Democracy and Civil-Military Relations

Transcription

1 Democracy and Civil-Military Relations Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency

2 Democracy and Civil-Military Relations Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency

3 PILDAT is an independent, non-partisan and not-for-profit indigenous research and training institution with the mission to strengthen democracy and democratic institutions in Pakistan. PILDAT is a registered non-profit entity under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, Pakistan. Copyright Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency PILDAT All rights reserved Printed in Pakistan Published: December 2013 ISBN: Any part of this publication can be used or cited with a clear reference to PILDAT Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency - PILDAT Islamabad Office: No. 7, 9th Avenue, F-8/1, Islamabad, Pakistan Lahore Office: 45-A, Sector XX, 2nd Floor, Phase III Commercial Area, DHA, Lahore, Pakistan Tel: (+92-51) ; Fax: (+92-51) info@pildat.org; Web:

4 CONTENTS Foreword Introduction : The Turkish Story Lessons for Pakistan Conclusion

5

6 Foreword Study Visit to Turkey was organized by PILDAT from November 10-16, 2013 by including key members of Pakistan's A Parliament and members of PILDAT Dialogue Group on Civil-Military Relations to study the developments in Democratic Civil-Military Relations and Consolidation of Democracy in Turkey. Individual delegates have penned down their learning and analyses based on the Study Visit. This paper titled Democracy and Civil-Military Relations has been authored by Ms. Shaista Pervaiz Malik, MNA, (NA-278, Punjab, PML-N). We at PILDAT are grateful to her for sharing his analysis and are happy to publish it for a wider dissemination. Disclaimer Views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of PILDAT. Islamabad December

7

8 INTRODUCTION Introduction his report will share key highlights of the study visit to Turkey that aimed to provide insights into the Turkish Story of democratic transition and civil military relations. Turkey's experience in this regard offers many useful lessons for TPakistan striving to consolidate democratic governance and effective management of civil-military relations. The report is prepared with a twofold aim. First, to conduct an in-depth critical analysis of democratic civil-military relations in Turkey and its similarities as well as dissimilarities with the experience of Pakistan. Second, to highlight key political, governance and institutional issues that need to be openly discussed and addressed in order to make long-terms improvements toward consolidating democracy and building constructive civil-military relations. The study visit was timely. Both Pakistan and Turkey have entered a new phase of their respective political histories. The debate over the democratic reforms and dynamics of civil-military relations has become a permanent feature of political discourse in Pakistan and Turkey. But the debate in general is rather limited to certain regions and certain countries of the world. More often than not, it is quite pronounced in fledgling democracies and low-to middle income developing countries having a history of military interventions. It is increasingly becoming less relevant in high-growth emerging economies. But there are exceptions too. Turkey is one such case of a fast-emerging economy where the complexities of civil-military relations are still fiercely discussed many years after successful democratic transition that is accompanied by robust economic growth. In Pakistan, the debate never lost momentum. Political, economic, governance and foreign policy discussions often revolve around and remain fully entangled in the intricacies of civil-military relations. The debate is an embodiment of deep-seated politico-ideological divides in both the countries. But it has never been more open to public discourse in both the countries than present. Difference of opinion on the issue is occupying prime time media space. Democratic leadership readily expresses its views on the role of military in governance with greater ease; this was tabooed in the past. Military has never been more tolerant of criticism. This is indeed a positive development. Is the debate helping to consolidate democracy and improve civil-military relations? The jury is still out. However, the answer will depend on the quality of mutually beneficial strategic approach of the present and future civil-military leadership. Both have to work together to consolidate democratisation. This will define the future of democracy in both Pakistan and Turkey. Both have a great deal to learn from each other's recent political histories. For this, the debate is useful and has a lot of steam to carry forward many years into the future. 07

9 : The Turkish Story Turkey is changing, growing and consolidating the gains made especially in the past decade concerning democratisation, economic growth, productivity, innovation and infrastructure development. Political reforms and economic development in Turkey are going hand in hand. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has made remarkable progress on many fronts since coming to power after first winning elections in It has embarked upon a highly ambitious and outwardlooking economic development path to deliver prosperity. This increased jobs and incomes; engendered a widely present feel-good factor; strengthened the nation's sense of confidence; encouraged the political leadership to deepen reforms and make fundamental shifts in the balance of power between the civil-military relations. Turkey's consistently impressive economic expansion averaging 7.2 per cent during provided the basis for political reforms and democratic consolidation. The size of Turkish economy increased from US$230 billion in 2002 to around US$829 billion in Per capita income increased from US$3,492 in 2002 to over US$10,497 in Exports increased from little over US$36 billion in 2002 to US$152 billion in 2012 while imports increased from around US$52 billion to over US$247 billion during the same period. Social indicators also vastly improved. The overall development outcome and not mere elections legitimised leaders and their actions. Democracy continues to flourish on the back of a strong economy. Growth in productivity and innovation continues to improve. It is giving birth to new ambitions in Turkey namely the desire to be one of the leading economies in the region and globally and a member of the European Union (EU). Turkey is becoming a role model for competitiveness, growth and development with a strong potential to be the th 10 biggest economy by 2023 from the present ranking of th th 16 largest. It is also the 6 largest European economy. Turkish economy is still maintaining a decent growth rate for a European standard expanding by 3.3 per cent during Low growth was very much in line with the slowdown in global economy during this period. The growth is expected to return to 5 per cent by 2015 which will provide political leaders sufficient space for their drive towards spreading prosperity. The fundamentals of Turkish economy remain healthy and the quality of physical, social and digital infrastructure has greatly improved. This will support future growth. 08 Despite the recent economic success, a number of historical-ideological-politico-ethnic divides are still in place. Many opposite forces are still at play; the Islamists vs. secularists; traditions vs. modernity; absolutists vs. gradualists; and nationalists vs. globalists. Volatility in civil-military relations has just been an embodiment of these tensions. In view of these divides, the present leadership in Turkey has embarked upon a gradual rather than a big-bang approach to reforms for consolidating democracy that can help to sustain the country's economic success. The speed and sequence of efforts to reconstruct the bureaucratic-authoritarian state is being carefully managed lest economic growth is seriously disrupted. The gradualist approach is time consuming but will cause less pain. The Turkey's step-by-step approach to reforms is allowing space for capacity-building for democratic governance of the economy and polity. The present Turkish government is not oblivious of the fact that ideological divide and mistrust between religious and secular forces remains strong. However, Turkey is becoming increasingly good at managing these divides and sustaining growth. Secular and religious disagreements are increasingly being accommodated and choices respected. The recent permission to wear head scarf in the parliament is the latest example of this shift. The Turkish Parliament has repositioned and gained a strong voice on national policy. Sensitive issues are openly and vigorously being debated. Prime Minister is acting as the real chief executive officer of the country. Difficult matters are being confronted heads on. But a national political dialogue among historically opposing forces still needs to gain further traction in terms of guiding future course of political reforms in the country. Religious parties have done well in elections over the last two decades but they need to develop a broad-based appeal for sustaining their success. The implication for AKP is to strive for a political appeal that is not seen from the prism of religion alone. It must aim for a bigger appeal as a part of its strategy for democratic reforms and develop an image of being fully capable of governing a country having fast-changing economic, societal and international imperatives. Over-use of religion as an instrument of political convenience and electoral strategy, already a growing cause for concern, can undermine AKP's ability to be a party that can also lead Turkey in future and ensure a balanced, inclusive and sustainable economic growth. AKP's desire to develop a new constitution before the next general elections due in 2015 will be its biggest test so far whether it can emerge as a party of the future that is

10 sensitive to historical-ideological divides in the country. The signs of dissent and disaffection are already visible. The parliament is deadlocked over this issue. It aims to replace the constitution introduced by the military after coup d'état of One of the main bones of contention revolves around the AKP's wish to introduce an executive presidential system such as in place in the United States. Politics aside, not all concerns are unwarranted. Many fear the project is aimed to prolong the rule of one man and one party Tayyip Erdogan and AKP. Mr. Erdogan has been prime minister for 11 years. It is widely believed that Mr. Erdogan is aspiring to be the President of Turkey after the end of his current term. There are signs he would not want to be a ceremonial president like the incumbent, Mr. Abdullah Gul, holding the post since But the desire of the Turkish government for a new constitution that can better reflect the democratic aspirations of the nation has a lot of political appeal. This is a historical opportunity for democracy and strengthening of civil-military relations in Turkey. But concentration of power in the hands of a president under the name of a new democratic constitution in a pre-dominantly Muslim as well as greatly secular Turkey can be risky. It has the potential to alienate vast majority of the population and derail the country's drive towards the EU membership project and ambition for high, long-term and inclusive growth. Large-scale disaffection can unleash resistance to further reforms by various elements. This comes with another risk the bigger risk of causing anxiety to the military while providing a pretext to watch these developments lest caught by surprise in the wake of an eventuality that can drastically disfigure the secular outlook of the country. Ersel Aydýnlý in his article Civilmilitary Relations Transformed published in the Journal of Democracy in 2012 highlighted the Turkish military's habit to keep an eye on such weaknesses in governance. Freedom of speech and press remains an issue in Turkey. Given the existence of various fault-lines in the Turkish polity and AKP's drive towards economic, political and institutional reforms, the present leaders have a great responsibility to ensure freedom of speech and press, although the AKP has made some progress towards the protection of human rights especially of minorities such as the Kurds and Armenian origin and has opened many historically and ideological sensitive fronts for public discourse. The relatively free media is asserting its role and reports that cause discomfort to some government quarters. In view of this, journalists' complaints of harassment are being hurled at the government. It is believed that at the end of 2012 some 49 journalists mainly of Kurdish origin were still in prison for their critical reporting of the government and Prime Minister. This is 1 highest anywhere in the world. Turkish Prime Minister and AKP have the ability to reverse this. Turkey also occupies an important strategic position in the intense geo-politics of the region. It is a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and all key international and European organisations. It attaches particular significance to relationship with NATO and its member countries, more so in the advent of crisis in Iraq and Syria. But it has started to assert a considerable amount of independence in the management of its foreign policy. The Turkish National Security Council (NSC), managed by an independent secretariat general, is providing a critical platform for making pragmatic security and foreign policy decisions. This is a healthy trend but its sustainability will largely depend how Turkey tackles domestic challenges especially relating to democratic consolidation, quality of governance and civil-military relations. The NSC is proving useful for understanding and managing domestic challenges rationally and politically; through dialogue and empowerment of parliament. It has also become a source of strength for civil-military leaders of Turkey in their management of international relations. Despite the long-standing existence of the NSC, there are some indications that the civil-military dialogue still lacks mutually assuring parameters and institutionalization. The concern is not without cause. It seems to be that during military coups, civilian opponents have been behind bars. Now that there is a democratic government, now many generals are languishing behind the bars. For an outsider, it seems like a simple score-settling story. It goes without saying that prosecution of military junta must be fair and transparent ensuring no impression of political vendetta. But this still has a high risk of undermining efforts to improve civil-military relations. Instead, the political leadership in Turkey should contemplate a broad-based reconciliation program that can set the record of democratic failures and military interventions straight without unnecessary recriminations and help the nation to move on. Immunity from punishment should be granted to all those who cooperate with such efforts. Lessons for Pakistan The experience of democratic rules and military interventions in Pakistan and Turkey has many similarities 1. See on-line: 09

11 and dissimilarities. Both regime types had to face myriad of social, cultural, political, and economic and foreign policy challenges. Military inventions have been justified in the name of protecting the state from precipice. Democratic transitions often resulted after protracted dialogue and complex and restricted governance arrangements. Mistrust between civil-military authorities has been endemic and prevailed many years after the end of military interventions and throughout democratisation that often been limited in nature and scope. We can relate to the Turkish experience of military interventions in many ways. But it is also different in one key respect that all four military coups in Turkey since 1960s have been rather short-lived as compared to Pakistan. The return to democracy in Pakistan after every coup has taken much longer than the case in Turkey. This point towards a much deeper mistrust between the political parties and military leadership in Pakistan. Given the fact that military often justified their interventions in the name of their eternal duty to guard the vital national interests from internal and external threats, it is difficult to say whether the military has finally developed confidence in democratic governance. The solution lies in a continuous dialogue between the democratic and military leadership on all matters relating to national interest including governance, economy, security and foreign policy. Democratic consolidation in Pakistan would greatly depend on the continuation of government efforts to improve the quality of economic governance, bureaucratic performance, strengthening of institutions and sustainable above-board accountability. Pakistan needs to undergo a complete transformation in all these areas to build confidence in political parties' ability to deliver democratic good governance. At present, the government is struggling to tackle Pakistan's deep-seated political, economic and security challenges. This is a legacy of past military interventions that the democratic governments in Pakistan will have to live with (and overcome) for some years. In the 1990s, nascent and short-lived political governments were faced with a legacy of long military rules that constrained elected governments' ability to consolidate democracy and complete economic reforms. The resultant political instability and persistence of low economic growth disrupted democracy and weakened civil-military relations. The complex geo-politics of the regions compounded the intricacies of these relations. This allowed military governments to enjoy more favourable international relations and support. Democratic 10 government on the other hand faced tough international conditions that added to their difficulties to manage political and economic reforms and deliver growth and good governance simultaneously. All military intervention in Pakistan promised sustainable economic performance, good governance and strong institution but failed to deliver. Pakistan has now entered in a new phase of democratic consolidation. But this has to be supported by an effective and meaningful civil-military dialogue that has traditionally been limited in the country. Research institutions, academia and think-tanks that have an important role in supporting this dialogue need to be strengthened as is the case in Turkey. The economy has to perform better. Robust growth is critical for building confidence in democratic governance. But the economy is not recovering out of low growth outcomes averaging around 3.5 per cent for the last five years. Pakistan's present economic challenges are due to the persistence of multiple policy, regulatory and infrastructure constraints. The energy crisis tops the list. The present government is making unprecedented efforts to overcome this crisis. It is showing some progress but energy sector development takes times. Years of policy and public investment neglect in the power sector has resulted in sheer mismanagement and deterioration of infrastructure. The power sector crisis has been detrimental to businesses and jobs. It has badly discouraged investors. The resultant lack of new investment and flight of capital is undermining government efforts to revive growth. Realisation amongst both civil and military leadership that national economic security trumps national security will indeed help sustain the reform agenda of present government. Pakistan can emulate Turkey in many areas that can give boost to growth. The country needs to be competitive in policy and business regulations. Turkey has done marvels in terms of improving competitiveness and cost of doing business. Turkey's ranking in the Global Competitiveness th Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) stands at 44 position out of 148 countries. Pakistan's ranking on the rd same stands at 133 position. In the Doing Business Report of the World Bank Group, Turkey's economy is st ranked at 71 position out of 185 countries whereas th Pakistan is positioned at 107 place. Both these rankings show how Pakistan and Turkey are faring in terms of overall economic, social and infrastructure competitiveness as well as in regulatory environment for private sector development. It is very clear that Pakistan has to cover a lot of ground on all these fronts and Turkey can be a good role model to emulate.

12 Conclusion The nature of democratic civil-military relations in Pakistan and Turkey are gradually and partially adjusting to changing political, social and economic realities. But ultimately the pace of reforms in these areas will determine the sustainability of new democratic civil-military arrangement. Democratic government in both countries have to avoid the delays, non-adoption and poor implementation of reforms essential to tackle political, governance and institutional crisis. Turkey has made impressive inroads in implementing competitive economic and political reform. Pakistan is struggling to start meaningful reforms especially in the area of economic governance. The case of initiating privatisation and taxation reforms/resource mobilisation are few examples in this regard. Pakistan and Turkey face multiple challenges that create risks to political and economic reforms. Both countries still have to deal with bureaucratic authoritarianism, extreme centralisation of political and economic power and ethno-regional strife. In the case of Pakistan, there are additional risks that range from a history of centre-province and inter-provincial mistrust, institutional fragmentation, extremism and complex war on terror, energy crisis, increasing water scarcity, low economic growth and high joblessness. There is a widespread realization in both countries that disruption of democratic governments and recurrent military interventions have resulted in economic, political, governance and institutional deterioration. Military governments benefited from favourable international environment driven by the exigencies of geo-political imperatives in both the regions surrounding Pakistan and Turkey. The challenge now is how to learn from past, assimilate the experience in consolidation of democracy and improving civil-military relations as well as in ensuring policies and institutional framework for effective and efficient economic governance. Ultimately, it is the economic growth, social development and a strong sense of shared prosperity that will determine the how democracy is strengthened in both the countries. Pakistan and Turkey need to ensure sound institutions, good governance and economic development on sustainable basis in order to complete the project of democratic consolidation and good civil-military relations. Democratic good governance is critical as it ensures an appropriate institutional environment that is more in tune with the needs of the society while providing required mechanisms and incentives for effective implementation of reforms. However, democracy on its own cannot guarantee good governance in the absence of appropriate institutional checks and balances. The political leadership in both Pakistan and Turkey needs to be fully attentive to this reality. It should remain a paramount guidance in their efforts towards democratic consolidation and improvement of civil-military relations. Good governance also requires effective partnership between State's formal organs like Executive, Parliament, and the Judiciary as well as with private sector, media and the civil society. Turkey continues to perform relatively better on these accounts as compared to Pakistan. Good governance is essential not just for economic growth but also for achieving shared prosperity and political stability. Good governance involving transparency, accountability, participation, sound legal and regulatory framework, efficient and responsive bureaucracy, strong and independent institutions and the rule of law cannot be ensured in the absence of democracy and without an active engagement of civil-society. Both the countries and especially Pakistan have to make consistent and concerted efforts to ensure key elements of good governance including a transparent, accountable, efficient and effective public sector; and a competent, lean, performancedriven, well-trained bureaucratic set-up in place that is capable of responding to new patterns of governance emerging from changing needs of the economy and society. There is also a need to forge effective private-public and state-civil society partnerships to tackle systemic risks such as the endemic corruption which breeds economic crisis, inequalities, instability and insecurity. One key challenge facing both the countries is the issue of accountability. This is vital for good governance and democratic consolidation. Accountability has to be for all. Both the countries have experimented with accountability in various manners and it is still not seen as fair, depoliticised, non-partisan and effective. The confidence of the general public in the ability of both military and democratic government to ensure accountability on the basis of a predictable legal framework, an independent judiciary and universal access to justice is still low. This is a serious risk to democratic consolidation as well as for the 11

13 sustainability of economic growth in the both the countries, more so in Pakistan. Democracies flourish in an environment of freedom of expression, movement and association. This helps democratic leaders stay abreast with change and better respond to public needs especially in multi-ethnic societies. Autocratic and military governments often operate in the opposite manner. Military governments see good governance from the perspective of good discipline and complete submission to authority. This is not a norm for democratic governments to follow. Both Pakistan and Turkey still need to make considerable progress on issues relating to freedom of speech and expression. However media must be prodded to formulate ethics board for self regulation (suggestions towards this end can be found in report submitted by Lord Justice Leveson after inquiry into ethics and practices of British press). Above all, both democratic governments must also find a systematic way of assimilating and responding to disagreements and dissent in a positive and constructive way. Pakistan is faced with a serious struggle to consolidate democracy and improve civil-military relations. This is because Pakistan has a bigger set of challenges perpetuated by unique, perennial and deep-seated ideological-historical, ethnoregional, socio-cultural and political-economic conflicts exacerbated by recurrent and prolonged military rules. Only democracy can ensure good governance and institutional setup. This will also help to deliver growth, competitiveness, innovation and business-friendly policy and regulatory framework for long-term private sector development. The path to high growth lies through high quality investment climate which encourage private sector to invest, create jobs and contribute to revenue generation. Democracy will flourish in Pakistan when the economy is stable, public finances are healthy and sound and people have opportunities. This in turn will provide the basis for good civil-military relations. 12

14 Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency Islamabad Office: No. 7, 9th Avenue, F-8/1, Islamabad, Pakistan Tel: (+92-51) Fax: (+92-51) Lahore Office: 45-A, Sector XX, 2nd Floor, Phase III Commercial Area, DHA, Lahore Tel: (+92-42) Fax: (+92-42) Web: