Civil Military Relations In Pakistan

Dr Saeed Shafqat did his master degree in Geography and Masters in south Asian Studies & Ph.D. in Political Science from University of Pennsylvania, PA, United States of America. The research articles of Saeed Shafqat have been published in various international journals such as South Asian Bulletins (USA), Journal of South Asian & Middle Eastern Studies (USA), Asian Survey (USA) and Asian Profile (Hong Kong).

Saeed Shafqat expertise in writing such material declares that he did vast research on publishing this book. He wrote many other books on Pakistan.

The audiences to the writer want to address are military and civil bureaucrats, technocrats, students of international relations and strategic studies.

Summary of the Book:

Analysis of the Pakistani civil-military relations, especially taking into account the role of the surprisingly different from their own army and neighbor India play, freedom is a clear case. Initially, these two countries the subcontinent the British army officer corps with virtual replicas of traditional society, “Officer and a Gentleman model” of physical and socio-economic development in general and to follow more stringent, including the continuation of politics as a dirty world. Freedom in the last half-century, Indian leaders persevered in their barracks, their political masters, democratically elected compliant tools. But his former colleagues in the Pakistan army rule the country before the coup plot in 1951, bureaucratic systems for 1958-1971 and again from 1977 to 1988 of the Government. unnecessary attention to the forces continue to suffer, and in September 1995 were 30 military officers accused of conspiracy in the leadership and senior leaders of the martial law and Islamic law in the country, what factors contributed to military rule in Pakistan.

Saeed Shafqat account the multidimensional nature of Pakistani civil military relations in 1969, Ayub Khan rule by the end of freedom begins with an overview of development, the impact of elite military bureaucracy and its impact on politics and focus on the economy in Pakistan. After a period of devastating war, the withdrawal of foreign aid in an impressive economic growth, 1965 Indo-Pakistan, Ayub ordered the administration. However, the “hegemony of the military system” (49 P) chaired by the exclusion of the country and Bangladesh to raise a large-scale building, conflict and “mass movement (74 P) remain in place for management positions Shafqat, personal, conceptual, and the national government fails” create conditions conducive to political negotiations in conjunction with regional parties to the conflict between the head of PPP Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto established a political system led to the unfortunate. Say, compromise and reconciliation “(157 P) to prevent the consolidation of democracy. Indeed, despite the passage of course, the classic carrot and stick to the control of armed forces to reduce their claims by companies seeking to strengthen the role and institutional strategies, Zulfiqar ‘responsibilities and regularly had the impression that any political control of the army, dominated by the personal nature “(s . 185) wanted. In 1977, powerful interests of the military authorities and through clever manipulation of Gen. Zia ul Haq, who very carefully and his own power the next decade to strengthen the institutional forces managed to lead the government to civilian administration were replaced by civilian and military on both sides of the divide between players. . His death “polarized and divided,” apparently permanent political and military leadership positions (219 p) the political legacy of political administration in 1988, moved the following on the left Pakistan Shafqat, these efforts were successful:

The past decade, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, over … The organizational structure and selection of the leaders probably had the opportunity to make the democratic process … Instead … After the ruling party to strengthen the security tool used to strengthen the ruling party dared to set the standard for personal power … Both government and opposition to the relationship between the development of a consensus structure of some help, both allowed and political debate and polarization, intolerance and authoritarian style of administration encouraged. Consequently, the military leadership in Pakistan in the political life continues … “(Page 251).

Generally, civil-military relations with Pakistan over the past 20 years, the country’s political and military story are simple and very instructive account. Shafqat conclusion is huge: a repeated phrase (if rarely) elected civilian governments, nature, organization and methods used by political elites in Pakistan, and genuine democratic choice in many cases with the parties, despite the replacement of authoritarian power to prevent. If Shafqat, standards and democratic practices, warns not to win legitimacy of the military regime remains an alternative model of government bureaucracy.

One final note: Although this version is well connected by Westview Press and suggests poor quality copy editing is facing serious. The repeated failure of expensive items, for an indefinite period, including punctuation, capitalization at the beginning of some proposals and a brief spell in the whole text Zulfiqar “as prime minister” is on the cover, but “How Zulfiqar! In addition, civil-military relations with Pakistan is no index, it is certainly a book with academic ambitions is not normal behavior.

Your reaction to the Author’s View

Author Saeed Shafqat defined the civil and military relations from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to Benazir Bhutto. His research work on political parties, religious parties, financial industrial groups who captured the industrial sector of Pakistan and their relations with military bureaucracy that formulate the policies of economies of Pakistan. Saeed Shafqat clearly defines military hegemony in Pakistan because military bureaucracy thought its hegemony essential for Pakistan. Whatever views author declared in his book, military influenced the financial industrial groups and politicians to motivate the minds of the people and implement the policies through them. Civil bureaucracy also influenced the politicians to get personal benefits. The author’s views about the governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif that both started rivalry with each other by establishing and developing relations with military bureaucracy to join the treasury benches. Afterwards, economic development appreciated with cooperation of World’s developed and industrial powers. The management of Pakistan’s economy and its development is only survival and prosperity of Pakistan.

Recommendations

I recommend this book to the military, civil bureaucrats, politicians, technocrats, students of political science, international relations, strategic studies, commerce and economics for the better understanding of civil and military relation in Pakistan.