: Dr. Danial N. Nelson, a former employee of the US Department of State and Defense and Senior Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington D.C. was invited to deliver a talk on Civil Military Relations under Democracy at the Centre for Public Policy & Governance on the 20th of May 2010.

Dr. Nelson started his talk by examining the changing dynamics of the civil-military relations globally in a broad theoretical perspective. He explained how in recent years, the definition and scope of ‘civil’ as ‘individuals in top positions of government’ has expanded to include non-government agencies such as press, universities, and students as well. Similarly the military over the years has also outsourced some of the traditional military roles to private security companies; hence the terminology of ‘military’ has also acquired new meaning. He then proceeded to explain five mechanisms that needed to be employed to create an effective, and durable civil-military relationship. The first step entailed creating a constitution: a set of laws defining the parameters of civilian control over the military. According to these laws, clear reporting, monitoring and forecasting of military activities should be kept in check by the civil leadership. In the US, President was the Chief of Armed forces, regardless of whether he had served in the military or not. Such superiority of a higher civilian official over the military was necessary but not sufficient; it was even more important to have laws that required periodic reporting by the military regarding allocation of funds as well as the policies and activities that were being pursued. He argued … have laws that required.

” … have laws that required periodic reporting by the military regarding allocation of funds as well as the policies and activities that were being pursued.”

He then proceeded to explain five mechanisms that needed to be employed to create an effective, and durable civil-military relationship. The first step entailed creating a constitution: a set of laws defining the parameters of civilian control over the military. According to these laws, clear reporting, monitoring and forecasting of military activities should be kept in check by the civil leadership. In the US, President was the Chief of Armed forces, regardless of whether he had served in the military or not. Such superiority of a higher civilian official over the military was necessary but not sufficient; it was even more important to have laws that required periodic reporting by the military regarding allocation of funds as well as the policies and activities that were being pursued. He argued that writing these laws in the constitution was critical to developing efficient working civil-military relations and inexperienced countries could learn from previous experiences, giving the example of Eastern Europe where various countries had written their constitutions after the fall of communism with the help of Western Europe and America.

“…have structures and processes in place that could channel and thus regulate the behavioral pattern of defense department, intelligence agencies and security companies. “

The second point of importance was a need for “cultural shift”. Observing that some countries that had been favoring democracy in the past had recently started expressing more faith in military rule, he argued that it was important not only to focus on what “is” but what ought to be, keeping in mind the norms, values and beliefs which were changing over time. Civilian authorities and civil society ought to seriously articulate the need and the value of having military under civilian control. Additionally civil society needed to be vigilant regarding the role and activities of intelligence agencies and other security apparatus.

The third point of importance was having structures and processes in place that could channel and thus regulate the behavioral pattern of defense department, intelligence agencies and security companies. Giving examples, he stated that a presidential appointed commission reporting back to the President had the decision-making authority to open, close or retire military bases in the US. Similarly, following the debacle related to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when numerous intelligence agencies had not shared intelligence, President George W. Bush appointed commission’s report led to an Intelligence Reform Act. Hence military reforms were regulated through civilian decision-making bodies.

Fourth, he emphasized the need for greater transparency in order to have healthier civilian control. Narrating his work as a senior staff member of the United States House of Representatives, he said that one of his duties was to get defense and intelligence information for the majority leader of the House of Representatives, and the need for transparency was greatly felt to execute this task. To encourage transparency, he suggested; first, there should be public hearings and testimonies of military generals and senior officials of intelligence agencies, and disclosure should be demanded. Second, the civilian experts must be fully trained on the functions of military so that military secrets could be easily shared and understood by the civilians.

Finally, he discussed the issue of budgetary allocation observing that in most countries with partial civilian control over the military, the military disclosed insufficient and vague description of their budget spending. This had also been the case in Great Britain where spying agencies, MI5 and MI6, used to be unwilling to provide anything more than a one line item statement: “MI5 requires of Her Majesty’s government, X billions of pounds”.

“… the civilian experts must be fully trained on the functions of military so that military secrets could be easily shared and understood by the civilians.”

Nelson suggested that these mechanisms may not fit perfectly in Pakistan, but the principles were worth a consideration. Elaborating he said, a country could graduate from these steps and implement them incrementally. These strategies had worked for various countries with diverse socio economic conditions and could be modified and customized for implementation in Pakistan. South Korea, Argentina, Chile and Turkey had all followed a similar route in proceeding forward and hence, it was definitely doable in Pakistan as well. Thus Pakistan should compare its situation with countries that have made the transition from high military involvement in politics to a more neutral and state-focused military.

The talk evoked several questions among the participants.Responding to a question regarding the dynamics of civilmilitary relations in the US, he said that the State Department (representing the civilian control of foreign policy) and Pentagon (representing the Defense department) were interdependent and worked in coordination. The military attaché for each embassy essentially had two bosses. He reported to the State Department as well as to the Pentagon. Additionally in case of war, the military needed to provide complete information to the State Department.

When enquired about the reasons for the closeness of Pakistani military to politicians in Washington DC, he explained that Pakistan military had been an important ally of the US and had worked with the US during the cold war and the ongoing “War on Terror”. However he argued that these relations did not imply that US supported a military regime in Pakistan.

Answering a question if ethnic divide hindered the creation of adequate civil-military relations in Pakistan, he responded that it should not, giving the example of racial divide among Hispanic, Black and Whites in the US. Additionally, he explained the case of Indonesia, which had established working civil-military relations despite a high degree of segmentation and a history of civil military conflict. Pakistan could learn from such examples.

When asked how other countries’ progress towards greater civilian control compared to Pakistan, he exemplified Indonesia, which like Pakistan had a large Muslim population and was also divided into ethnically diverse regions. Although the military had ruled for decades and had an inclination towards imposing dictatorial regimes, the situation had changed to greater civilian control. Argentina was another example, where the military ruler had lost the war facilitating transition to civilian supremacy through incremental strategies and mechanisms. He argued that a similar transition could also be undertaken in Pakistan.

Responding to a question regarding the impact of armed conflict on democracy, he stated that armed conflict would affect democracy negatively in any country and posed a challenge to any democracy. He gave examples of the American Civil War when President Lincoln eliminated Habeas Corpus, a vital part of rule of law. Similarly, during World War II, President Roosevelt had confined Japanese Americans to camps till the end of war.

“In case of their inability to deliver, the public would be let down not only by the current government but by the institution of democracy which could potentially distort civil military relations.”

Responding to a question regarding the role of political parties, the current government, judiciary and other institutions in contributing towards civilian control, he elaborated that the legal community including judiciary, lawmakers, lawyers and policemen all contributed towards creating a culture of law, which shaped the nature and degree of civilian control over the military. With regards to political parties, he argued that they bore a heavy responsibility in making greater effort to meet public expectations. In case of their inability to deliver, the public would be let down not only by the current government but by the institution of democracy which could potentially distort civil military relations. Thus civilians needed to enhance their capacity for better performance during democratic rule. In comparison with India, he argued that India’s strength was a critical mass of prepared civilians who could operate government institutions effectively even with assassinations and insurgencies. He further added that the public needed to bear in mind that challenges faced by the current government were enormous and unprecedented given that world-wide recession, and the war against terrorism had limited government’s capacity to improve the economy and the security situation.