Ashfaq Kiani sought to distance military from politics, but the political crisis boost the military's political clout & its willingness to intervene

EURASIA report, here

Scenario: 'The global economic crisis proves too much to handle for the political leadership in Pakistan. When civilian politicians reclaimed power in 2008, they faced an unreformed economy, a broken political system, and rising extremism. In early 2009, the full brunt of the global recession and credit contraction added to their burden. As the recession deepens, Pakistan’s exports and remittances from overseas workers both fall, and the government’s access to capital dries up. The government led by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is forced to implement unpopular fiscal and economic policies that intensify partisan politics. The opposition Pakistan Muslim League–Nawaz (PML-N) sees the economic crisis as an opportunity to increase pressure on the government as popular opinion turns against the PPP. The PML-N mobilizes street protests, and clashes occur between the police and the protesters, and between different ethnic groups. At the same time, extremists continue to spread their influence beyond the tribal areas and North-West Frontier Province. Tension increases over the next few months. As in the 1990s, the military concludes that it must intervene in politics for the sake of the nation—to stop the spread of militancy, revitalize the economy, and clean up civilian politics. New Chief of Amy Staff General Ashfaq Kiani had sought to distance the military from politics, but the political crisis between the PPP and the PML-N boost the military’s political clout and its willingness to intervene. Kiani does not pursue a full-fledged military coup, but rather the “Bangladesh model.” The military removes President Asif Ali Zardari and his administration and establishes a caretaker government, which it tasks with the job of stabilizing the political and economic situation. The military appoints Western-educated technocrats with no independent power base or political connections to serve in the new government. These officials maintain close contacts with Kiani, who makes all strategic decisions.

Implications

The military intervention sends shock waves through Washington, Kabul, Delhi, and the international investment community. The US has linked its engagement with Pakistan to the strengthening of democracy. Therefore, the US Congress condemns the military intervention and calls for economic sanctions and the cancellation of all assistance. But elements within the Barack Obama administration argue against this 1990s-style approach, saying that that the US cannot afford to isolate Pakistan. Kabul and Delhi also sharply criticize the intervention as a major factor driving instability in the region. The military tries to ease these concerns by arguing that the intervention is good for stability. Military leaders emphasize their secular, liberal, and pro-business agendas and pledge to continue cooperation with the US, Afghanistan, and India. As they did after the1999 coup that brought General Pervez Musharraf to power, international and investor concerns gradually ease. In the short term, the military stabilizes the situation. However, in the longer term, attempts to resist the return to democracy triggers unrest and creates space for militants to seek to increase their influence, as was seen during the 2007 political transition'