By Dr. Nayyer Ali

December 31, 2004

Can Generals Yield to Democrats?


It is a matter of debate as to whether military dictators can yield to democracy. There are those who argue that all dictatorships are military dictatorships because they ultimately rest on the rule of the gun. But that is not a deep enough analysis.

First, all governments, whether democratic or otherwise, ultimately rest on the rule of the gun. All governments reserve the right to use deadly force against their citizens if they feel it is necessary. This applies in criminal matters where the state can execute spies or murderers, and it extends to civil disorder and insurrection. What exactly are 500,000 Indian soldiers doing in Kashmir? Or the army of Sri Lanka? The greatest bloodshed in US history took place when President Lincoln unleashed the full power of the Union Army against the rebellious southern states in the Civil War.

Second, among autocracies there is a big difference between those in which ultimate power and decision making is directly in the hands of the military, and those states where it is in civilian hands and in which the military is just one of many tools of state power. The first group tends to be military dictatorships, the second are police states. The second group tends to be either ideologically run by entrenched and extremist political parties (fascist, Baathist, communist, mullahs etc), or monarchies (Saudis, Morocco, Nepal, Shah's Iran etc.). This second group, particularly the ideological dictators, don't rely much on the military, which they often don't trust, but instead tend to build powerful secret police apparatus. Military dictators don't usually build a separate secret police as they don't want the competition to the uniformed services. It is interesting to note that Pakistan's only brush with a secret police was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s FSF (Federal Security Force). The military rulers never built such things. The Nazis ruled through the Gestapo, not the army. Stalin ruled through the KGB, and would routinely purge the military and execute generals on trumped up charges.

Third, military dictators yield more easily to democracy than the other groups. Why is that? Because they have a place to go when they give up power. They keep the gold braid, the ranks, and the status, and just go back to their barracks. When mullahs or communists or Baathists yield power they give up everything. In addition, the secret police apparatus, unlike the military, has no legitimate role in a democracy, so their vested interest in perpetuating the dictatorship is much more intense than that of military dictators.

Finally, military dictators must still maintain the confidence of the population on at least some level. The government must be seen as legitimate by at least a significant portion of society. For military rulers this legitimacy usually rests on a foundation of competent and effective governance and a perception that they are patriots acting in national interest. When the military loses that perception, it usually gives up power. This explains Ayub Khan’s decision to allow elections in 1970, and also the decision of the Argentine military to give up power in the wake of defeat after the Falklands war.

For the ideological dictators (communist or Baathist or Islamic), their legitimacy rests on their ideology, which is almost impossible to discredit, as they have warped society to accept their interpretation of what is desirable. That is why they tend to much more tightly control thought and opinion than do typical military dictators, who tend to be generally conservative in their outlook but not possessed by a strong ideology other than nationalism.
I would conclude that of all the dictatorships out there, military dictators are the easiest to transform into democracy. For Pakistanis who wish to see real democracy take root, that should offer some encouragement. Comments can reach me at Nali@socal.rr.com.

PREVIOUSLY

Deflating Japan

Bush’s Axis of Evil

Speaking to Non-Muslims

If Arafat Were Jinnah

The Shape of Things to Come

South Asia Expert Calls for Negotiations on Kashmir

Kashmir After the Cold War

Kashmir Quagmire: How It Started

Kashmir: Where We’ve Been

Make Way for the Euro

Will there Be a Muslim Palestine?

Careful, Careful

Our Growing Community

Pakistan’s Golden Opportunity

Musharraf’s Reform Plans

Pakistan’s Afghan Dilemma

Humanity on the Move

Strategies of America, Pakistan and Benazir

Winners and Losers

America’s Strategy Defang the Fundamentalists

The Noose Tightens

Pakistan in America

Musharraf’s Moment

A Sad Day for America, A Sad Day for Islam

Repeal the Blasphemy Law

Bush’s Stem Cell Compromise

The Depressing Stock Market

An Evening on Human Development

“Benazir” Takes Over in Indonesia

Race Riots in Britain

Global Warming or Just Hot Air?

Milosevic on Trial

Russia’s Collapse

Economic Recovery in Pakistan?

President Khatami’s Re-election

Lifting Sanctions on Pakistan

Israel’s Moral Burden

A Break in the Logjam?

The Second American Century

Pakistan’s Constitution

Dr. Lodhi in Los Angeles

Literacy: The Road Forward

Why Yusuf Can't Read

Literacy: The Glass is Half Full

Blowing Up Buddha

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Pakistan

Did You See the Moon?

Cornrows, Ali Khan, and Culture

Will the Children Go To Harvard?

Muslim Political Progress

Information Technology Gets A Boost

Sand and Oil

On Lieberman

Pakistan Builds A Tank

Kashmir in the Nuclear Age

Full Speed Ahead on Privatization

A Muslim France?

Too Much Food

Watching the Election Why Are We Hollywood’s Villains?

A Tyrant Falls

Taliban Victorious

The Walking Whale of Pakistan
The Joy of Air Travel?

The Amazing American Economy
Arafat and Jerusalem

Names For The Children

Population: Too Many or Too Few?

It Does Matter

Aziz Goes For Growth

The Military Government's First Budget

L'Affaire Salam

End Sanctions on Iraq

Third World Democracy

Light Weapons Trade on the Rise

Iran Reforms

Back to the Future

The Saudis and OPEC Mature

How Can We Help Pakistan Develop?

Report Card on Musharraf

IMF Vs Pakistan

A Candid Discussion on Foreign Policy Issues

A Sad Tale of Missed Opportunities

Cold War In Kashmir

Whither Afghanistan?

National Security and Literacy

Pakistan Votes

The People Win

What is an Islamist?

Selling the Crown Jewels

Still Not Government

One Year After the Taliban

Benazir's Folly

Iraq and Oil

Saddam and Iraq - I

Saddam and Iraq - 2

Muslim Democracy

Zakat and Capitalism

Zakat and Capitalism - 2

The Economy Picks Up

The American Military: Power without Limit?

Good Foreign Policy is Good Anti-Terrorism Policy

The Arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad

Bush Takes a Gamble

Bush Attacks

Besieging Baghdad

Darkness in Saddam's Bunker

Piccadilly It Aint Qissa Khani Is Still Qissa Kahani

Ed Asner and Afghanistan's Progress

Bush Delivers a Roadmap

Liberation or Imperialism

The Roadmap

Economic Rebound

Musharraf in Los Angeles

Economic Growth will lead to Democracy

Trapped by Myths and Fantasies

The Surge in Karachi Stocks

Bush's Busted Budget

America's Broken Healthcare

Time to Buy Stocks?

Islam, the State, and Human Rights

30 Years after the Oil Shock

The Future of Oil Wealth

Pakistan, India and Human Development

Pakistan's Eid Present

Iraq, Democracy and Islam

The End of Saddam Hussein

Three Wins for Pakistan

The Islamabad Declaration

Kerry's Big Wins

Repeal Hudood and Blasphemy

Bush's Growing Vulnerability

What Has Aziz Done?

Bits and Pieces

The Growth of India

Chaos in Iraq

Bush Caves in to Sharon

Abuse at Abu Ghraib

Too Harsh, Musharraf

The BJP Loses

What Do the Jihadis Want?

The Pak Economy: Bigger than We Think

Is America Richer than Europe?

Prime Minister Aziz

Unbundling WAPDA

Musharraf's Uniform

Chess Game in Kashmir

Three States, Three Debates

What's Wrong with the Democrats?

Can Elections Bring Peace to Iraq?

Elections in Iraq

Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.