Opinion | Pakistan’s Military Represents the Country in the U.S

As Pakistan’s Generals talks with the U.S., sidelined civilian voices expose the country’s deep democratic deficit.

Recent events were used to highlight a strong tendency in Pakistan’s diplomatic activity wherein military command is the most visible representative of the nation in global institutions. This was most strikingly the case in the context of interactions with the United States, wherein the Chief of the Army Staff of Pakistan, General Asim Munir, has made several visits of high-level officials and met with top U.S. defense officials. These meetings, while not entirely unusual in the context of defense relations, are significant in that they saw the near-complete absence of Pakistan’s civilian political leadership.

Foreign policy and diplomacy, under most democratic contexts in the world, are intended to be carried out by elected civilian governments. The elected representatives “speak” for their respective constituencies (the people who put them into office) through international forums in the name of national interests. The military has long been the dominant force within the country, exerting control and influence not only regarding defense matters but internal politics, foreign policy, and commercial interests.

Maybe the most compelling example of this kind of dominance is the Pakistani military’s involvement in large economic enterprises. Through companies like the Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust, Shaheen Foundation, and Bahria Foundation, the military has interests in a variety of sectors from real estate, banks, logistics, fertilizer, and cement to healthcare. These enterprises, carried out outside civilian control, have actually made Pakistan’s armed forces one of the country’s largest corporate institutions. This overlap of military and economic power produces a structure in which the military sets not only security policy, but economic and social agendas as well.

This dynamic has implications for diplomatic development. If the foreign actors, including the long-standing democratic allies, are negotiating primarily or exclusively with the soldiers, it de facto reinforces the narrative that Pakistan’s civilian governments are secondary or marginalized. Such narratives can erode already fragile democratic institutions in the country, where political institutions are unable to take hold and acquire legitimacy in the shadow of the military.

The emphasis on military diplomacy also limits the possibility of people-oriented, long-term coalitions. Democratic civilian regimes in all their imperfections are likely to be more sensitive to public concern and more inclined to appreciate stability, development, and intraregional cooperation. Military-led foreign policy is likely to be rigid, security-oriented, and less inclined to participate in open discussion or confidence-building with surrounding states.

On a region-wide scale, this duality has more significance. Foreign policy in Pakistan has historically gone hand in hand with a policy based on armed forces and a stronger stance, especially with regard to border issues, ceasefire violations, and anti-guerrilla action. Civilian governments given the mandate and latitude to act have typically been more conciliatory, straying from belligerent language and taken notice of peace offerings and cooperative diplomacy.

The U.S.–Pakistan military relationship has its roots in history back to the Cold War era and beyond in the post 9/11 counterterrorism era. Military exercises, defense aid, and operational coordination have built a strong institutional relationship between the two militaries. Such engagement is natural and in many ways, inevitable to address common problems like terrorism and regional security. But it is equally necessary that the relationship evolve to include modern democratic values and geopolitical realities.

For diplomacy to be inclusive and enduring, it must reflect the full spectrum of a nation’s leadership. To limit high-level discussions to the military dimension only risks perpetuating an always vulnerable system of civilian rule. Leaving out political voices from these forums shuts out not just individuals, but democracies, too.

A more balanced diplomatic approach one that involves negotiation with Pakistan’s civilian leadership across parties would be a powerful affirmation of democratic governance. It would also push Pakistan’s own institutions in the direction of the more transparent and accountable. International pressure is a quiet but effective influence on domestic political culture, and a focus on inclusiveness can help promote democratic norms in the long run.

Civilian leadership, in its consideration in international circles, brings to the table voices shaped by the hopes and interests of the common citizenry. Their presence strengthens democratic institutions, empowers people’s voices, and instills a political culture of accountability and debate. Diplomacy that respects and empowers such voices helps create a more equitable internal power balance in Pakistan, which is ultimately to the benefit of regional peace and international stability.

None of this means that defense cooperation must be reduced. Military and strategic contacts do have vital functions and must be maintained where required. But these must be complemented and not replaced by substantial political discussion. Exclusion of elected members can risk exacerbating internal divisions and fostering imbalances that are harder to reverse later.

A peaceful and sustainable South Asia is contingent on a stable and democratic Pakistan. Institutionalization of civilian power in Pakistan is helpful to Pakistan’s own internal development and to confidence-based relations in the region. A Pakistan where foreign policy is made in parliaments and under the direction of elected representatives is best positioned to engage in frequent and constructive diplomacy with its neighbors and international partners.

This is not a question of inquiring who goes to diplomatic events, but inquiring who is usually left out. Although defense relations can complement strategic interests, the nature of diplomacy is dialogue between those responsible to the people. Whoever speaks on behalf of any nation on the global platform should preferably be those who have been voted into power by its people through democratic process.

By providing room to Pakistan’s civilian leadership in the future diplomatic process, international partners like the United States can usher in a more balanced system of governance. This would usher in enduring regional stability and foster democratic resiliency in a nation that has long suffered from military-political dualism.

Finally, diplomacy works best when it encompasses and engages all the rightful pillars of the government. Encouraging civilian participation alongside military negotiations isn’t only fair it’s also reasonable. It opens the door to peace, accountability, and respect, the same pillars of any solid and long-lasting international coalition.

yasminahshah457@gmail.com