Pakistan’s Perpetual Crisis and Civil-military
Relations (2008-2012) by Dr. Nasreen Akhtar
This book review is written by Ms. Lyba Mobeen (BS IR from Islamic University Islamabad)
Introduction: The book “Pakistan’s Perpetual
Crisis and Civil-military Relations (2008-2012):
Internal and International Factors” is written by
Dr. Nasreen Akhtar. It was published in 2020 in
Karachi by the Royal Book Company. Dr.
Nasreen Akhtar, based in Pakistan, is a Ph.D.
scholar and expert in the discipline of
international relations. She has teaching and
research experience of over 18 years at various
universities, think tanks, and research centers.
She is currently serving as an assistant
professor in the Department of Politics and
International Relations at the International
Islamic University Islamabad. The prime theme
of the book revolves around the civil-military
relations in Pakistan, a heated, sensitive, and
much-debated topic every now and then.
Pakistan is always regarded as a praetorian and
security state ever since its inception, and this
claim has been cemented through the four
military regimes it witnessed in 78 years.
The book provides a historic insight into the civil
and military interaction, and cooperation and
differences in policies and opinions over a range
of internal and external issues of national
security importance, specifically during the
Zardari government 2008-2012.
Understanding Pakistan’s Civil-military
Relations: For better understanding, the
reviewer has dissected the book into three
sections, the theoretical perspective which
explains the rationale for the intervention of the
military into politics, the overview of civil-
military relations from 1947 to 2007, and the
detailed description of the dynamic and
constantly evolving civil-military relations in the
Pakistan People’s Party’s fourth tenure i.e.,
2008-2012.
Perspectives on the Military’s Involvement in
Politics: In the first section, Dr. Nasreen Akhtar
has provided four different perspectives for the
logical and theoretical explanation of why the
military exceeds barracks and intervenes in
politics.
 Structural Perspective: The structural
perspective is of the view that a state’s weak
institutional foundations and loopholes in
the political structure, including a feeble
political system (sham democracy in the
case of Pakistan), incompetency of elected
governments, and overlapping and corrupt
Downloaded from www.CSSExamDesk.com
institutions set the perfect stage for the
military to exploit the political system—
which it does when given the opportunity.
 Societal Perspective: The societal
perspective suggests that when the civilian
government loses legitimacy and public
support, the army’s image and perception
improve simultaneously, and they gain
societal legitimacy. In the case of Pakistan,
the army has already projected itself as the
guardian, savior, and protector of the state
by efficiently rescuing the government and
people whenever summoned, either in the
case of man-made or natural disasters.
Hence, when people lose faith in the civil
www.CSSExamDesk.com
government, they start looking up to the
military to come and rescue them from the
prevalent crises, as it had done previously.
 International Factor Perspective: The
international factor perspective asserts that
not only the internal but also the regional
and international factors also pave the path
for the military to come to political power.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, whenever
the civilian government failed to address
and cater to the American concerns, it has
faced adjudication and the military has
come to power, frequently pushing Pakistan
under the US’s capitalist umbrella.
 Soldier Perspective: These theoretical
explanations provide the analysis of how the
military’s intervention in politics is made
possible. These factors do create a favorable
milieu for the military but they do not
provoke a military takeover. The provocation
comes from a “triggering factor” which is
always circumstantial and leads to a coup.
In this respect, the soldier perspective
proclaims that the military exceeds its
limitations whenever its corporate interests
are at stake and endangered. The corporate
interests of the military include unhindered
access to budget, autonomy over its own
affairs, personal ambitions and interests of
military generals, and no politicization of
the army institutes. Whenever any of these
interests are jeopardized by the civil
governments, the army takes over. This is
true for Pakistan since, in 1958, the army
perceived that the 1959 general elections
would bring forth a government that could
hinder the unquestioned military access to
the budget, triggering the first martial law in
the country. Similarly, in 1977, the anti-
 Bhutto and election rigging movements
along with Bhutto’s ambitious efforts to
bring the armed forces under his control
and the dismissal of General Musharraf in
1999, set off the third and fourth martial
laws. Structural/ Societal/ International
factors + Triggering Factor = Military Coup
 Rational Choice Theory’s Perspective:
However, during Asif Ali Zardari’s tenure
(2008-2012), despite having instances
where the army’s corporate interests were
put in peril and the national security and
sovereignty were questioned, the army
preferred to keep a low profile by choice,
which accounts for the rational choice
theory’s perspective. As per this theory, any
party chooses to act in a certain manner
after an extensive cost-benefit analysis. In
the army’s context, the institute interferes
in political matters when the benefits
outplay the costs. Since after the Musharraf
era, the army’s image had taken quite a
blow, therefore, it decided to improve public
opinion regarding the armed forces, deal
with internal and external security threats,
and pull the strings from behind the stage
rather than performing in front.
A Historical Analysis of Pakistan’s Civil-
military Relations: In the second section, Dr.
Nasreen Akhtar provided a brief historic analysis
of the civil-military relationship since the
independence of Pakistan. If there is to pinpoint
a defining moment that caused military
supremacy over civilian superiority, it was the
untimely death of Quaid-e-Azam and the
assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. Ever since
then, the army has been an important
stakeholder in political affairs. Whether it was
the appointment of Ghulam Muhammad as the
governor-general (1951), dismissal of Khwaja
Nazimuddin (1953), dissolution of assemblies
(1954), designation of Choudhary Muhammad
Ali as prime minister (1955), forceful resignation
of Ghulam Mohammad and the appointment of
Iskander Mirza (1956), hanging of Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto (1979), sacking of Junejo (1988),
adjudication of Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and
1996, dismissal of Nawaz Sharif in 1993 and
1999, or the imposition of martial laws (1958,
1969, 1977 and 1999), the armed forces have
always taken the driving seat in matters of
national and political importance. They have
covertly or overtly played their roles in removing
the political figures from their offices as soon as
they become “threats,” as per the military’s
perception. The civil-military relations
throughout the political history (1947-2007) of
Pakistan have been under constant strain and
generally remained unstable due to the
Downloaded from www.CSSExamDesk.com
decisions and policies opted by the elected
leaders and the military. The army’s notion is
that with Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination and
his alleged perpetrators sitting in the National
Assembly, the army could not trust the civilian
government to govern the country. therefore, the
civil-military bureaucracy has remained
skeptical about the politicians and has kept
important powers to itself. The non-
competitiveness of civilian governments, their
bad governance, inability to maintain law and
order and deal with internal crises, prevailing
corruption, and threat to their pivotal interests,
has been a constant bone of contention between
the army and the civil governments.
The first dismissal carried out by the military in
Pakistan’s history was that of Khwaja
Nazimuddin, on the pretext that he was the first
political leader to cut the military’s budget by
1/3rd. This speaks a lot about how and why the
www.CSSExamDesk.com
military’s intervention works. Similarly, in 1958,
the severe internal political chaos amounting to
religious politics, “compelled” the army to take
power from the civilians as they were inept to
maintain peace within the country and staged
the first coup. So now, the army which was
acting from behind the stumps came in front of
the wickets to play. Once in power, the dictators
have left no stone unturned to maximize and
constitutionalize their powers through
referendums and elections. The civil-military
relations worked cordially as long as the civil
governments kept out of the military bounds
and did not challenge the military’s opinion in
matters of national security and foreign policy
concerning India, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
However, when the civil governments tried to
overpower military institutions, undermine their
autonomy, or defy their roles in critical state
affairs, the military has intervened and played a
significant role in their removal from offices—as
in the case of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1977), Benazir
Bhutto (1990 and 1996) and Nawaz Sharif (1992
and 1999). Nevertheless, there were obviously
many other factors that led to the dismissal of
these leaders.
Civil-military Relations in the Zardari Era:
The third and the prime section of the book
deals with the emerging intra-state and
interstate challenges which shaped, improved,
and deteriorated civil-military relations. The
Zardari era (2008-2012) has been quite against
the tide as far as the military is concerned. The
army led by Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq
Pervez Kayani took a back seat from politics and
let the politicians do their work but this did not
mean that the military stepped back from the
matters of national importance.
Pakistan’s military continued to influence its
foreign policy with respect to India, Kashmir,
and Afghanistan. The principal reason why the
army took a secondary position is that General
Pervez Musharraf’s regime had fairly distorted
the army’s image as the savior and guardian due
to a number of hostile policies. These policies
include the imposition of an emergency,
dismissal of 60 judges of the Supreme Court
including the chief justice, the use of force
against the Baloch nationalists, and the
provision of NRO (National Reconciliation
Ordinance) to PPP – all in 2007. The brutal
assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December
2007 provided Asif Ali Zardari with the
sympathy vote, which was sufficient for bringing
him to power, through a coalition government
with PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-N), MQM
(Muttahida Qaumi Movement), and ANP (Awami
National Party). This political union alienated
Musharraf and caused him to resign. After
Musharraf’s disappearance from the political
chequerboard, the army became more conscious
of its position and policies to restore the lost
prestige. The Zardari regime was flooded with
various challenges at home and abroad which
kept his government under constant critique
and distaste from the military and public. The
mismanagement and poor governance displayed
in the disastrous floods of 2010, escalating
corruption cases, the infamous Hajj scam (2010),
the nationwide lawyers’ movement (2009), the
PPP-PMLN rift over the restoration of judiciary,
increasing poverty, deteriorating economic
conditions, the rise of ethnic politics in Sindh,
the Benazir Income Support Program (BISP), all
of them made the military wary of Zardari and
his government and termed him as a “national
security threat.” However, where many
challenges caused a divergence in the civil-
military relations, simultaneously many crises
brought them closer in cooperation and
communication. Operation Rah-e-Raast in Swat,
mutual consent over improving the socio-
economic and political participation and
development of Balochistan, Operation Neptune
Spear which killed Osama bin Laden in May
2011, and the Salala check posts attack on the
Pakistani soldiers (November 2011), brought the
civil and military factions on the same page.
The government made sure to keep popping the
political milieu with a grave crisis one way or
another which could result in a coup, but the
military kept its cool and did not take over. The
26/11 Mumbai Taj Attacks, the acceptance of
the Kerry-Lugar Bill by Zardari’s government
(2009), the issuance of a visa to Raymond Davis
Downloaded from www.CSSExamDesk.com
whom the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) had
not given security clearance (March 2011),
Zardari’s pro-Indian stance on Kashmir and
nuclear policy and his over-reliance on India’s
friendship, and the notorious Memogate scandal,
all brought the military and civil governments on
a one-on-one confrontation.
While the army was on the verge of reacting to
Zardari’s government, due to the political
consensus against the military takeover, it
prioritized dealing with security challenges first,
and the vigilant and non-ambitious Chief of
Army Staff collectively kept the army away from
any adventure. Surprisingly, even after so many
blockades, Asif Ali Zardari became the first
president in the history of Pakistan to complete
his tenure of five years.
Analysis: The book is a great learning
experience for somebody who is willing to
www.CSSExamDesk.com
understand and have an insight into the civil-
military relations in Pakistan’s context, right
from the beginning till 2013. As sensitive as this
topic is, Dr. Nasreen Akhtar has carefully
presented the factual information and prevented
biases toward any of the concerned factions. The
book keeps the reader intrigued and hooked till
the end and conveys its message in a simple,
comprehensible, and unambiguous diction. The
book clearly outlines the reasons behind the
army being the most effective, disciplined, and
capable institution of the country and where the
civil political plethora lacks. The chief reason
behind the instability and feeble foundations of
Pakistan’s institutions is the overlapping and
overstepping of power and authority between the
government, judiciary, and army institutions.
Each of these institutions has tried to overpower
and undermine the other establishments when
given even the slightest of opportunities. The
emergence of internal and external security
threats ever since Pakistan’s inception and four
lengthy dictatorial regimes have caused the
armed forces to be modernized, organized, and
well-equipped for every calamity. Nonetheless,
their entry into politics owes to lawlessness,
corruption, poor socio-economic conditions, bad
governance, and preference for personal gains
over the country’s betterment by the civilian
government. This imbalance of power between
the civil and military institutes in the favour of
the military has caused the subversion of
civilian authority, resulting in the further
weakening of the fragile and pseudo-democratic
trends Pakistan has had.
- CSS Exam Desk