What can a military government do that a civilian government can't?

[Varun]

I think this is a question relevant to Pakistan and other similar countries: why the constant quest and hankering for a military dictatorship? Sure, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari don't look like they can take the country anywhere but this isn't about specific names, rather forms of government.

Can an honest individual not grow and thrive in a civilian set-up and bring about the changes needed (think Imran Khan)? Does the fact that the military being unanswerable to anybody really lead to better decision making? If so, why haven't Pakistan had sustained periods of military rule? Why the burn-out of Ayub / Yahya / Musharaff after the customary 5-10 years in power?

 

[DW44]

What can a military government do that a civilian government can't (in the Pakistani context)? Doing everything civilians do and still retaining public support and a clean image. How? Simple: by controlling how they're reported on in the media, how our history books portray them and making anyone who dares set the record straight in front of any reasonably sized audience - as little as a few thousand people in a country of 211 million, if the cases of some of the missing bloggers are anything to go by - disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Off course Pakistanis, and South Asians in general, being a bunch of jahils swallow everything they're told hook, line and sinker since somewhere along the line, we lost the critical thinking gene to natural selection. I can't, for instance, see Zardari getting away with the China FTA like Mush did or NS getting away with his critics disappearing without trace.

 

[Varun]

What can a military government do that a civilian government can't (in the Pakistani context)? Doing everything civilians do and still retaining public support and a clean image. How? Simple: by controlling how they're reported on in the media, how our history books portray them and making anyone who dares set the record straight in front of any reasonably sized audience - as little as a few thousand people in a country of 211 million, if the cases of some of the missing bloggers are anything to go by - disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Off course Pakistanis, and South Asians in general, being a bunch of jahils swallow everything they're told hook, line and sinker since somewhere along the line, we lost the critical thinking gene to natural selection. I can't, for instance, see Zardari getting away with the China FTA like Mush did or NS getting away with his critics disappearing without trace.

Can you also answer the other question: why do military governments in Pakistan burn out after just a few years if they're lauded nationwide?

 

[Garuda]

Politicians are questioned for their flats abroad. I haven't seen any questions raised for Musharaff having properties outside Pakistan. He was a salaried employee. So it will be very easy to calculate his income vs his worth now.

But the media and other institutions somehow do not feel or dare to question their integrity.

 

[Madplayer]

In Pakistan , The military should set up its own party and fight elections.

 

[DW44]

Can you also answer the other question: why do military governments in Pakistan burn out after just a few years if they're lauded nationwide?

The four dictators fizzled out for different reasons. Zia isn't included since his reign was cut short by whoever bombed his plane, RNGesus bless whoever it was.

The Yahya regime collapsed as a consequence of the public outrage that emerged in the aftermath of the 71 war with over half the population and about ~15% of the country's landmass lost.

In Mush and Ayub's case, the economy was one of the key factors. Ayub foolishly started the 65 war and the economic hit Pakistan took from fighting that war was pretty severe. The economy did not recover fast enough and he started losing public support. When public outrage against him reached a critical mass, he did a runner and handed power over to Yahya.

This brings us to Mush, the man who has done the most damage from an economic standpoint - to the extent that he's a reasonable contender for Zia's title of worst leader in our history - along with a lot of other political blunders that ultimately resulted in his ouster. Pakistan may yet recover from the damage done by Zia's policies 70 or 80 years down the line, even if the chances of that are virtually non existent. It won't be able to undo the damage done by the China FTA. Mush's downfall had a more varied set of reasons than the others. One was the prevailing economic conditions. By 2006-07, GDP growth rates, which were soaring from 2003-05, started to fall sharply as the global economic boom was waning and Mush hadn't enacted any policies that would lead to sustained growth for any reasonable length of time. The Lal Masjid operation, in a country where the majority of the population shares a very similar worldview to extremists, also lost him a lot of public support. The final nail in the coffin was the lawyers' movement which started as a response to his bone headed decision to get rid of the chief justice. All these factors combined resulted in a loss of public support for the army unheard of since 71 and army can't survive without it. As the pressure mounted, it reached a point where he had no choice but to step down.

The common thread, if you noticed, is public support and economic conditions. Pakistani Army lives and dies on public opinion. Every time a dictatorship fell, it was as a result of loss of public support. They don't have any legal or constitutional legitimacy so they position themselves as the last line of defense against corrupt politicians for the public. Problem is, they're no better in terms of governance or corruption so when they're in power for 7-8 years and people don't see any improvement, they turn on the dictators. This is why the army went all in on public relations during the Raheel Sharif years and continues to do so, with at least three major networks - Bol, ARY and 92 - that exclusively disseminate their propaganda.

They have also realized that governing the country is hard and inevitably leads to loss of public support, the absolute worst case scenario for an institution that derives all its power from public support. This is why they now prefer to work from behind the scenes, manipulating the political playing field to their advantage through their ability to shape public opinion and through backstage machinations (read up on the Balochistan CM fiasco from a few months back), to retain control over key policy matters without actively getting involved. This way they get to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Varun]

The four dictators fizzled out....have their cake and eat it too.

Interesting post and point of view, thanks for sharing.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

In Pakistan , The military should set up its own party and fight elections.

I legitly think this should happen. I can see them winning as well.

 

[Varun]

I legitly think this should happen. I can see them winning as well.

What will the difference be, between them and the PML(N), PPP or PTI if they have to abide by the constitution like the rest of them? The only cheat code of overriding the law is gone if they have to live in a democratic system like the rest.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

What will the difference be, between them and the PML(N), PPP or PTI if they have to abide by the constitution like the rest of them? The only cheat code of overriding the law is gone if they have to live in a democratic system like the rest.

I think if the military was to run as a "party" in an election. They could announce in advance to citizens that if we win then we will be following these guidelines if that makes any sense. If the people want to be governed by those guidelines they will win.

 

[Varun]

I think if the military was to run as a "party" in an election. They could announce in advance to citizens that if we win then we will be following these guidelines if that makes any sense. If the people want to be governed by those guidelines they will win.

What will these guidelines be, and how will it appeal to the people? In hindsight looking at Pakistan's military rulers, it's something like:

1. We will borrow heavily from the IMF and World Bank, unopposed.
2. Freedom of the press will be curtailed.
3. Our men will be unanswerable to the local judiciary.

 

[TQ89]

Politicians are questioned for their flats abroad. I haven't seen any questions raised for Musharaff having properties outside Pakistan. He was a salaried employee. So it will be very easy to calculate his income vs his worth now.

But the media and other institutions somehow do not feel or dare to question their integrity.

Bro that is just outside pakistan. Do you know how many acres of land the generals & ex-generals hoarde in pakistan on common mans land. And also how they have a strangle hold on real estate business in pakistan. Half of retired top brass of armed forces are reputable real estate dealers in pakistan. Every agency's business card has a major or major colonel retired as its head.

The below article will shed light on it with authentic information

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/01/the-military-millionaires-who-control-pakistan-inc/

 

[TQ89]

Politicians are questioned for their flats abroad. I haven't seen any questions raised for Musharaff having properties outside Pakistan. He was a salaried employee. So it will be very easy to calculate his income vs his worth now.

But the media and other institutions somehow do not feel or dare to question their integrity.

Furthermore check this link also. The chief of army staff after pervaiz musharraf was a guy called qiyani. Do read up on google about him & his family's corruption during zardari's presidency. You will be shocked to say the least.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1253863

 

[Garuda]

Bro that is just outside pakistan. Do you know how many acres of land the generals & ex-generals hoarde in pakistan on common mans land. And also how they have a strangle hold on real estate business in pakistan. Half of retired top brass of armed forces are reputable real estate dealers in pakistan. Every agency's business card has a major or major colonel retired as its head.

The below article will shed light on it with authentic information

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/01/the-military-millionaires-who-control-pakistan-inc/

Ofcourse there must be if they can afford in London and Dubai etc.

One of my colleague is from Pakistan and he also told the same thing. As per him, the army has huge business in all kinds of sectors. e.g. real-estates to fertilizers.

One thing is not clear, how do other players in that sector would be getting level playing field ? Also, where does the capital for that business coming from? if from defense budget then also its wrong. Is the profit goes to country's treasury or it goes to army only. In the later case its cheating as they are doing business on country's capital and the profit is not shared among all citizens.

I have few high ranked military person in my family too in India. One being my father-in-law. I don't think he can afford a property in London and Dubai

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They could (potentially) do what Ataturk did after the fall of the Ottoman empire, and restrict religion from the sphere of political and cultural life. Ataturk believed that the west had prospered after the Protestant revolution, and saw that as necessary to take Turkey forward in the 20th century.

You could argue that dictatorship is always bad, but at least it would be active government for the nation. I'm not sure what military govt has achieved for Pakistan during it's history, but it seems to have been either short sighted or self serving for the most part. That's not a slur on the sacrifices made by the army either, I just wonder at what the end goal has usually been by those who create the bigger picture.

 

[Garuda]

Furthermore check this link also. The chief of army staff after pervaiz musharraf was a guy called qiyani. Do read up on google about him & his family's corruption during zardari's presidency. You will be shocked to say the least.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1253863

That's sad. But even worse is if you look at the comments.

I can guess the comments would have been very different if this was about a politician.

 

[Garuda]

The four dictators fizzled out for different reasons. Zia isn't included since his reign was cut short by whoever bombed his plane, RNGesus bless whoever it was.

The Yahya regime collapsed as a consequence of the public outrage that emerged in the aftermath of the 71 war with over half the population and about ~15% of the country's landmass lost.

In Mush and Ayub's case, the economy was one of the key factors. Ayub foolishly started the 65 war and the economic hit Pakistan took from fighting that war was pretty severe. The economy did not recover fast enough and he started losing public support. When public outrage against him reached a critical mass, he did a runner and handed power over to Yahya.

This brings us to Mush, the man who has done the most damage from an economic standpoint - to the extent that he's a reasonable contender for Zia's title of worst leader in our history - along with a lot of other political blunders that ultimately resulted in his ouster. Pakistan may yet recover from the damage done by Zia's policies 70 or 80 years down the line, even if the chances of that are virtually non existent. It won't be able to undo the damage done by the China FTA. Mush's downfall had a more varied set of reasons than the others. One was the prevailing economic conditions. By 2006-07, GDP growth rates, which were soaring from 2003-05, started to fall sharply as the global economic boom was waning and Mush hadn't enacted any policies that would lead to sustained growth for any reasonable length of time. The Lal Masjid operation, in a country where the majority of the population shares a very similar worldview to extremists, also lost him a lot of public support. The final nail in the coffin was the lawyers' movement which started as a response to his bone headed decision to get rid of the chief justice. All these factors combined resulted in a loss of public support for the army unheard of since 71 and army can't survive without it. As the pressure mounted, it reached a point where he had no choice but to step down.

The common thread, if you noticed, is public support and economic conditions. Pakistani Army lives and dies on public opinion. Every time a dictatorship fell, it was as a result of loss of public support. They don't have any legal or constitutional legitimacy so they position themselves as the last line of defense against corrupt politicians for the public. Problem is, they're no better in terms of governance or corruption so when they're in power for 7-8 years and people don't see any improvement, they turn on the dictators. This is why the army went all in on public relations during the Raheel Sharif years and continues to do so, with at least three major networks - Bol, ARY and 92 - that exclusively disseminate their propaganda.

They have also realized that governing the country is hard and inevitably leads to loss of public support, the absolute worst case scenario for an institution that derives all its power from public support. This is why they now prefer to work from behind the scenes, manipulating the political playing field to their advantage through their ability to shape public opinion and through backstage machinations (read up on the Balochistan CM fiasco from a few months back), to retain control over key policy matters without actively getting involved. This way they get to have their cake and eat it too.

Nice explanation and informative for me.

 

[Garuda]

They could (potentially) do what Ataturk did after the fall of the Ottoman empire, and restrict religion from the sphere of political and cultural life. Ataturk believed that the west had prospered after the Protestant revolution, and saw that as necessary to take Turkey forward in the 20th century.

You could argue that dictatorship is always bad, but at least it would be active government for the nation. I'm not sure what military govt has achieved for Pakistan during it's history, but it seems to have been either short sighted or self serving for the most part. That's not a slur on the sacrifices made by the army either, I just wonder at what the end goal has usually been by those who create the bigger picture.

Like any form of govt. dictatorship govt. can be good or bad. But the issue is, if the dictator govt. is bad, you do not have an option to remove them without a revolution or struggle. which impacts the country's growth for a period of time (which can be seen in Pakistan's history too).

With democratic govt. you get an defined process to remove them after certain period.

Ofcourse, people can complain about that process too but slowly with institutions becoming stronger, the election process will become fairer and fairer.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

What will these guidelines be, and how will it appeal to the people? In hindsight looking at Pakistan's military rulers, it's something like:

1. We will borrow heavily from the IMF and World Bank, unopposed.
2. Freedom of the press will be curtailed.
3. Our men will be unanswerable to the local judiciary.

As I said before, if the military was to run as a party then they would announce in advance the guidelines to how they will "govern" the country. The examples you have given would have to be announced beforehand and if people think that this would be better for them, they will vote them into power. We can make a hypothetical list of guidelines, but I honestly think that would be a waste of time.

Just an FYI, Musharaff, from what I remember reading, actually had limited the country's borrowing from the IMF (don't know about previous military leaders).

 

[www787]

The four dictators fizzled out for different reasons. Zia isn't included since his reign was cut short by whoever bombed his plane, RNGesus bless whoever it was.

The Yahya regime collapsed as a consequence of the public outrage that emerged in the aftermath of the 71 war with over half the population and about ~15% of the country's landmass lost.

In Mush and Ayub's case, the economy was one of the key factors. Ayub foolishly started the 65 war and the economic hit Pakistan took from fighting that war was pretty severe. The economy did not recover fast enough and he started losing public support. When public outrage against him reached a critical mass, he did a runner and handed power over to Yahya.

This brings us to Mush, the man who has done the most damage from an economic standpoint - to the extent that he's a reasonable contender for Zia's title of worst leader in our history - along with a lot of other political blunders that ultimately resulted in his ouster. Pakistan may yet recover from the damage done by Zia's policies 70 or 80 years down the line, even if the chances of that are virtually non existent. It won't be able to undo the damage done by the China FTA. Mush's downfall had a more varied set of reasons than the others. One was the prevailing economic conditions. By 2006-07, GDP growth rates, which were soaring from 2003-05, started to fall sharply as the global economic boom was waning and Mush hadn't enacted any policies that would lead to sustained growth for any reasonable length of time. The Lal Masjid operation, in a country where the majority of the population shares a very similar worldview to extremists, also lost him a lot of public support. The final nail in the coffin was the lawyers' movement which started as a response to his bone headed decision to get rid of the chief justice. All these factors combined resulted in a loss of public support for the army unheard of since 71 and army can't survive without it. As the pressure mounted, it reached a point where he had no choice but to step down.

The common thread, if you noticed, is public support and economic conditions. Pakistani Army lives and dies on public opinion. Every time a dictatorship fell, it was as a result of loss of public support. They don't have any legal or constitutional legitimacy so they position themselves as the last line of defense against corrupt politicians for the public. Problem is, they're no better in terms of governance or corruption so when they're in power for 7-8 years and people don't see any improvement, they turn on the dictators. This is why the army went all in on public relations during the Raheel Sharif years and continues to do so, with at least three major networks - Bol, ARY and 92 - that exclusively disseminate their propaganda.

They have also realized that governing the country is hard and inevitably leads to loss of public support, the absolute worst case scenario for an institution that derives all its power from public support. This is why they now prefer to work from behind the scenes, manipulating the political playing field to their advantage through their ability to shape public opinion and through backstage machinations (read up on the Balochistan CM fiasco from a few months back), to retain control over key policy matters without actively getting involved. This way they get to have their cake and eat it too.

so which one is it? Military controlling media but yet people rising up against military when they messed up as a government? people aren't brainwashed when people are standing up against military when they messed up?

I understand that you have to criticize military in Pakistan, and they rightly deserve the criticism, but lets not bundle up Pakistani in one group that makes them look like they are oblivious to military mistakes.

 

[TQ89]

That's sad. But even worse is if you look at the comments.

I can guess the comments would have been very different if this was about a politician.

Bro just look at PP, there was a question yesterday from hitman about kargil war. How many pakistanis did you find in that thread or this one criticizing the army or stating facts that put the army in bad light. The armed forces control over our people's psyche is un-imaginable especially in this modern era of information and this is what irks me the most about them. They are like gods in our society.

 

[Garuda]

As I said before, if the military was to run as a party then they would announce in advance the guidelines to how they will "govern" the country. The examples you have given would have to be announced beforehand and if people think that this would be better for them, they will vote them into power. We can make a hypothetical list of guidelines, but I honestly think that would be a waste of time.

Just an FYI, Musharaff, from what I remember reading, actually had limited the country's borrowing from the IMF (don't know about previous military leaders).

How would you do de-centralization of power ? It will be a conflict of interest.

There will be no check as the same people are in parliament and same in defense. They can make or change any law that suits that particular institution.

That is exactly the reason why legislature and law enforcement should be separate institutions.

 

[DW44]

so which one is it? Military controlling media but yet people rising up against military when they messed up as a government? people aren't brainwashed when people are standing up against military when they messed up?

It's not rocket science, though for you it may as well be. During a military government, if things are as bad as they are during an NS/AZ/BB government, it doesn't matter what the media says, the people will blame whoever's in power at the time. During civilian governments, when the military still retains a certain level of control, it's not uncommon to see the military's failures (mostly foreign policy and counter terrorism related) blamed on the civilians while the military still gets credit for any success, especially in counter-terrorism. The rules change during dictatorships because there's no civilians to sacrifice at the altar and the people can only reach one conclusion: the military government has failed to offer any improvement over civilians and is far less accountable to the people.

I understand that you have to criticize military in Pakistan, and they rightly deserve the criticism, but lets not bundle up Pakistani in one group that makes them look like they are oblivious to military mistakes.

You understand? What exactly do you understand? Why do you think I, as you put it, "have" to criticize the army? Do I get paid to do so? Has the army wronged me personally in any way? For once in your life use your common sense and instead of looking for conspiracies, see the obvious i.e. I criticize them because they have ruined my country and continue to contribute to its ongoing decline more than any other entity. It's ironic that you of all people say Pakistanis aren't oblivious to the military's misdeeds when you're usually the first to defend them and have a go at anyone who brings up said misdeeds.

 

[Garuda]

Bro just look at PP, there was a question yesterday from hitman about kargil war. How many pakistanis did you find in that thread or this one criticizing the army or stating facts that put the army in bad light. The armed forces control over our people's psyche is un-imaginable especially in this modern era of information and this is what irks me the most about them. They are like gods in our society.

To be honest that surprises me a bit.

I have worked with many Pakistanis (grew up in Pakistan), but are quite open in criticizing the army on some points. I came to know a lot from them about what you have pointed out above.

In PP, I agree though that its very pro Pak army.

 

[TQ89]

so which one is it? Military controlling media but yet people rising up against military when they messed up as a government? people aren't brainwashed when people are standing up against military when they messed up?

I understand that you have to criticize military in Pakistan, and they rightly deserve the criticism, but lets not bundle up Pakistani in one group that makes them look like they are oblivious to military mistakes.

That is the funny thing you see. I was almost 19 years old when lawyers protest against musharraf happened. Our folks mainly wanted musharraf gone like they did to ayub, they really didnt mind army controlling them until Lal masjid. At that time, i remember there was survey about anti-army sentiments being highest since 1971 split. Also during the first two years of zardari government (which was the worst government in my opinion), the same folks who were anti-army started saying Allah kre kl ptv tay qabza hojaye army da (Indirect for Coup) and musharraf bara changa sa, Saanu ni chaiye di jamhuriat. & I am talking about pure pro-N league guys.

Then enter Raheel Shareef and you have a suave guy & extra-ordinaly smart guy who can play the PR game extremely well, gives fancy interviews on media, indicts one or two generals for corruption in military courts and becomes a hero overnight. He single handedly resurrected the image of the army once again like Zia before him.

To this day, he is more popular in people's heart than any body before him and our folks yet again arefollowing army like sheep. I know for fact nobody in pakistan would have minded if he had overthrown the civilian government. Our folks would have rejoiced at the news & would welcome him with gauntlets.

 

[Garuda]

It's not rocket science, though for you it may as well be. During a military government, if things are as bad as they are during an NS/AZ/BB government, it doesn't matter what the media says, the people will blame whoever's in power at the time. During civilian governments, when the military still retains a certain level of control, it's not uncommon to see the military's failures (mostly foreign policy and counter terrorism related) blamed on the civilians while the military still gets credit for any success, especially in counter-terrorism. The rules change during dictatorships because there's no civilians to sacrifice at the altar and the people can only reach one conclusion: the military government has failed to offer any improvement over civilians and is far less accountable to the people.

This is so true.

one e.g.

Kargil was a tactical marvel. Army did it without civilian govt approval and they do not need their yes.

They had to pull back cuz civilian govt. forced them.

If they do not need civilian govt permission to invade another country, why do they care when civilian govt forced them to retreat ?

 

[TQ89]

To be honest that surprises me a bit.

I have worked with many Pakistanis (grew up in Pakistan), but are quite open in criticizing the army on some points. I came to know a lot from them about what you have pointed out above.

In PP, I agree though that its very pro Pak army.

Not just PP, our whole society is heavy pro-army. I mean I am the only guy that is bit critical of the army in my whole family circle as well as social circle. That alone can tell you a lot about our psychology.

 

[Garuda]

Not just PP, our whole society is heavy pro-army. I mean I am the only guy that is bit critical of the army in my whole family circle as well as social circle. That alone can tell you a lot about our psychology.

Why do you think is that ? Cuz, I have met people who are critical of Pak army (for certain things). They are from the same society too.

Is it because they get better perspective when they come abroad or they knew it always but were not critical ?

 

[mmkextreme_1]

How would you do de-centralization of power ? It will be a conflict of interest.

There will be no check as the same people are in parliament and same in defense. They can make or change any law that suits that particular institution.

That is exactly the reason why legislature and law enforcement should be separate institutions.

Good point.

In the end, it comes down to if the people are ok with the military coming in and making changes, well then I see no issues with it.

Would they have to decentralize government? If they are chosen, then they can govern "like" a civil government. They wouldn't have to meddle with the legislative and judiciary branch. They would run as is.

When I say, the military can come to power, they would the same way...having the military personnel they put up in districts get elected. Majority forms the government.

Now the guidelines they would set as I mentioned earlier, they would layout in advance and let the people know, such as, if elected we will govern with a "carry a big stick" type policy. Or we will not have a completely democratic process, whatever needs to be done we will do. If people like it, they will stay in power and if not, they would be voted out.

The only thing that wouldn't work here is if a party is not in a complete majority and that is one of those hypothetical points the military can establish, if we are in the majority we will come into government and if not then we will stay out. Have a re-election of those seats where "military personnel" had won and let people vote a leader from a party if they don't win a majority.

To sum it up, we would only come to power if we win an X amount of seats in parliament to form a supermajority government (to the point where they would not need others help to get what they need done).

I know this is a huge hypothetical to the point it would never happen.

Heck in a situation like Pakistans, I can see them coming in and actually make the judicial branch much more efficient at the local levels i.e police officers and so forth.

 

[TQ89]

Why do you think is that ? Cuz, I have met people who are critical of Pak army (for certain things). They are from the same society too.

Is it because they get better perspective when they come abroad or they knew it always but were not critical ?

I don't know about folks who move to europe or north america.Perhaps they are open there because they are not gagged & free speech exists there. I don't know i am just speculating.

But I know for a fact that pak expats in the middle east don't change their image of the army regardless of whoever they support politically. It is the same image shown on PTV and fed to them since childhood that they can't get over with. And yeah there is that tiny minority as well who just doesn't express their opinion about army in public because of fear of being shunned.

 

[DW44]

Why do you think is that ? Cuz, I have met people who are critical of Pak army (for certain things). They are from the same society too.

Is it because they get better perspective when they come abroad or they knew it always but were not critical ?

Control over the flow of information. If you flip through Pakistani channels quickly, you'll notice that at any given time around 70% of them will be airing something about how we are where we are because our leaders are corrupt and then going through a laundry list of their scandals. This is pretty typical in the third world and I'm sure Indian media also does this to their politicians, though BJP does seem to be getting the army treatment from Indian media, which generally tends to be quite a bit more right wing than Pakistan's.

What you will not see is the any mention of the military's involvement in corrupt or illegal activities even though in purely financial and economic terms, the army alone has done more damage than all other parties combined. They own around 20% of the agricultural land in a country with an agrarian economy. That alone is worth hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades but you will not see any mention of that on the media. You will also not hear any questions as to why the army's businesses have combined annual revenues nearly 50% higher than the largest non-army owned business (~$20 billion, ~ because exact figures are hard to come by, vs $13 billion for PSO, the state oil company). The few who do dare ask become missing persons. You also won't read about their strategic blunders over the decades that have cost the country dearly, be it in wars, crappy foreign policy decisions forced through, or raising armies of Islamist militants who then turned on the country and even continuing to support one to this day that is responsible for the second highest number of Pakistani casualties after TTP. There is no mention in history textbooks of the manipulation of the political system - every major player has a hitory with them, or the unauthorized misadventures. Even the internet is no longer safe, with people who ran facebook groups critical of the army with a few thousand followers disappearing by the dozens since early last year.

People abroad can occasionally have a better perspective because they're exposed to the process of vetting information from various sources and spotting obvious lies by picking up on inconsistencies in official accounts but they too are mostly the exception. See the Canadian/Brit contingent here for reference.

 

[Garuda]

Good point.

In the end, it comes down to if the people are ok with the military coming in and making changes, well then I see no issues with it.

Would they have to decentralize government? If they are chosen, then they can govern "like" a civil government. They wouldn't have to meddle with the legislative and judiciary branch. They would run as is.

When I say, the military can come to power, they would the same way...having the military personnel they put up in districts get elected. Majority forms the government.

Now the guidelines they would set as I mentioned earlier, they would layout in advance and let the people know, such as, if elected we will govern with a "carry a big stick" type policy. Or we will not have a completely democratic process, whatever needs to be done we will do. If people like it, they will stay in power and if not, they would be voted out.

The only thing that wouldn't work here is if a party is not in a complete majority and that is one of those hypothetical points the military can establish, if we are in the majority we will come into government and if not then we will stay out. Have a re-election of those seats where "military personnel" had won and let people vote a leader from a party if they don't win a majority.

To sum it up, we would only come to power if we win an X amount of seats in parliament to form a supermajority government (to the point where they would not need others help to get what they need done).

I know this is a huge hypothetical to the point it would never happen.

Heck in a situation like Pakistans, I can see them coming in and actually make the judicial branch much more efficient at the local levels i.e police officers and so forth.

People will always vote for the best option they see. Sometimes its the less lethal option.

Voting is always for local and short term issues. So voting pattern should never be a criteria to decide how the institutions should be formed.

This is one of the reason why in many countries laws do not allow someone in power to make or change laws, while he is in any business that can get impacted by those laws.

e.g.
We can criticize many politicians in India, but the law makes sure anyone who is a minister for telecom cannot be in telecom business himself.

If your prime minister is into steel business, how would you make sure he doesn't support laws that is good for his steel business (even if those laws are bad for the country).

Same with military. If they control the parliament, how would you make sure they will do the decision for the country and not for the benefit of army only ?

 

[Varun]

As I said before, if the military was to run as a party then they would announce in advance the guidelines to how they will "govern" the country. The examples you have given would have to be announced beforehand and if people think that this would be better for them, they will vote them into power. We can make a hypothetical list of guidelines, but I honestly think that would be a waste of time.

Which is my point: who would realistically vote for such conditions? They are hardly appetizing, and the military only got away with it in the past because they didn't reveal the same to the public. If they had to do that, they would have to heavily sugar-coat it, or toe the line and release a vanilla election manifesto which would make them no different to any other party out there.

 

[TQ89]

The four dictators fizzled out for different reasons. Zia isn't included since his reign was cut short by whoever bombed his plane, RNGesus bless whoever it was.

The Yahya regime collapsed as a consequence of the public outrage that emerged in the aftermath of the 71 war with over half the population and about ~15% of the country's landmass lost.

In Mush and Ayub's case, the economy was one of the key factors. Ayub foolishly started the 65 war and the economic hit Pakistan took from fighting that war was pretty severe. The economy did not recover fast enough and he started losing public support. When public outrage against him reached a critical mass, he did a runner and handed power over to Yahya.

This brings us to Mush, the man who has done the most damage from an economic standpoint - to the extent that he's a reasonable contender for Zia's title of worst leader in our history - along with a lot of other political blunders that ultimately resulted in his ouster. Pakistan may yet recover from the damage done by Zia's policies 70 or 80 years down the line, even if the chances of that are virtually non existent. It won't be able to undo the damage done by the China FTA. Mush's downfall had a more varied set of reasons than the others. One was the prevailing economic conditions. By 2006-07, GDP growth rates, which were soaring from 2003-05, started to fall sharply as the global economic boom was waning and Mush hadn't enacted any policies that would lead to sustained growth for any reasonable length of time. The Lal Masjid operation, in a country where the majority of the population shares a very similar worldview to extremists, also lost him a lot of public support. The final nail in the coffin was the lawyers' movement which started as a response to his bone headed decision to get rid of the chief justice. All these factors combined resulted in a loss of public support for the army unheard of since 71 and army can't survive without it. As the pressure mounted, it reached a point where he had no choice but to step down.

The common thread, if you noticed, is public support and economic conditions. Pakistani Army lives and dies on public opinion. Every time a dictatorship fell, it was as a result of loss of public support. They don't have any legal or constitutional legitimacy so they position themselves as the last line of defense against corrupt politicians for the public. Problem is, they're no better in terms of governance or corruption so when they're in power for 7-8 years and people don't see any improvement, they turn on the dictators. This is why the army went all in on public relations during the Raheel Sharif years and continues to do so, with at least three major networks - Bol, ARY and 92 - that exclusively disseminate their propaganda.

They have also realized that governing the country is hard and inevitably leads to loss of public support, the absolute worst case scenario for an institution that derives all its power from public support. This is why they now prefer to work from behind the scenes, manipulating the political playing field to their advantage through their ability to shape public opinion and through backstage machinations (read up on the Balochistan CM fiasco from a few months back), to retain control over key policy matters without actively getting involved. This way they get to have their cake and eat it too.

This is POTW for me

 

[Garuda]

Control over the flow of information. If you flip through Pakistani channels quickly, you'll notice that at any given time around 70% of them will be airing something about how we are where we are because our leaders are corrupt and then going through a laundry list of their scandals. This is pretty typical in the third world and I'm sure Indian media also does this to their politicians, though BJP does seem to be getting the army treatment from Indian media, which generally tends to be quite a bit more right wing than Pakistan's.

What you will not see is the any mention of the military's involvement in corrupt or illegal activities even though in purely financial and economic terms, the army alone has done more damage than all other parties combined. They own around 20% of the agricultural land in a country with an agrarian economy. That alone is worth hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades but you will not see any mention of that on the media. You will also not hear any questions as to why the army's businesses have combined annual revenues nearly 50% higher than the largest non-army owned business (~$20 billion, ~ because exact figures are hard to come by, vs $13 billion for PSO, the state oil company). The few who do dare ask become missing persons. You also won't read about their strategic blunders over the decades that have cost the country dearly, be it in wars, crappy foreign policy decisions forced through, or raising armies of Islamist militants who then turned on the country and even continuing to support one to this day that is responsible for the second highest number of Pakistani casualties after TTP. There is no mention in history textbooks of the manipulation of the political system - every major player has a hitory with them, or the unauthorized misadventures. Even the internet is no longer safe, with people who ran facebook groups critical of the army with a few thousand followers disappearing by the dozens since early last year.

People abroad can occasionally have a better perspective because they're exposed to the process of vetting information from various sources and spotting obvious lies by picking up on inconsistencies in official accounts but they too are mostly the exception. See the Canadian/Brit contingent here for reference.

true. That is exactly the problem when power is centralized.

This has resulted in no accountability. Even if they are doing good jobs but that shouldn't give them the right to misuse power.

Just one point on your comparison to BJP, I feel its other way around. Most of the media in India is actually anti-BJP (most english ones). Media in India is actually left inclined.

 

[DW44]

true. That is exactly the problem when power is centralized.

This has resulted in no accountability. Even if they are doing good jobs but that shouldn't give them the right to misuse power.

Just one point on your comparison to BJP, I feel its other way around. Most of the media in India is actually anti-BJP (most english ones). Media in India is actually left inclined.

That's definitely not the impression I've gotten over the years. It's pretty right wing compared to Pakistani media which is no mean feat given how right wing Pakistani media is.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Which is my point: who would realistically vote for such conditions? They are hardly appetizing, and the military only got away with it in the past because they didn't reveal the same to the public. If they had to do that, they would have to heavily sugar-coat it, or toe the line and release a vanilla election manifesto which would make them no different to any other party out there.

I mean if that is the case then the people wouldn't vote them into power. Which would be fine, would let the military know they are not needed to govern the people.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

People will always vote for the best option they see. Sometimes its the less lethal option.

Voting is always for local and short term issues. So voting pattern should never be a criteria to decide how the institutions should be formed.

This is one of the reason why in many countries laws do not allow someone in power to make or change laws, while he is in any business that can get impacted by those laws.

e.g.
We can criticize many politicians in India, but the law makes sure anyone who is a minister for telecom cannot be in telecom business himself.

If your prime minister is into steel business, how would you make sure he doesn't support laws that is good for his steel business (even if those laws are bad for the country).

Same with military. If they control the parliament, how would you make sure they will do the decision for the country and not for the benefit of army only ?

Yes, thus the juduicial branch would be the balance that would make sure such things don't happen. Going to point how would we know they would not help he military, well in this case that would be something that would be hard to establish. It would be one of those things that everyone would know beforehand and if one doesn't like it don't vote for them.

 

[Garuda]

That's definitely not the impression I've gotten over the years. It's pretty right wing compared to Pakistani media which is no mean feat given how right wing Pakistani media is.

May be you have been unlucky. But most of the mainstream english media are left. Except few new ones who are right or center of right.

Even most of the big educational institutions are left inclined too.

 

[waleed88]

Start wars with India...

Divide the country into two

 

[Garuda]

Yes, thus the juduicial branch would be the balance that would make sure such things don't happen. Going to point how would we know they would not help he military, well in this case that would be something that would be hard to establish. It would be one of those things that everyone would know beforehand and if one doesn't like it don't vote for them.

No, they will not be able to.

Judiciary is responsible for interpreting the laws and not to make laws. Parliamentarians make laws. So if your military who is also in parliament make a law and it is passed, the judiciary has to give its decision according to the law (even if it doesn't agree with it)

If judiciary changes law, then its also wrong as in that case it is stepping outside of its boundary. That can be dangerous too.

Hence, ideally parliament, judiciary, law enforcement and media should be separate and there should be no intersection between them.

Example these days we see (in all countries) politicians involved in media business. Which is causing issue in diminishing the impact of free media and giving way to propaganda channels.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

No, they will not be able to.

Judiciary is responsible for interpreting the laws and not to make laws. Parliamentarians make laws. So if your military who is also in parliament make a law and it is passed, the judiciary has to give its decision according to the law (even if it doesn't agree with it)

If judiciary changes law, then its also wrong as in that case it is stepping outside of its boundary. That can be dangerous too.

Hence, ideally parliament, judiciary, law enforcement and media should be separate and there should be no intersection between them.

Example these days we see (in all countries) politicians involved in media business. Which is causing issue in diminishing the impact of free media and giving way to propaganda channels.

I was referring to your telecom type example and how the judiciary plays a role there.

I don't see a problem with the military doing what it does if it came to power. If they win the election it would be what the people want, right? So the laws they pass and whatever actions they do would be something that is what the people want. You're correct if the law passes then the judiciary needs to act upon it. The judiciary can play a role where the military decides to overstep there boundaries i.e trying to rectify or enact laws that would be unfair to future elections and so forth.

As Trump did now, basically repealing everything Obama had done. Once the tenure of the military is over, new elections would happen and if people don't like the actions they had taken then another party will replace them and can repeal whatever they put in place.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Like any form of govt. dictatorship govt. can be good or bad. But the issue is, if the dictator govt. is bad, you do not have an option to remove them without a revolution or struggle. which impacts the country's growth for a period of time (which can be seen in Pakistan's history too).

With democratic govt. you get an defined process to remove them after certain period.

Ofcourse, people can complain about that process too but slowly with institutions becoming stronger, the election process will become fairer and fairer.

Yes of course, that has always been my argument against dictatorship, once the government is no longer answerable to the people, then not only are they free to work for their interests above the public, they are also susceptible to being bought by foreign powers with no accountability.

But the question was asked, what can a military govt do that a civilian one can't, and there is the opportunity to restrict popular thought or culture which is deemed to hold a population back, hence my use of Ataturk as an example.

 

[Garuda]

I was referring to your telecom type example and how the judiciary plays a role there.

I don't see a problem with the military doing what it does if it came to power. If they win the election it would be what the people want, right? So the laws they pass and whatever actions they do would be something that is what the people want. You're correct if the law passes then the judiciary needs to act upon it. The judiciary can play a role where the military decides to overstep there boundaries i.e trying to rectify or enact laws that would be unfair to future elections and so forth.

As Trump did now, basically repealing everything Obama had done. Once the tenure of the military is over, new elections would happen and if people don't like the actions they had taken then another party will replace them and can repeal whatever they put in place.

Won't that be same for a civilian too ?

If the military want to run a govt. they should resign and form a party. In that way, it is easier and safer as there is no conflict of interest. Even if they want to do the system won't allow them to do wrong.

Running a country is a full time job. So as the defense. Why would you want same people doing two jobs when it needs full time attention.

Unless you feel that they will suddenly become corrupt if they are not in active army duty. Which shouldn't be the case.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To be honest that surprises me a bit.

I have worked with many Pakistanis (grew up in Pakistan), but are quite open in criticizing the army on some points. I came to know a lot from them about what you have pointed out above.

In PP, I agree though that its very pro Pak army.

It is like many Indians have said just this week as to why they are not critical about India on Pakistani forums, the reason they give is they don't wash their dirty linen in public. I think that is fair enough, you might consider only a beghairat person does that in real life, but at the same time, you can only address a problem by recognising it, hiding from it doesn't help anyone.

That is why I say, if we are going to be polite and respectful, we should do it to all regardless of their background or flag. If we need to throw mud in order to clean something up, then that also has to be regardless of background or flag. So whether you come with a dung bucket or a sponge, let's at least be fair and equitable so no one misses out.

 

[Garuda]

Yes of course, that has always been my argument against dictatorship, once the government is no longer answerable to the people, then not only are they free to work for their interests above the public, they are also susceptible to being bought by foreign powers with no accountability.

But the question was asked, what can a military govt do that a civilian one can't, and there is the opportunity to restrict popular thought or culture which is deemed to hold a population back, hence my use of Ataturk as an example.

definitely agree that its just a popular thought. There is no way military govt is better or less corrupt.

same as democratic govt. We just need to educate people about the pros and cons. Sometimes people forget to look at the cons.

 

[Garuda]

It is like many Indians have said just this week as to why they are not critical about India on Pakistani forums, the reason they give is they don't wash their dirty linen in public. I think that is fair enough, you might consider only a beghairat person does that in real life, but at the same time, you can only address a problem by recognising it, hiding from it doesn't help anyone.

That is why I say, if we are going to be polite and respectful, we should do it to all regardless of their background or flag. If we need to throw mud in order to clean something up, then that also has to be regardless of background or flag. So whether you come with a dung bucket or a sponge, let's at least be fair and equitable so no one misses out.

Fair enough. Though criticizing a policy vs criticizing the whole entity is different. I am okay with the former. There are things in Indian politicians I do not like and then there are things I support. Same with army or any other institutions. We should be critical of policies we do not like .

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Won't that be same for a civilian too ?

If the military want to run a govt. they should resign and form a party. In that way, it is easier and safer as there is no conflict of interest. Even if they want to do the system won't allow them to do wrong.

Running a country is a full time job. So as the defense. Why would you want same people doing two jobs when it needs full time attention.

Unless you feel that they will suddenly become corrupt if they are not in active army duty. Which shouldn't be the case.

Well if the military was to run the government then they would have to do some changing. Yes running the country and military is a full-time job, but it is doable.

I don't think they would have to resign or anything. There would be a need to create new roles within the military. For example, if someone from the military wants to be elected to public office then allow them too. They would still be a part of the military with a different title, but they would have to be chosen from within the military with experience (and in office would still be a part of the military). If they were to lose the elections they would return to there roles within the military. Now the "Prime Minister" would have to be the current COAS (he would be wearing both hats).

I know this sounds like "creating" another party. Essentially if the military was to be elected democratically then this is what will be required.

I don't know if they would suddenly become corrupt (I would like to think they won't), but I think if they remain apart of the military they would be a much less chance of them going down the path of corruption and they would be more accountable.

 

[Garuda]

Well if the military was to run the government then they would have to do some changing. Yes running the country and military is a full-time job, but it is doable.

I don't think they would have to resign or anything. There would be a need to create new roles within the military. For example, if someone from the military wants to be elected to public office then allow them too. They would still be a part of the military with a different title, but they would have to be chosen from within the military with experience (and in office would still be a part of the military). If they were to lose the elections they would return to there roles within the military. Now the "Prime Minister" would have to be the current COAS (he would be wearing both hats).

I know this sounds like "creating" another party. Essentially if the military was to be elected democratically then this is what will be required.

I don't know if they would suddenly become corrupt (I would like to think they won't), but I think if they remain apart of the military they would be a much less chance of them going down the path of corruption and they would be more accountable.

I won't agree with that as I can see why it will not work. I have explained before.

Will you also agree to bring the judiciary under COAS (same reason why you like Parliament under COAS) ?

 

[Garuda]

Well if the military was to run the government then they would have to do some changing. Yes running the country and military is a full-time job, but it is doable.

I don't think they would have to resign or anything. There would be a need to create new roles within the military. For example, if someone from the military wants to be elected to public office then allow them too. They would still be a part of the military with a different title, but they would have to be chosen from within the military with experience (and in office would still be a part of the military). If they were to lose the elections they would return to there roles within the military. Now the "Prime Minister" would have to be the current COAS (he would be wearing both hats).

I know this sounds like "creating" another party. Essentially if the military was to be elected democratically then this is what will be required.

I don't know if they would suddenly become corrupt (I would like to think they won't), but I think if they remain apart of the military they would be a much less chance of them going down the path of corruption and they would be more accountable.

Also, what makes you think military is not corrupt? From where I see most of the Pakistani generals have more fortune than what they might have earned in their service period. Compared to that Indian senior retired officers can't match their Pakistani counter part's status.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

I won't agree with that as I can see why it will not work. I have explained before.

Will you also agree to bring the judiciary under COAS (same reason why you like Parliament under COAS) ?

I don't think the judiciary should be under the executive branch of government, even if it was the COAS. They would act as the "check and balance" to the system.

I agree that form of government will be extremely hard to execute, thus as I mentioned above it is hypothetical. I mean if it was to be, this would probably be one way of going about it.

Going to your other post, there is corruption in the Army. From what I have heard its mainly in the upper brass, colonel level and up (I don't live in Pakistan so don't know too much of the ground reality, maybe someone else with better knowledge of this can give us a better answer). See, the previous COAS Raheel Shariff did in his term, purged the army of corruption. If there are accusations, the COAS who would be the PM as well needs to deal with it and stamp it out.

Currently, the politicians are worse IMO.

 

[Garuda]

I don't think the judiciary should be under the executive branch of government, even if it was the COAS. They would act as the "check and balance" to the system.

They can not as I have mentioned in earlier post as the other side has too much power. To create law and enforce law. So for that you need to separate two.

I agree that form of government will be extremely hard to execute, thus as I mentioned above it is hypothetical. I mean if it was to be, this would probably be one way of going about it.

I can see that you kind of want the normal democratic system with more honestly. But understand that just bringing army is not going to get honesty. It may hide the dishonesty which to outside seem clean.

Going to your other post, there is corruption in the Army. From what I have heard its mainly in the upper brass, colonel level and up (I don't live in Pakistan so don't know too much of the ground reality, maybe someone else with better knowledge of this can give us a better answer). See, the previous COAS Raheel Shariff did in his term, purged the army of corruption. If there are accusations, the COAS who would be the PM as well needs to deal with it and stamp it out.

Currently, the politicians are worse IMO.

Again, you can not depend on a person. Persons will come and go. You need to depend on a system.

Giving one person excessive power will make sure it will be misused one day.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

They can not as I have mentioned in earlier post as the other side has too much power. To create law and enforce law. So for that you need to separate two.

I can see that you kind of want the normal democratic system with more honestly. But understand that just bringing army is not going to get honesty. It may hide the dishonesty which to outside seem clean.



Again, you can not depend on a person. Persons will come and go. You need to depend on a system.

Giving one person excessive power will make sure it will be misused one day.

That I would agree with, one side would have too much power, but ideally, the judiciary should be separate. They are there to make sure no misuse of power, incorrect power, and the implementation of law and order is being carried out.

Honesty is key, but in our example, if the people elect the military into power then I don't see anything wrong with that. If the people think that is the best way to depend on the system then let the military (or whoever) come to power and rule.

In a country like Pakistan, there is currently no leader that doesn't misuse power and isn't corrupt (with the exception of Imran Khan). I would say if giving one person "excessive power" to put the country on the right track. I wouldn't mind.

Every country in the world almost has had one leader that has come and changed the destiny of the country and its people. Pakistan and India are both looking for that one leader that can do that for both.

 

[Artless Dodges]

What can a military government do that a civilian government can't (in the Pakistani context)? Doing everything civilians do and still retaining public support and a clean image. How? Simple: by controlling how they're reported on in the media, how our history books portray them and making anyone who dares set the record straight in front of any reasonably sized audience - as little as a few thousand people in a country of 211 million, if the cases of some of the missing bloggers are anything to go by - disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Off course Pakistanis, and South Asians in general, being a bunch of jahils swallow everything they're told hook, line and sinker since somewhere along the line, we lost the critical thinking gene to natural selection. I can't, for instance, see Zardari getting away with the China FTA like Mush did or NS getting away with his critics disappearing without trace.

If the FTA is so damaging, why don't we renegotiate or end it? Even though the trade is very lopsided, we're a minuscule market for them and our relationship with them is more of geopolitical rather than economic . Obviously, they wouldn't roll over but if it's really that damaging to us, wouldn't we be better off ending the FTA and whatever repercussions that might have on our relation with them.

 

[DW44]

If the FTA is so damaging, why don't we renegotiate or end it? Even though the trade is very lopsided, we're a minuscule market for them and our relationship with them is more of geopolitical rather than economic . Obviously, they wouldn't roll over but if it's really that damaging to us, wouldn't we be better off ending the FTA and whatever repercussions that might have on our relation with them.

There’s no question of if. The ill effects of the FTA on our economy have been well documented, especially in the last few years as CPEC occupied a more prominent place in our national discourse. We may be a minuscule market right now but we’re still the fifth largest collection of human beings on planet earth and the whole point of CPEC is to develop us into a bigger market to support the industrialization of their western regions. The fact that an FTA means a swift end to any possibility of us industrializing any time in the near future is irrelevant to the powers that be because they’re massive beneficiaries of Chinese largesse, both legal and the shady kind.

You’re right on them not rolling over, as is evident from their repeated refusal to renegotiate some of the more obviously outrageous parts of the FTA and while it would be better for us to simply end it, there is no political will for that. Besides, FTAs are notoriously hard to go back on anyway and once signed, there’s practically no going back. Pakistan’s foreign policy has been controlled from Pindi for several decades now and the tendency of Pindi to pick fights with everyone and defy international norms means that Pakistan, at any given time, needs someone bigger to stand behind them. China, a country obsessed with manufacturing things and selling them, will not stand behind us for too long if we try to limit their access to what they now see as ‘their turf’. If you read China’s history, you’ll notice that they have a strong preference for their immediate neighbors to be weaker and obedient. No major power is as averse to having strong neighbors that can stand up for themselves against China and if we do stand up to them, it will have repercussions that no one in Pindi or Islamabad wants to deal with. As the saying goes, beggars can’t be choosers.

With that out of the way, it must be acknowledged that policymakers are not unaware and in some extreme cases they have intervened, however reluctantly and inadequately, with limited success off course since your wiggle room is very limited. Two examples that spring to mind are the anti dumping tarrifs on Chinese steel and the decision to not involve them with Diamer Bhasha dam. Those are just a drop in the ocean though and Pakistan's future is to be a captive market for another industrial power, not becoming an industrial power in its own right, the doors to which were closed the day that FTA was signed.

 

[DW44]

Good read for those wondering why FTA can't be renegotiated or done away with:

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will try to convince Chinese authorities to revise the existing free trade agreement (FTA) on the less-than-equal reciprocity principle, Commerce Minister Pervaiz Malik told Dawn on Friday.

The move is aimed at overcoming the trade imbalance that exists between the two countries.

“We will demand an early-harvest programme in the existing FTA that will cover 100 items of Pakistan’s export interest,” Mr Malik said.

Negotiation teams briefed the minister about the trade agreements with China and Thailand. The briefing was part of the preparation ahead of the eighth round of negotiation on the second phase of the FTA to be held in Beijing on Sept 14-15.

Commerce Secretary Younus Dagha will lead a technical team to represent Pakistan in the secretary-level talks.

Mr Malik said China signed several bilateral and regional FTAs, which limited the benefit of preferences to Pakistan. China’s FTA with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries has also made the preferential treaty for Pakistan mostly irrelevant. For example, China charges 3.5 per cent duty on the import of yarn from Pakistan under the FTA while it also charges the same duty on imports from India without any treaty.

This shows the FTA has become mostly irrelevant for Pakistan. The minister said his ministry has worked out various proposals that will be presented during the upcoming round of negotiations.

The minister said Pakistan will urge China to enter into the early-harvest programme. “We also raised this issue with Pakistan’s foreign minister before his visit to China,” he said, adding that the ministry also sought help from the Foreign Office to make the treaty beneficial.

But another official told Dawn that Pakistan may not sign the second phase of the FTA as it fears that the move will further increase imports from China. Authorities in Beijing are unwilling to accept Islamabad’s demand for the revival of the preferential treatment for exportable products under the FTA, the official added.

As per the original plan, the second phase was supposed to be implemented from Jan 1, 2014. Both countries started negotiations for the second phase in 2011. The FTA covers more than 7,000 tariff lines at eight-digit tariff code under the Harmonised System (HS). Both sides have held seven rounds of negotiation on the second phase to break the deadlock.

An official statement issued after the meeting said the commerce minister showed satisfaction over the progress of the FTA negotiations. He directed the negotiating team to work vigorously to conclude the agreement in the best interest of Pakistan.

Currently, Pakistan has reduced the duty on 35pc products to zero per cent while China has reciprocated by reducing the duty on 40pc products of Pakistan’s exports to zero per cent. The official said Islamabad was also reviewing the services agreement with the Chinese authorities.

A commerce ministry report revealed that Pakistan could not utilise the concessions granted by China under the first phase. It only exported in 253 tariff lines, where the average export value was $500 or more, which was around 3.3pc of the total tariff lines (7,550) on which China granted concessions to Pakistan.

Pakistan’s key exports to China were raw material and intermediate products, such as cotton yarn, woven fabric, grey fabric etc. Value-added products were missing despite the fact that some of these products, like garments, were included in the concessionary regime.

On the FTA with Thailand, the minister said it was still in the early stage. However, he said interests of local industries will be protected under the proposed FTA. Thailand demands market access for the auto sector and rice.

 

[Artless Dodges]

There’s no question of if. The ill effects of the FTA on our economy have been well documented, especially in the last few years as CPEC occupied a more prominent place in our national discourse. We may be a minuscule market right now but we’re still the fifth largest collection of human beings on planet earth and the whole point of CPEC is to develop us into a bigger market to support the industrialization of their western regions. The fact that an FTA means a swift end to any possibility of us industrializing any time in the near future is irrelevant to the powers that be because they’re massive beneficiaries of Chinese largesse, both legal and the shady kind.

You’re right on them not rolling over, as is evident from their repeated refusal to renegotiate some of the more obviously outrageous parts of the FTA and while it would be better for us to simply end it, there is no political will for that. Besides, FTAs are notoriously hard to go back on anyway and once signed, there’s practically no going back. Pakistan’s foreign policy has been controlled from Pindi for several decades now and the tendency of Pindi to pick fights with everyone and defy international norms means that Pakistan, at any given time, needs someone bigger to stand behind them. China, a country obsessed with manufacturing things and selling them, will not stand behind us for too long if we try to limit their access to what they now see as ‘their turf’. If you read China’s history, you’ll notice that they have a strong preference for their immediate neighbors to be weaker and obedient. No major power is as averse to having strong neighbors that can stand up for themselves against China and if we do stand up to them, it will have repercussions that no one in Pindi or Islamabad wants to deal with. As the saying goes, beggars can’t be choosers.

With that out of the way, it must be acknowledged that policymakers are not unaware and in some extreme cases they have intervened, however reluctantly and inadequately, with limited success off course since your wiggle room is very limited. Two examples that spring to mind are the anti dumping tarrifs on Chinese steel and the decision to not involve them with Diamer Bhasha dam. Those are just a drop in the ocean though and Pakistan's future is to be a captive market for another industrial power, not becoming an industrial power in its own right, the doors to which were closed the day that FTA was signed.

Very interesting, I appreciate your insight but hope for all our sakes that you're wrong and that we're able to renegotiate this FTA.