilian government, the military has maintained significant influence over foreign policy, national security, and, at times, economic decision-making. The military justifies its interventions by citing national security threats, corruption, and inefficiency among civilian leaders. However, this has created a cycle where democratic institutions remain weak, and civilian governments struggle to assert their authority, leaving the military as the ultimate power broker.