Ayesha Siddiqa’s book “Military Incorporated: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy” is not only a brave work that provides a first in depth look at the monopolization of sectors of Pakistani economy by the military but also presents us with much learning regarding scenarios in South Asia and the impact of eroding civic society participation.

Related Links
Military Inc. - Buy It
Censorship in Pakistan Strengthens Dictatorship
The Big Business of Military Inc in Pakistan
Is General Musharraf Anti-National?

It is important to acknowledge the strength of conviction of the author, especially given the danger to her self that forced her to leave Pakistan. Yet, this cannot be the only reason that a book be read. And it is not.

The book is not without criticism. For example, the author does blur the lines between participative democracy and free market economies. Time and again there is an assumption that free market economies operating in the USA or Europe are transparent, allow for participative processes and civic society engagement. She argues that the problem with the military economy is its inefficiency since it demands and receives immense concessions thus resulting in lost opportunity cost.

In all of this, there is no acknowledgment of the concessions and subsidies that large corporations routinely receive, of costs externalized regularly by such entities or ways in which they lobby to thwart participative democracy.

Second, it could be argued that the military in Pakistan has prevented the slipping of Pakistani society into a scenario of political anarchy where religious or ethnic factions and warlords run the country. Numerous western writers have made this argument in support of US support to a military dictator. The author does attempt to critique this position – however, her argument is not convincing. She does not help identify institutions that could take Pakistan out of the current scenario and processes that must be initiated.

However, the book is still substantive and teaches us much. At the outset, she helps identify the processes that led to the rise and consolidation of military power – delineating political, social and cultural trends and events that perhaps were the cause. She then describes in much detail – more qualitatively but with enough numbers – the extent of Pakistani military intervention into Pakistani economics and the disruption in democratic processes that followed.

She points out the close relationship that large economic houses in Pakistan have had with the military right from the beginning with banks and industrial houses financing military ventures in return for economic concessions.

I will not attempt to summarize the extent of intervention or the structure that has now risen to give perhaps indisplacable might – political, economic and social – to the military in Pakistan. And that was the very goal of the military leadership, perhaps from the mid 70s. She also gives some pointers to the impact of this phenomenon in South Asian politics as well as globally.

She also critiques the position of the Pakistani military that has argued that the rest of the country is illiterate and incompetent and only the military has the competence and the discipline to lead Pakistan. She points out the inefficiencies in the military – especially in its economic operations. In addition, she notes that India and Pakistan have had similar pre-independence histories and similar cultural and social indices – yet, even during the Indian emergency, the Army has refused to play such a role.

Yet, she does not lay the blame completely in the doorstep of the military, pointing out the myopic vision of political leadership and the structures within which the leaderships have operated.

She points out that at the inception of Pakistan, it was the civil and military bureaucracy that controlled power – the military being the junior partner. Over the first two decades, this relationship changed with the military becoming the senior partner and this was a result of petty politics by the political leadership. While she does not explicitly state this, it is perhaps important to note the absence of civic society in those early years as the future of Pakistan was being shaped.

This perhaps was different in India where the Congress (as well as other smaller parties like the Forward Bloc and the Hindu Mahasabha) had strong grassroots presence and were engaged in constructive programs even before independence. It leads me to believe that the presence of strong civic society engagement at the grassroots has been important to sustenance of democracy – much more than the role of bureaucracy or even social indices like literacy.

This argument bears even more strength when one notes that the one window of opportunity for democracy in Pakistan was the early 70s and strong civic society movements – including engagement of student groups, unions, etc which led to the rise of Zulfikar Bhutto.

It is also important to note that the first steps of Zia ul Haq was aimed at destruction of such civic society groups including banning of student groups and unions, killing of such leaders and strengthening of feudal chiefs and religious bigots at the local level through military funding, and erosion of party based grass roots presence.

This has significant import for South Asia. While NGOs are omnipresent in Bangladesh, these are often service sector efforts organized for employment and personal profit rather than to change the role of communities through empowerment. Civic society groups have suffered even more with increased fundamentalism. The myopic vision of the two leaders – very similar to the history of Pakistan embodied in Ms Bhutto and Sharief – led to further break down of civic society participation and politicization of the military. It is in this scenario that military take over has been possible.

In Sri Lanka, the civil war has eroded civic society participation. Where they still do, especially in Eastern and North Eastern Sri Lanka, it is at great risk of personal harm. The military has thus become a major player in the political process and democracy does not exist in this part of the country.

In India, while there is a reasonably vibrant democracy in many parts, civic society groups have been threatened and participative democracy has been eroded in some parts – namely many of the North Eastern states as well as Kashmir. It is important to note that the same was true in Punjab in the 80s and early 90s and today democracy is returned with strong engagement of civic society.

The role of civic society is critical - it helps direct social and political growth for society. In its absence, it is primarily institutions that gain strength and often leading to a praetorian culture becoming entrenched. For example, changes in India such as National Right to Employment Guarantee Act or the Right to Information were driven by civic society engagement - and often were implemented while threatening entrenched institutions. In their absence, programs drawn up by a government are primarily focused on strengthening entrenched institutions - corporations, military, bureaucracy, for example. No wonder then, that while India was engaged in true land reform, and building infrastructure for democratic participation, Siddiqa points out that up to 70% of Pakistani budget was focused on defense.

The direction of democracy in South Asia – in fact any where – is strongly tied to civic society engagement in political processes. Erosion of such participation will lead to an increasingly authoritarian state and increased instability. While Ayesha Siddiqa does not explicitly state this, it is a significant learning and should perhaps direct us – as citizens, as journalists and as neighbours to actively engage on processes that re-engage civic society groups within our countries.

For all South Asians, the most important step in re-establishing sustained stability and democracy in these communities is working to re-engage civic society groups – often under dire conditions. From that perspective, this book is not just a critique of the military in Pakistan but a herald for revitalization of civic society across South Asia.

- Sanat Mohanty