The army as the source of most problems in Pakistan

Banyan deconstructs the sins of the Pakistan military in The Economist.

The country is described as “economically backward, politically stunted and terrorized by religious extremists”—in effect, not much of a nation.

The “charge sheet” on the military?

One, too much adventurism on the “eastern front” (i.e., Kashmir).  Today, we are told, the army “remains wedded to the ‘India threat.’”  Meanwhile, the Indians focus on a growing middle class.  Guess who wins that contest?

Two, “endangering the state’s existence by making common cause with jihadism,” a strategy wholly tied to the first sin.  Why?  Better to make mischief against India, work the Kashmir fight, and keep the “strategic depth” that is Afghanistan (or at least the Pashtun south) deep enough.

Three stems naturally from 1 and 2:  the undermining of democratic institutions.  Why?  The fight with India must come first.

The optimistic note:  the military went back to the barracks in 2008 and civilians once again rule—to a certain extent.  Current political reform efforts seek to empower the parliament over the president.  Banyan’s fear:  checks and balances today become gridlock tomorrow in this scheme, thus getting the military back involved.

Hard to see any good way forward.  “Three score years” of nation-hood and this is all Pakistan has been able to manage—all foreign meddling aside.  Can Pakistan expect the rest of the world to wait on this lack of progress?  Hardly.

So expect all the more foreign “meddling.”  Aggressiveness to some, defensiveness to others.  Pakistan prefers to live in Friedman’s “olive tree” world, or what I call the Gap.  That willful disassociation used to work just fine, but the margin shrinks with each passing year that the global middle class grows in size and demands.  Soon enough, the country isn’t merely dismissed as the cranky nutty neighbor with guns.

Comments

[stuart abrams]

I've often thought that there are interesting similarities between Pakistan and Israel (see next post). Trying to create a country for the sole purpose of being a homeland for a particular religious group leads to obsession with perceived threats from neighboring enemies, excessive militarization and is ultimately inconsistent with democracy and the demands of fitting into a globalized economy.