Editoral-Civilian control of military

By Shada Islam
Saturday, 26 Jun, 2010

US PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s decision to fire Gen Stanley McChrystal for engaging in conduct which “undermines the civilian control of the military” has strong lessons for Pakistan, Turkey and Thailand, three modern-day democracies that I know well and where tensions between the civilian government and a restless military continue to darken the landscape.

Real democracy demands an end to army domination, the elimination of all military control over the national agenda and, as President Obama pointed out, it puts civilians in control of the military, not the other way around. But try telling that to the impatient men in uniform in Islamabad, Istanbul and Bangkok. Not to mention Bangladesh and Myanmar.

These and other countries where armies strain at the leash share several unfortunate similarities: weak civilian institutions, often accused of corruption and nepotism, contrasted with a strong, modern and efficient army which is called on to ‘save the nation when times get bad.

The end result of such coups or military interventions, however, is almost always the reverse of what is expected. As in the case of Pakistan, the generals operate no differently from the civilians (why should they, since they come from similar backgrounds?), corruption abounds and when push comes to shove, often from the frustrated public, the army retreats out of the public eye but endeavours to keep the reins of power firmly in its hands.

The overarching argument is security: in Pakistan’s case the ‘threat’ posed by India, in Turkey, it’s the Kurdish minority in Thailand, the so-called red-shirts who back former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. If only life were that simple.

The Burmese case is particularly poignant. The generals in the country appear too firmly entrenched to allow any dreams of democracy to flourish. Democracy icon and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has just marked her 65th birthday, under house arrest. The Nobel laureate has been in detention for almost 15 years and has been barred from running in upcoming elections that critics have denounced as a sham aimed at entrenching the generals’ power. Suu Kyi’s party won the last polls in 1990 but was never allowed to take office.

The Burmese generals could, if they wanted to, learn a lesson or two about democratisation from neighbouring Indonesia where the transition to democracy from army-backed authoritarian rule has been one of the most dramatic — and heartening — political events of the late 20th century. Although sometimes painful, the transition has brought back freedoms to Indonesia that have not been seen since the country’s first, short-lived experiment with democracy in the 1950s.

Interestingly, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was sworn in for a second five-year term last year, is a dictator’s loyal soldier who is now transformed into the leader of a thriving but messy democracy. A former senior general during the Suharto dictatorship, the taciturn 60-year-old, with a penchant for singing romantic songs, has become a standard-bearer for Indonesia’s reform. Rising to power in the country’s first direct presidential election in 2004, Yudhoyono is credited with years of relative stability and prosperity which won him a decisive election victory last July.

Although the country has yet to tackle all its problems, including corruption, the Indonesian army is firmly in the barracks, leaving the civilian government in charge. And SBY as he is called affectionately will be strutting his stuff at the G20 meeting on June 26, confirming Indonesia’s status as an internationally respected, thriving democracy.Not too far away to the north, the military domination of South Korea ended firmly with the 1997 presidential election and peaceful transition of power to Kim Dae-jung, a lifelong democracy and human rights activist. And in Latin America, dictatorships have given way to elected leaders in many nations.

Readers of this paper hardly need further depressing confirmation of the pervasive presence of the army in Pakistan. The European Union is careful to maintain contacts only with Pakistani civilian leaders — while Gen Kayani keeps up an animated conversation with Nato. However, for all the US talk of support for Pakistan’s shaky civilian government — and President Obama’s dismissal of the wayward Gen McChrystal — Gen Kayani was the dominant Pakistani participant at the US-Pakistan ‘strategic’ dialogue held in March this year.

That may have defused tensions with the general over the Kerry-Lugar Bill — the army, it seems, was furious that US aid was being channelled to the people through the civilian government, rather than used for buying arms — but it certainly did little to lift the morale of Pakistan’s civilian government. Revealingly, at a press conference in Brussels earlier this month, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani made a point of referring to the fact that the “Pakistani government and the army” saw eye to eye on fighting extremism in the country.

Perhaps Mr Gilani and Gen Kayani should take advice from Thailand’s Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya who, in talks in Brussels recently, warned the country’s generals that any military intervention would “close Thailand from the outside world”. “I am optimistic there will be no military takeover,” said Mr Piromya, adding: “the military works under civilian control.” He was clear, however, that the civilian government “had to get the respect of the army”.

Thailand has, of course, just gone through its worst violence and turmoil in history, marked by confrontations between pro- and anti-government protesters. Acting ahead of the demonstrations, the Thai government imposed the Internal Security Act, putting the military in charge with powers to impose curfews, restrict numbers at gatherings and set up check points. With 88 people dead during the rioting, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva recently set up a fact-finding mission to determine whether the army used undue force against the civilians.

Which brings us to Turkey — the country that Indonesia, Thailand and Pakistan look up to as having managed to find a formula for keeping the military in check. True, the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has returned the once all-powerful army — four coups in as many decades — to the barracks.

Unfortunately, however, Mr Erdogan’s religious-oriented political party is engaged in a permanent battle with the secular Turkish army to win the public’s hearts and minds. Many Turkish officers see the current government as trying to undo the country’s secular constitution. Rumours of planned coups and counter-coups abound in Istanbul and are the daily fodder of the country’s many newspapers.

In an ideal world, the civil-military relationship should be based on mutual respect, cooperation and a share-out of the burdens of governance. Armies are needed to protect nations from foreign enemies and, in some unfortunate cases, internal ones as well. Real life, however, is more complicated. As Gen McChrystal has shown, boys will be boys — especially when they have large guns in their hands.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.

Posted in: