Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assignment-On-Comparative-And-Developme 👈

1. 1
Assignment
On
Comparative and Developmental Politics
Role of military in politics
Submitted by
Sehar Hanif
Roll No. 08
Class M.phil Sem.II
Submitted To
Prof. M.Iqbal Roy
Department of Political Science
Govt College Women University

2. 2
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1-2
2. Reasons of Military intervention in politics 2-10
3. Significance of military in politics 10-13
4. Typical role of military in politics 13-14
5. Causes of Reluctance of military to intervene in politics 14-16
6. Role of military in Pakistan 17-27
I. The first military regime: 1958-69
II. The second military regime: 1969-71
III. The third military regime: 1977-88
IV. The fourth military regime: 1999-2008
7. Role of Pakistan‟s army in current crisis 28-29
8. Criticism 29-31
9. Conclusion 32-33
10. References 34-35

3. 3
1. Introduction:-
The armed forces have three massive political advantages over civilian organizations: a marked
superiority in organization highly emotionalized symbolic status, and a monopoly of arms. They
form a prestigious corporation or order, enjoying force. The wonder, therefore, is not why this
rebels against its civilian masters, bill why it ever obeys them.
There is a dilemma about the role of military. The role of military varies from country to country
and the situation of the political culture. Political role of military depends on its level of military
intervention. In Third World perspective, military rulers came into politics with popularity that
the civilian rulers. Here, we can find the political role of military. The popular political role of
military may bear the positive. But when after few days the military lose their popularity and
then civilian authority becomes in fashion. After that military is considered as oppressor, this
shows the negative role of military in politics. We can recognize four levels of military
intervention. These levels are influence, Blackmail, and Displacement of civilian cabinets, and
the supplement of the civilian regime. These levels of intervention are found both in developed
and developing countries. If we identify the levels of intervention in developing countries, we
can easily find out the political role of military. The causes for the military intervention indicate
the political role of military. But now-a-days political intervention of military is criticized. We
Know that military is one kind of organization under the command of civilian authority. In that
point of view the political role of military is very complicated. Well-being of the citizens is the
ultimate goal of civilian authority or government. People or the citizens are the ultimate source
of power. So, there is a legitimacy of any authority must be needed. In overt crisis, latent crisis
and vacumness of leadership may be the cause for military intervention. Where, there is no
option for to overcome these crises, military intervention is very much acceptable. In this sense,
military plays very important political role. After minimizing the crisis, military should hand
over the authority to the civilian authority. But when the military does not doing so, this acts may
be considered as negative role of military.
It is clear that military intervention for any cause, it will not acceptable not in internal as well as
international affairs. In this sense, any purpose and any functions military intervention will not
be legitimated or constitutional.

4. 4
The performance of military regimes has been more disappointing in the sphere of political
development, despite the praise for military coups lavished by state political analysis. According
to Huntington, “Frequent coups are a sign of change and progress. Coups are a sign of
independence and the real beginning of the process of modernization and development.
The purpose of this discussion is to assess the significance of this concern against the backward
of the political process in developing countries is markedly below the level of the developed
states. However, the military intervenes in the practical politics of third world countries.
2. Reason of military intervention:-
That no state can remain absolutely free from the onslaught of military intervention
is a fact, but the tragic event of military intervention culminating in the long range arrangement
of a totalitarian order is conditioned by two mains factors – political and social. In the first place,
political conditions have their definite impact on intensifying the capacity and prosperity of the
military leaders to intervene in the politics of a country. If the constitutional provisions allow
allocation of some ministerial assignments to the men of the armed forces, or when civilian
government depends upon the support of the military either because of its weak power of
decision making or to suppress its opponents by the force of arms, likelihood of military
intervention naturally gathers more and more weight. In the second place societal factors have
their own part. The absence of a healthy and organized public opinion implying a minimal
political culture coupled with civilian leaders loss of popularity among the people sharpen the
zeal of the military leaders to over throw the corrupt and notorious civilian administration .thus
the army “intervene because other elites are absent, important or indifferent; it improvises and
expands its role to carry the burden created by a modernization crisis.” (Siddique, Muhammad
Abdullah 2009, p.284)
Following are the certain reasons for military intervention:
I. Political instability:-
It is common practice for military to intervene in politics in the developing
countries, which is mainly due to political instability. Those countries; where the imperialist
states ruled for a long time, could neither develop the political system nor could get trained the

5. 5
political leadership. Moreover these countries are facing a number of problems. The absence of
stable political institutions could not provide stability in the country. Moreover, the traditional
political elites and institutions could not produce new civilian leadership and the military
leadership filled the gap; which was created by the scenario.
The political process of most of the developing countries is characterizes by the mutual conflicts
and class struggle for protecting their own interests. Some time the negative attitude of the
political parties resulted in the disintegration of country. Example is the separation of
Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971. Struggle for power between Pakistan people‟s party and
Pakistan national Alliance (PNA) in 1977 was another example; which brought the country at
brink of disaster.
I. Strength of military:-
The most characteristic features of military are its organization, its discipline
and cohesion and its superior technological and managerial skill. The military has been
considered as a crucial component to the state integrity, as our neighboring country is our arch
enemy and wanted to eliminate Pakistan. Thus the military is only state institution, which is the
guarantee of t-he country‟s survival. (Huntington Samuel, 1957, p.7)
II. Crisis of leadership:-
After the demise of Quaid-e-Azam and Liaquat Ali khan, there was crisis of political leadership
in Pakistan. The weak political leaders interacted with military leadership, who could not assert
their authority in the political system without military support. Thus the military interfered into
decision-making on security and foreign policies and key domestic political issues.
III. Decline of political institutions:-
The decline of political institutions and processes made it convenient for the head of state to
emerge as key factor in political in political process, who exercised power with the collaboration
of bureaucracy and military support. The rise of bureaucracy- military elites dimmed the
prospects of democracy. The external security threat and internal uncertain conditions gave the
military special leverage to influence the decision. Latter, the military displaced tottering rule
and controlled the power directly.

6. 6
(Khan, Dr Sultan, 2009, pp.113-114)
IV. Political leadership is responsible:-
It is widely claimed that the political leaders were responsible for creating the
condition that enabled the military rise to power. It was failure of the political leaders to create a
coherent political order with widespread legitimacy that tempted the general to assume powers.
The vacuum, which was created by political leadership, was filled by military leadership.
V. Role of super powers:-
The negative role of super powers in the developing countries paved the
way for military intervention. When any super power provides the military aid and military
training to any developing state, it increases its influence in politics, for example the soviet union
provided military aid to Afghanistan during regime of Sardar Dawood, resultantly it occupied
Afghanistan. Likewise Soviet Union also increased its influence in Egypt, during the period of
jamal Abdul Nasar, the military began to penetrate into in to the politics of the country and
occupied the supreme authority. After the incident of world trade center in Sept. 2001, United
States increased its influence in Pakistan and provided stability to military dictatorship.(Khan, Dr
Sultan 2008, pp.152-153)
VI. Lust for power:-
In most of the developing countries the military leadership has lust for power and occupies the
authority of the state by taking extra ordinary or Unconstitutional steps. For example generals
like Ayub khan, Yahya khan, Zia- ul- haq and Mushraf have declared martial laws and took the
authority of the country illegally. In Myanmar military took the reins of government in to its own
hands by violating the laws of the country. The military leadership in both Pakistan and
Myanmar did this in pursuit of their lust of power.
VII. Effects of old traditions:-
It is right that internal political turmoil lead to intervention of military in to politics, yet old
traditions of the country is the important factor for this purpose. In those countries, where the
military is habitual to usurp the political authority off and on, there the possibility of military

7. 7
intervention is common after dissolving the civilian governments. On the one or other pretext the
military leadership compels the civilian governments to resign and to put out offices of the
government. This usually happens in most of the African countries. As opposed to it the civilian
government in developed countries asks the military to help the government by remaining within
constitutional limitations. Therefore, there is less chance of intervention of the military.
(Clapham, 1992, p.141)
VIII. Psychological reason:-
There is psychological reason for the intervention of military. Military is
an organized and well- disciplined institution having a lot of resources at its disposal.
The military leadership is well aware about the superiority of the military due to its strength, its
organization and its training. They began to realize that they are the best option to replace the
political leadership in the case of political crisis.
IX. Danger of Insecurity:-
In most of the developing countries, the danger of insecurity is always there.
There is no institution other than military, which can provide security and tranquility in the
society. The role of military particularly in those countries, which are undergoing the process of
modernization, became more important as it has already been trained on modern lines. Moreover,
in the developing nations, security is a concerning point of the country and role of the military
leadership becomes significant. Hus the complexes compel the military leadership to intervene in
the politics.
X. Military role in extra ordinary situations:-
Military always play positive role in extra ordinary situation of the country. For
example the military of Pakistan played an important role to control the smuggling in East
Pakistan, to control the political turmoil in Karachi in 1949, to control the situation, which arose
on the issue of language in 1952 and to control the situation in Balchistan, where military was
used against Muree and Bugti tribes. When the military is provided with many occasions to help
the administration to save the country, the military leadership thinks them an integral part of

8. 8
administration, thus, feel no hesitation to interfere in the politics of the country. (Finer, 1962,
p.72-85)
XI. Unconstitutional status of civilian government:-
Sometimes the civilian government loses its legitimacy and emerges as
unconstitutional, but it remained stick with the offices; which provide opportunity to military
leadership to intervene in politics. In 1958 in Pakistan, the civilian government lost its utility and
the military leadership got the opportunity to intervene in politics. A gain in May 1977 Pakistan
army intervened in politics and took the charge of the government. The same repeated in October
1999. According to S.E. Finer, the intervention of military in the politics of a country is governed
by these pertinent causes.
XII. Professionalization of the officer crops:
The professionalized character of the army officer‟s
makes them well disciplined and thus keeps them away from the domain of politics. At the same
time, it impels them to intervene in the politics of the country if serve frustration impinges on
their well- trained minds.
XIII. Nationalism and nation-state:
Nationalism provides military with a civic religion and an overriding set of values, for
they have a unique role to play guardians of the national territory and ultimate repositories and
custodians of national values. Where nationalism has gripped the masses the armed forces tend
to become the visible symbol and the pledge of nationhood and independence and to attract
esteem for that reason.
XIV. Defense of popular sovereignty:-
Democracy stands on the celebrated maxim: voice of the people is the voice of
God. Thus, any person or group including the army, which succeeds in the mustering a small
semblance of popular support can claim to be the lawful government. By this token any faction
can seize power and legitimize itself in the name of the sovereign people. Thus, the path is laid

9. 9
wider open for the military to intervene and supersede the civil war altogether on the plea that
they embody the sovereign of the people.
XV. Emergence of an insurrectionary army:
An army working for the liberation of the national territory or for the over-
throws of the social order commands a great respect in the eyes of the people.The military
officers of such an army have a sort of rudimentary ideology. They draw their strength from the
public at large and pretend to be the representatives of the whole population. In them
intellectuals scholars and national leaders transform themselves into fighting men and may show
unexpected and unsuspected gifts of military skill, administrative ability and diplomacy. They
may disband themselves after the establishment of a new order, but they may intervene any time
in the politics of a country to save the rewards of their revolution. (Morrison, Stevenson 1972,
p.17)
XVI. Widespread chaos in a state emancipated from colonial subjection:
Where the situation becomes very acute due to social, economic and political
cleavages and tensions, army intervenes after invoking the dogmas of nationalism and popular
sovereignty particularly in a state recently emancipated from colonial subjection. A sure
invitation to military intervention takes place when passionate nationalism of the people of
newly independent country is mixed up with the desire for the establishment of a strong central
government that the civilians fails to provide.(Al-Handi,2014,pp.195-96)
XVII. Internal Conflict Based on Characteristic of the Society
The ethnic antagonism includes cultural diversity of groups, ethnic dominance, and ethnic
competition as causes of military intervention (Jenkins, Kposowa, 1992). The ethnic and other
sectional rivalries among militaries may result in military interventions, which are mostly related
with structure of society. Internal conflict is often associated with linguistic and ethnic
heterogeneity. Kurian (1991) states that many governments are striving to create nations from
heterogeneous populations are finding the task difficult because of collective action problem.
Morrison, Stevenson (1972) argue that the greater the number and cultural diversity of the

10. 10
groups, the greater the elite instability is. The larger the number of groups and potential
cleavages, and so less stable coalitions which creates the greater likelihood of intervention.
3. Significance of military in politics:
The role of the military in the politics of all these countries is deeply embedded in the history of
nation building. While the nationalist struggle for independence was initially conceived and led
by civilian intellectuals towards the end of the colonial era, the consequent evolution of national
armies created a powerful focus of nationalist energy and political power. The common tendency
towards factional infighting and disunity at critical points in the national struggle provided the
impetus for military leaders to enter the political arena to “save” or “protect” the nation, which
has commonly entrenched the narrative of the military as the guardians of the nation and the
state. The role of the army in governing the state has deep roots in both Middle Eastern and
Asian societies for quite similar reasons. In traditional Islam, the ruling establishment was
divided into two major categories, the “people of the pen” and the “people of the sword”. As a
result, the military, whether organized as regular army or mercenary force, was very much a part
of the ruling establishment. As noted by P.J. Vatikiotis, both the Abbasids in Baghdad (750–
1258) and the Fatimids in Cairo (963–1170) “depended largely on military leaders for
administration and for the execution of public policy”. The legacy in the Middle East that
emerged in the post-colonial era, he noted, was that “policy is still made largely by the sanction
of organized force, rather than debate.” (Vatikiotis, 2014, pp.53-55)
 This is not dissimilar from the historical role of the army in the pre-colonial kingdoms of
Thailand and Burma, where the army was an important pillar of the ruling establishment.
Thai kings divided power equally between the treasury (Kromma Khlang) and the
Defence ministry (Kalahom).
 In Egypt, Indonesia and Myanmar, the army played a key role in leading the national
revolutions that secured independence in the modern era. The Free Officers Group
formed in Egypt in the mid-1930s brought a group of native Egyptians together to fight
for the national cause, eventually unseating the aristocratic elite drawn mainly from
families of Turkish origin and from other parts of the Ottoman Empire.
 Indonesia‟s national army was formed in the wake of Sukarno‟s bold declaration of
independence in 1945. (Interestingly, Egypt was the first country to acknowledge

11. 11
Indonesia‟s independence.) It saw itself as a people‟s army that, in contrast to civilian
nationalist leaders, made no compromises in the fight against Dutch colonial forces. This,
according to Meitzner, imbued in the army a sense of entitlement to participate in
government and an ingrained disdain for civilian politicians.
 Myanmar‟s early nationalist leadership was also military-based. The “Thirty Comrades”,
led by Aung San helped the Japanese invade British Burma, then spent time in Japan
before returning to help the British expel the Imperial Japanese Army. Soon after
independence in 1948, the government was beset by an array of ethnic insurgencies that
gave the army a leading role in governing the country, thus strengthening its view that
only the army could hold the country together.
 In the years following independence, the military in all these countries was privileged
because of its nationalist role. Military officers benefitted from nationalization of colonial
assets. Better resourced, the military became more organized and modernized than other
institutions. Military officers thus became conscious of their ability to use physical force,
but also were often able to shape political platforms and govern the people.( P.J.
Vatikiotis,1961,p.56)
 In Indonesia, for example, the army‟s doctrine is infused with the value of honor and
integrity that implicitly sets it apart from fractious, squabbling civilian politicians. In
Thailand, the army has used its close association with the monarchy to define for itself a
role as guardian of the state.
 In Burma, like Indonesia, the army spearheaded the nationalist struggle and wrought for
itself a privileged position. In both countries, the immediate internal threats to the
fledgling nation posed by irredentist and ideological armed conflicts helped greatly to
consolidate this military power.
 In Egypt, the military threw itself into confrontation with Western powers and then costly
wars with Israel. The success it claimed bore little relation to events on the battlefield.
 Generally, the military sees itself as the guardian of the state rather than of the
government in power, and has managed to sustain this role, either overtly by backing
authoritarian rulers, or by periodically intervening to change the political order. The real

12. 12
danger appears when the military‟s sense of guardianship evolves into one of ownership
of the state.
 In Egypt, the Free Officers group led by Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser seized power from
the civilian Wafd Government in a coup d‟état on 23 July 1952, putting the army in a
position of power it has never abandoned, although it has been on the decline since the
1967 debacle. In the case of Myanmar, the military has effectively governed the country
since 1962 and only began a process of stepping back and allowing civilians to lead after
the 2010 elections. In Thailand, where the military has launched 18 coups since the
1950s, the military has tended until now to steer clear of actual government, preferring
instead to allow appointed premiers or weak civilian political coalitions to govern, while
it retains the option to change the political order whenever deemed necessary.
 The last time was in 2006. In Indonesia, the military strongly supported the authoritarian
rule of President Soeharto following an alleged attempted communist takeover in 1965.
In reality, Soeharto, although a former general, built a personal power base that drew on
military support, but never allowed the army to control the levers of power. (Marcus
Mietzner,2009,p.38)
4. Typical role of the military:-
The developing countries are extremely diverse in cultural traditions and
social characteristics. Naturally, the political activities of the military take quite different
forms of these societies. Dr. Finer has said the military intervene in politics through four
methods for example, through influence, through black mailing, through instability and
through taking direct control.
a. Through Influence:-
Military as an interest group, in some countries, tries to influence the politics for the
protection of its own interest. Some time it influences the government policies for the
national interest remaining behind the scene and it does not come in lime fight.
b. Through Instability:-

13. 13
The military intervenes in politics through the political instability of the country. The military is
an organized and disciplined institution gets chance to intervene in politics through political
crisis.
c. Through taking Direct Actions:-
Sometimes military leadership takes direct actions against the civilian government and takes
reins of government by engineering coup.In most of the African countries military first involves
in politics indirectly then directly when we go through the history of military intervention only in
the year of 1975 military was real source of authority in 21 countries of Latin America and 78
countries of Africa. (Siddique, Muhammad Abdullah 2009, pp.285-286)
d. The military as Constitutional Caretaker:
Unpredictable situation or conflict, mismanagements or corruption of civilian
government and when political organizations become ineffective, then military can
constitute „Constitutional Caretaker‟ government directly. When political environment
comes in stable position, then military can back power to civilian authority. Myanmar,
Honduras, Venezuela, Peru were experienced by this type of role of military. But most of
the time military could not leave the power to the military.
e. The military as Spearhead of Reforms or Revolution:
When a country‟s existing political system break down there military comes into politics
as a reformer of political system for the long time. Military takes initiatives to reform in
political system, economic system as well as in social system. General Ayub Khan of
Pakistan and General Naser are the well example of this. (Alam, 2004, pp.9-10)
f. The military as the Backer of Civilian Government:
Here the role of military as the guardian of the civilian government. They controlled civilian
government indirectly. The relation between the military and civilian government were not
enough. For that, this type of role of military has become ineffective. This type of role has
seen in Indonesia, Brazil, Ecuador, and the Philippines etc.
5. Causes of reluctance of military to intervene in Politics:-

14. 14
The large percentages of states that have fallen under military rule indicate the spread of political
power wielded by the military in the Third World. But now-a-days a great number of states are
getting out of military intervention or military influence. There are some common causes for
reluctances military intervention (Islam, 2009, p.260-266.)
a. Influence of democratic values:
At present democracy is the best governing political system in the world. Democracy is
supervised by the First World countries and they are the superpowers. New born Third
World countries were in dilemma during the coin & war but now democratic values are
existed strongly. Democracy does not allow the rule of military. Popularity n1 1entness
of democratic values are increasing day by day. b. Lack of integrity in military:
Military is known as a discipline and integrated organization. But in large interest, we see the
disintegration among them. Presence of internal conflicts arises. Break down of chain of
commands. For that their integral part is more exist. So, it is become very impossible for them to
continue their rule over civilian authority.
b. Static in development activities:
As an organization under civilian authority, military participants in various development
activities. But when the military take the authority unlawfully, military cannot concentrate in
development activities. As a result for military coup, there create instable situation in politics.
Military concentrates on to minimize political crisis rather than development activities. This is
one of the important causes for reluctance of military in politics.
c. Economic crisis:
Another important cause for reluctance of military is that the creation of economic crisis. During
the military rule, economic condition become in very bad position. The failure of economic
development turns military‟s popularity in down and military no longer stay in power. Generally
Third world countries are not strong in economy, and then military intervention makes it become
weaker. This is the bad experience of military and discourages them to intervene latter on.
d. Increasing facilities of military:

15. 15
The military of developed countries get more facilities than the developing countries. In
developed countries there is no political crisis as well. So, that military of developed countries do
not intervene in politics. But in developing countries there were no facilities at all. But now-days,
military gets many facilities and the facilities are increasing day by day. Military is discouraged
to get facilities and power and power in unconstitutional way. (Finer, S.E 1962,p.11)
e. Fall of communism:
During the cold war period capitalism and communism both tried to establish and increase their
authority. One of the important instruments of the communism was to create revolution and
revolution came through the military intervention. Fall of communism and popularity of
democracy discourage the military for intervention.
f. influence of open market economy:
In present world economy is the best instrument to rule over rather than arms. There is a
tendency of every state become a strong state economically. So, states give more emphasis on
development of economy rather than military. This condition of world politics is one of the
important causes for reluctance of military from politics.
g. Adopting defense strategy:
To discourage the military in intervention in politics, it should adopt defense strategy. Talukder
Maniruzzaman stated that abolishing standing army and raising a citizen army in its place would
not only help a Third World states to develop a democratic political order, but it also would
enable it to adopt a fence strategy. (Maniruzzaman., 1987, p. 8)
g. Social revolution and mass uprising:
Social revolutions have had an effect on the process of the demilitarization of politics. Social
integrity and social hegemony are very important to discourage the military to intervene. Mass
uprising against military rule is also on important fact for reluctance of military from politics.

16. 16
6. Role of military in Pakistan:-
The military is the most formidable and autonomous political actor in Pakistan, capable of
influencing the nature and direction of political change. It acquired such a centrality to the
political process over time which represented a shift from the disposition it maintained at the
time of Pakistan‟s independence. Though the military was integral to the British imperial rule in
south Asia and served as its ultimate shields, the military functioned within the parameters set
out by the civilian authority and stayed out of active politics. However with the passage of time,
the military expanded its role and establishment its primacy to the political process which
manifested in different forms, i.e, active role in policy making from the background, direct rule
under the cover of martial law, establishment of civilianized regimes which relied on the
generals for their survival, and penetration into the civilian institution and processes. These
developments warrant a critical appraisal of the factors and conditions that contributed to the
change in civil- military relations. (Baloch jamshad, Ali, 2014, p.54)
The first military regime: 1958-69
The coup d‟etat in Pakistan was the most striking example of how a political military could
slowly be drawn into political field due to the failure of the political leaders to run liberal
democratic institutions. The military which had the tradition of aloofness from politics, took no
part in the attainment of independence, remained loyal to civil authority after independence and
helped every government to maintain law and order, slowly became an important factor in the
decision making process and ultimately displaced the civil authority. The coup d‟‟etat did not
modify the major objectives of the preceding governments. The goal of modernization,
industrialization and democracy contained to be the objectives of the new regime; the approach
to these goals was changed. (Clapham, 1992, p.141)
In 1958, Pakistan‟s army entered into muddy politics of the country. They came political scene
and began to play the role of their own part; which could not justify its image. Gen. Muhammad
Ayub khan, who was the commander- in- chief of the armed force of Pakistan, was motivated
purely by personal consideration. He prepared “a broad tactical outline” to impose Martial law in
country under the pressure of some senior Generals or under the danger of coup, which might be
staged by the younger officers on the inspiration of Iskander Mirza, the then president of

17. 17
Pakistan. The personal motive compelled the president to impose Martial law on October 7,
1958, and declared Ayub khan, as a chief Martial law Administrator. (Ziring, 1997, pp.255-56)
After the assumption and consolidation of power, it is essential for the military rulers to justify
their action. This is done by two methods.
First rulers must convince the people that they were not interested on politics, but the
conditions had deteriorated to such an extent that they could no longer sit and watch the
ruination of the country as silent spectators. It was their ultimate responsibility to defend
and protect the country from external enemies and such elements within the state who
might threaten to disrupt social, political, and economic order of the society.
Second, they take certain steps to reform the social and political structure and introduce
measures to improve the living conditions of the common man. The military leader of
Pakistan found ample material available to justify their assumption of power. They
successfully created the impression that they had assumed power to eradicate the evils
which had crept into the economic, social, and political life of Pakistan during the last
eleven years, and that they wanted to introduce a system of government which suited the
peculiar conditions and circumstances of the country. If we carefully examine the
statements made by Ayub khan and his ministers, we can find three themes.
First, the selfish and opportunist politicians had brought the country to the brink of a
serious disaster. The lack of character amongst the politicians had encouraged dissension
rather than unity in the country and the people were torn apart by provincial bickering.
Second, the 1956 constitution was an unworkable document; parliamentary system of
government did not suit the circumstances and conditions of the people. It gave free hand
to the politicians who were responsible for the political crisis in Pakistan. The military
regime intended to give a constitution which would provide guarantee against the
repetition of the 1947-58 story, and ensure stability and continuity. Third, the various
steps taken by the new regime were calculated to improve the lot of the people and would
ultimately ensure economic development and political stability. (Razvi, Hassan Askri,
2013, pp.97-98) They were determined to solve the problems facing the measures, which
can be described as follows:

18. 18
a. Steps to eradicate corruption, nepotism in civil service, black marketing,
smuggling and similar evils in the society.
b. Measures to ensure economic development, industrialization and better standers
of living to the people.
c. A political framework for the future.
For the achievement of the former objective had waged war against
destructionists, political opportunists, smugglers, black marketers and such other
anti society elements. He arrested many corrupt politicians and smugglers and
dismissed many civil servants.
For achieving the latter objectives, he made many committees and constituted many
commissions to introduce reforms in all aspects of administration and life of people.
He introduced land reforms, education reforms, tax reforms, agriculture reforms,
economic reforms, family reforms, industrial reforms, political reforms, foreign
reforms.( Razvi, Hassan Askri,2013,pp.98-99)
Basic democracies:
Ayub khan promulgated the new constitution on June 8 1963, according to which president was
to be the head of state, elected by the Electoral College, comprising of basic democrats. The
structure of basic democracies was established in 1959 and its first elections were held in
January 1960. The basic democracies were entrusted with more powers and functions then the
institutions of local self government in the past and the government made liberal grants available
to these institutions to enable them to perform their duties. The objective of the military
authorities was that these institutions should bring forward a cadre of new leaders who should
provide the basis for the new political system. (Khan Dr, sultan, 2008, p.94)
Indo Pakistan war of 1965:
Kashmir is the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. India occupied Kashmir
forcefully on the occasion of leaving Britishers from India and its partition. Pakistan wanted to
find an honorable and peaceful solution of Kashmir problems Pakistan accepted the mediation
more than once and finally the resolution of U.N.O through which the right of self determination
was accepted. But India followed an intransigent attitude, and claimed that Kashmir was its

19. 19
integral part and Pakistan had no right to interfere in its India thought Pakistan a great
impediment in her grabbing Asian leadership. Thus, India planned to attack Pakistan. India made
a cowardly attack on Lahore in the early hour of sep 6, 1965 without making formal declaration.
Pakistan‟s army had to fight against a force which was six time longer in size and strength. On
the intervention of Security Council both the countries agreed on cease- fire. Thus, the war ended
on Sep 23, 1965 on all fronts between India and Pakistan. (Riaz haq, 2013, pp.89-92)
Tashkand Declaration:
On the sanction of the world body, Alexie Kosggen soviet prime Minister invited president of
Pakistan and prime Minister of India, to find honorable solution of the dispute. Meeting took
place on January 10, 1966 at tashkand and a, nine points declaration was signed by the all
parties. The main points are as follow:
 The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed to cultivate good
friendly and neighborly relations according to the Charter of the United Nation. Under
the UN Charter, they will use their energies to resolve their problems in a peaceful way.
 The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed to withdraw from the
war.
 They agreed not to interfere in each other‟s internal affairs.
 Both leaders agreed to discourage all those actions which could be harmful for the other
country and encourage those which could promote the friendly relationship between the
two countries.
 They agree that Higher Commissioners of Pakistan and India should come back to their
posts and make efforts for future developments of both countries.
 They agree to make efforts for increasing bilateral trade and strengthening economic ties
between the two countries. They also agreed to enhance communication and cultural
information with each other.
 Both leaders agreed to make some law of repatriation for the prisoners of war.

20. 20
 They agreed that in future they will discuss the problems of refugees also. They also
agreed for an agreement to return the property taken by the either side because of the
conflict.
 Both agreed to continue meetings at all levels. They also agreed to set up joint bodies,
which will report to their respective governments in order to decide what further steps
should be taken.(BBC news,2001)
The seizure of powers by Ayub khan was declared as the “October Revolution” Martial
law was not intended to be a revaluation. It was simply a modus operandi to extend the
tenure of Ayub khan, who was to retire in 1959. Ayub khan and his military colleagues
were to contemporaries of the senior civil servants of government of Pakistan and they
worked under the British government together. Therefore the army administrators could
not impose curbs on civil administrators, yet they accelerated the decision making
process by removing some legal and political obstacles, Ayub khan, However, get
validated the dissolution of assemblies, dismissal of government and abrogation of
constitution by the supreme court of Pakistan. The revolution was declared and new
national order was legitimized. (Aziz Mazhar, 2008, p.57)
The second Military regime: 1968-71
On the evening of 25 March 1969, Ayub khan addressed the nation over the radio for the last
time as president of Pakistan. He announced his decision to step down and hand over power to
Gen. Yahya khan, C in C of the army. Explaining the reason of his resignation, He said:
The situation in the country is first deteriorating. The administrative institutions are being
paralyzed. Self- aggrandizement is the order of the day. The mobs are resorting to gheroas at
will, and get their demands accepted under duress. And no one has the courage to proclaim the
truth. Every principle, restraint and way of civilized existence has been abandoned. Every
problem of the country is being decided in the streets. Except the armed forces, there is no
constitutional and effective way to meet the situation. Ayub khan left political scene at the end of
1969s, and handed over power to his uniform brother Gen. Yahya khan, who started his regime
with same ambitions of restoring democracy and introducing reforms. He abrogated the
constitution of 1962, dissolved national and provincial assemblies, dismissed central and

21. 21
provincial cabinet banned all political activities and proclaimed Martial law throughout the
country on 25th
march 1969. (Ziring, 2004, pp.115-17)
He assumed the command of armed forced on 31st
march 1969 declared himself president of
Pakistan. He claimed that his sole objective was to protect the life, liberty and property of the
people and put country back on the rail of democracy and good administration.
Unlike Pakistan‟s other military rulers, Yahya Khan was not interested in prolonging his rule.
Immediately after taking charge of the country, he started looking for options through which he
could hand over power to the elected representatives. On March 29, 1970, through an Ordinance,
he presented an interim Constitution, the Legal Framework Order. It was actually a formula
according to which the forthcoming elections were to be organized. It goes to the credit of Yahya
Khan that the first general elections in the history of Pakistan were held during his regime in
December 1970.The trouble started when the results of the elections were announced. The
Awami League, under the leadership of Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman, swept 160 out of 162 seats
allocated to East Pakistan. However, the party failed to get even a single seat from any province
of the Western Wing. On the other hand, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto‟s Pakistan People‟s Party emerged
as the single largest party from Punjab and Sindh and managed to win 81 National Assembly
seats, all from the Western Wing. This split mandate resulted in political chaos where neither
Bhutto nor Mujib was ready to accept his opponent as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. When
Bhutto and Mujib failed to reach an understanding about convening a session of the newly
elected National Assembly, the ball fell in Yahya Khan‟s court. He handled the situation badly.
He used army and paramilitary forces in East Pakistan to crush the political agitation. This
resulted in the beginning of the war between Pakistan and India in the winter of 1971. Yahya
Khan, as President as well as the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army, failed to plan the war.
This ultimately resulted in the defeat of Pakistan, dismemberment of the country and
imprisonment of more than 90,000 Pakistanis. Surrender of Pakistani forces without any
resistance and the fall of Dhaka made Yahya Khan the greatest villain in the country. People
from all walks of life started criticizing him and thus he was left with no other option but to hand
over the power to the leader of the most popular party of the remaining part of Pakistan, Zulfiqar
Ali Bhutto, on December 20, 1971. Later Bhutto placed Yahya Khan under house arrest in 1972.
(S.B Nangia, 2000, pp.5-6)

22. 22
The Yahya khan era was the most turbulent period in the history of Pakistan. He assumed
powers as a caretaker but lacked ideas and his handling of the political situation was inept.
Instead of restoring democratic process he presided over the dismemberment of Pakistan. The
Yahya regime must however be given credit holding fair and free elections at the national and
provincial levels. The acceptance of the demand of representation on the basis of population and
the reconstitution of the old provinces in West Pakistan facilitated the holding of national
elections. (Ziring Lawrence, 1997, pp.325-26)
What happened in East Pakistan was tragic but not surprising. It was the outcome of the failure
of the ruling generals and the political leaders to arrive at a political settlement; the soviet
support to India; and India‟s invasion of East Pakistan. The military actions in East Pakistan no
doubt pushed the political crisis to the points of no return; the dismemberment of Pakistan could
not be attributed to the military actions alone. It was the outcomes of confluence of several
domestic and external factors. (Razvi, Hassan Askri, 2013, pp.206-7)
The Third military regime: 1977-88
After the interval of five and a half years army again stepped in the political scene of the country.
Another military coup took place in July 1977. This time the chief Martial law administrator
(CMLA), Gen. Zia had claimed that he had taken over in the defense of popular democracy and
promised to hold elections in 90 days. Those 90 days, fortunately for Zia and unfortunately for
nation lased till August 1988, when he died in mysterious air crash near Bahawalpur. The 1973
constitution was suspended (not abrogated). Federal and provincial cabinets, national and
provincial assemblies were dissolved. The prime minister cabinet members and the leading
opposition leaders were arrested and placed under “protective custody” the president of Pakistan
was allowed to continue as the titular head of state and the chief justice of provincial high courts
were appointed acting governors of their respective provinces. Gen. Zia‟s regime aimed at to
purge the society from the corrupt elements and to create environment conducive to democracy.
He encouraged the private sectors by denationalizing the industrial and agriculture enterprises.
He made reforms in customs and income court of Pakistan under the “law of necessity” and
became de jure sovereign of the country. Gen. Zia claimed to be great democrat and he exploited
Islam in order to achieve his own political objectives and motives. (Khan Dr, sultan, 2008,
pp.117-118)

23. 23
He brought about unhealthy changes on non-party basis. The top brass of the military got them-
selves deeply involved in the political matters and proved themselves the power hungry. He
installed his puppet government of Muhammad khan Junejo and soon kicked it out of offices. He
nominated an interim cabinet and put elections off for indefinite period, violating the provision
of the constitution. Thus his regime ended by his death. This was a critical period for Pakistan
and the wider region. The Kashmir dispute, despite Bhutto‟s attempt at reconciliation, remained
unresolved. Moreover, there were inductions that the more militant Islamic organizations,
emboldened by Zia‟s Islamization program, were organizing clandestine forces for a more
concerted drive in the vale. Furthermore, units in the Pakistan army and ISI were prepared to aid
and abet actions against Indian installations in Kashmir. Tensions between Pakistan and India
therefore began to rise yet again. Terrorism was a rising phenomenon and afghan-related
bombings rocked the country‟s major cities from pashwar to Karachi during this period. Fighting
also broke out in Karachi between long- resident pashtuns and members of the mohajir
community. Into this conflict came Afghan refugees who had migrated from the frontier area to
the port of Karachi and were especially active in the narcotics and gun- running trade. And if the
authorities did not have difficulties enough, they also had to manage sectarian strife that
periodically erupted between Shiites and sunniss, between radical students and the police, and
between Muslims and members of the small minority communities. (Ziring, Lawrence, 2004,
pp192-93)
Fourth military regime: 1999-2008
Musharraf‟s era started from 12 October 1999 and ended on 18 August 2008. These almost
eight years were very important in the history of Pakistan. Musharraf‟s era had positive aspects
as well as some of negative. We will discuss his Martial Law and his important reforms and its
aftermaths.
12 October 1999 was the important day in the history of Pakistan. It was the darkest day for the
democracy of Pakistan. This was the day; Musharraf took the charge of the country by enforcing
Martial Law and ruled out the democracy. Imposing Martial Law is treason and violation of
Article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. This was all due to the hide and seek between that
times Government and Army. The master mind of Kargil crisis; driving force to oust the elected
government by coup; General Musharaf controlled the power on the plea to reform the politico-

24. 24
economic conditions of Pakistan. Another sun of democratic experience has been set by third
military coup in October 1999 in Pakistan. General Musharaf said; it is not by designed that the
army step in; it is because of the governments misdoing adding that the military is the only
organized and credible force to the established the situation the condition of Pakistan at that time
was at its lowest ebb. The military coup, economic down turn, political instability in the country,
Pakistan„s suspension from common wealth and confrontation with India were the major
challenges to Pakistan. Like his predecessors General Musharaf adopted the same strategy:
arrested his political opponents, banned the political parties, introducing new set of constitutional
amendments especially restoration of (58 2b) to consolidate his power. (Khan, Wazir, 2011,
pp.127-130)
Till 2001, Musharaf government didn„t have legitimate authority to rule Pakistan. The tragic
event of 9/11 that turns the political scenario of world politics provided great opportunity to
military rule in Pakistan to get international support. On the eve of September 11, 2001 Pakistan
looks like a state that had lost its way, with a stagnant economy, military government,
international pariah status, and political and social institutions in disarray. Pakistanis debated
vigorously such problem as corruption, bad governance, poor education, weak political parties,
domestic disorder and malformed economy Musharaf introduced devolution of power, a local
government system that had two major objectives. First, the institution was introduced to
legitimize his government Musharaf turned to win support from non-political stakeholders rather
than getting support of common people. Second, he wanted to weaken the role of bureaucracy.
According to Mohammad Waseem such localization of politics is a sure reap for unbridled
centralism. (Nehal H. Rizvi, 2000.p.160)
Major Reforms and Achievements:
The list of the Musharraf‟s reforms is given below.
1. Nine world class engineering universities were developed. The cost of building these
Universities was over Rs 96.5 billion.
2. In 1999-2000 there were 31 Public Universities. In 2005-2006 there were 49 Public
Universities. Air University (established 2002); Institute of Space Technology, IST (established
2002); University of Science & Technology, Bannu (established 2005); University of Hazara
(founded 2002); University of Gujrat (established 2004); Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore

25. 25
(established 2002) etc.
3. Literacy rate in Pakistan had increased from 45% (in 2002) to 53% (in 2005). Education was
received 4% of GDP and English had been introduced as a compulsory subject from grade 1.
4. In total, 99,319 educational institutions increased in Musharraf‟s era.
5. There were more than 5,000 Pakistanis doing PhDs in foreign countries on scholarship in
Musharraf‟s era. 300 Pakistanis receive PhD degrees every year, in 1999, the number was just
20.
6. Major Industrial estates were being developed under Musharraf‟s vision: M3 industrial,
Sundar industrial estate, Chakri industrial, etc.
7. In 1999 what we earned as GDP: we used to give away 64.1% as foreign debt and liabilities.
In 2006, what we earned as GDP: we gave only 28.3% as foreign debt and liabilities. We were
saving 35% of our GDP for economic growth at that time.
8. According to an IMF report, Pakistan was 3rd in banking profitability in the world. On the
IMF chart, Pakistan‟s banking profitability was on third position after Colombia and Venezuela.
On the same IMF chart, India was on the 36th position and China was on the 40th position.
9. According to the Economic Survey 2005, poverty in Pakistan in 2001 was 34.46%. And after
7-8 years of Musharraf, poverty in 2005 was 23.9%. Thus, poverty decreased by 10.56%.
Overall, 12 million people had been pushed out of Poverty in 2001 – 2005!
10. The government was providing Sui Gas facility to areas of South Punjab at a cost of Rs 1.311
billion. A total of 1,138 kilometer gas pipeline was being laid. The districts benefiting from these
schemes mainly include Multan, Khanewal, Bahawalnagar, Rajanpur, DG Khan, Vehari and
Muzaffargarh.
11. The Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) sector of Pakistan had attracted over Rs 70 billion
investments during the five years (2001-2006) as a result of liberal and encouraging policies of
the government. 1,765 CNG stations were operating in the country, in 85 cities and towns. It
provided employment for 30,000 people in the country.
12. The economy was the third fastest growing economy after China and India.
13. Five dams were built: Mirani, Subakzai, Gomalzam, Khurram and Tangi.
14. Seven motorways were completed or were under construction.
15. Gwadar, an advanced sea port, was developed.
16. The GDP per Capita in 2007 was $1000.

26. 26
17. The industrial sector registered 26 percent growth.
18. A historic 100% increase in tax collection (amounting to Rs. 1 trillion) was observed.
19. Revenue collection in 2007/08 was Rs. 1.002 billion.
20. Exports in 2007 were worth $18.5 billion where Textile exports in 2007 were worth $11.2
billion.
21. Pakistan development programs in 2007 were valued at Rs. 520 billion.
22. Foreign direct investment in 2007 was $8.5 billion. (Usman M. Habib, 18 may, 2012)
End of the regime:
There were certain events that put Musharaf era to its logical end; the judges„movement, the red
Mosque episode and the assassinating of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. In the
election of 2008, his party Muslim league Quaid-e -Azam group got tremendous defeat .Every
military coup has left drastic effects on the socio-political and economic life of Pakistan.
Musharaf era gave Pakistan; increasing terrorism, economic deterioration, and social
polarization. For securing his power Musharaf adopted regressive policies especially in war
against terror; it is point to be noted that General Musharaf dragged the war of America into the
domestic frontiers of Pakistan. There occurred series of suicide bombing in all over Pakistan,
where great deal of civilians lost their lives. The operation -Rahe Rast‖ was started in NWFP in
2004.The ultimate pressure from international community and domestic front put Musharaf to
the resignation from the post of President Ship. The failure of military to acknowledge consider
it as legitimate authority is directly proportional to Pakistan„s democratic failure. “. Excepting an
essential reformation of civil military relations, the prediction for consequential democratization
remains severe. Owing to dependence on external economic and military assistance particularly
America is pivotal in affecting political freedom, in terms of civilian democracy. Indeed
Pakistan„s particular significance to the U.S in war on terror against Al-Qaeda and Taliban
members means international pressure. By conducting the elections military has exonerated itself
from the pressure of international community. (Rizvi, Hasan Askari, 1998)
According to my point of view, Musharraf‟s era was the best era of history of Pakistan with
respect to progress and prosperity in every field of life. Progress was on its peak at that time. He
started a plenty of new projects for the development of the Pakistan. He started tax free
industrialization to urge the foreign investors. His plan worked and a number of multi-national

27. 27
companies launched in his era. The impact of that was the increasing number of jobs in his era. It
was very difficult to find out skilled laborer for small level construction.
7. Role of Pakistan’s army in current crisis
I do understand that the involvement of the army in the political scenario is something that would
be regarded as a game changer. The advocates of democracy would always disagree with any
level of involvement on their part; because obviously being a democratic country, the army‟s
work is not to meddle with the country‟s political affairs. In the past we have seen three
successful coups, one at the hand of the self-proclaimed Field Marshall General Ayub Khan who
worked in collaboration with Feroz Khan Noon and appointed himself as the Chief Martial Law
Administrator in 1958, then there was the so called Operation Fair Play that brought forth the
menace we know as General Zia ul Haq in 1977 after he overthrew ZA Bhutto and finally the
infamous coup d‟état of 1999 when General Pervaiz Musharraf ousted the very same Nawaz
Sharif who is again standing in the middle of a tricky plane.In all these coups, we have seen
prosperity for the country and dictatorship for the political scenario. In all these, we saw the
democratic rights of the people being usurped but the condition of their economy, security and
social stature being improved. They were nonetheless extra-constitutional acts. In the situation,
we have at hand today; it would be stupid not to consider the possibility in the light of the events
that have led to this. We have the second largest political party of Pakistan asking for the
resignation of the prime minister because the elections were rigged and because the government
failed to clarify their stance and validate their mandate. On the other hand we have a massive
group of people asking for the resignation and trial of the prime minister, his brother the chief
minister of Punjab and multiple other members of the parliament for their utterly inhumane role
in the Model Town Massacre. 14 people were killed and over 80 people were injured two months
ago but yet no fair FIR has been registered according to the application. When the people
protested, the government reacted with blockades, containers, police, rangers, army, rubber
bullets, tear gas, sticks, and according to some reports, real bullets. That is not all; they also
reacted with booking the leaders of the protests with cases of inciting violence, attempted murder
and even treason!
In simple words, the people who illegally got hold of the country‟s power and then killed dozens
of men in cold blood are accusing those who protested against them of murder and treason. What

28. 28
a paradox! So what exactly should the army be planning to do right now? We are assuming that
the army is standing by the most recent ISPR press release where they said that they will never
let the people down and always match the expectations. Now, the people are asking for justice;
they are asking for the removal of an illegally appointed prime minister and his rigged
government. They are asking for the murderers of dozens of people to step down and face
justice. That is a right that they have by birth. However, they are being denied that right because
we have power hungry politicians sitting in the parliament! So what should the army do now?
They have two morally correct options from where I can see it. One, they step in as the yardstick
and the mediators and the umpires. They bring justice to the people who have been protesting for
it since last month. They do so by taking down Nawaz Sharif temporarily and by handing over
the government to someone else. Don‟t think that that is not possible with the army as this has
happened in the past with General Jehangir Karamat. This would be the easiest way of
preserving whatever fragile form of democracy we have right now. This would also ensure that
the accused are put on trial when they are not in power. However, there are serious concerns in
doing this; Nawaz is known to lock his horns with anyone who doesn‟t think like him evidence
being his last two regimes both of whom ended because of the same reasons .(Rehman sarmad
Lillah,23 sep, 2014)
8. criticism
i. The primary purpose for the establishment of Pakistan army was to defend the
borders of the country; which it could not fulfill properly, as in the case of war of
1971. Half of Pakistan was separated and 90 thousand army personnel were
surrendered before Indian army at the cast of national honor.
ii. From the beginning, its leadership was ambitious and they tried to intervene in the
civil administration under one pretext or other. More than half of the period they
remained in power in Pakistan‟s history of fifty-seven year, without any credible
to the people and masses.
iii. The military leadership never bothers to follow the legal methods to achieve the
civil authority. Whenever they came in power, they came through coercive
methods. They further used coercive themselves legitimized heirs of the elected
government.

29. 29
iv. The respective intervention by the Pakistan‟s army in the political process is the
major problem for the political stability as the Pakistanis are lacking today. The
political institutions could not be strengthened in Pakistan due to those undue
military interventions.
v. The Pakistan‟s army, which have ruled Pakistan directly and indirectly for most
of its history cannot exonerate from what has continued to develop and flourish
under its own supervision.(Agha Ayesha, Siddiqua, 2007,p.55)
vi. Some of the ills of our society for which politicians have been maligned were in
fact consciously introduced into the system under Ayub khan and Zia-ul-haq, who
ruled the country for over twenty- two years.
vii. The military rulers disqualified politicians on baseless ground and introduced new
soldiers of fortune into politics; that could not go with the political process of the
country. In order to enable them to go with the system, they were allowed to make
free use of national exchequer and government machinery under the supervision
of military.
viii. The Pakistan‟s Army is to defend the frontier of the country, while the political
parties are to run affairs of state. Both duties are of different type and needed
expertise. The Army becomes the political forces; therefore, it failed to deliver
good governance and service to the people.
ix. The performance of military government of pervez Mushraf failed to deliver on
most founts like his predecessors, despite of all formidable power at its disposal.
The revival of economy, accountability, control of smuggling and crime,
decentralization of authority to provinces, and good governance continue to
remain a subject of controversy.
x. The object of Martial law was to prepare the people for a new type of democracy
and to put the country in better economic shape; which would change the political
climate of the country. Each Martial law regime claimed for this change; but
failed miserably; because no revolution could be brought any change in political
life of the people.
xi. The intelligentsia not happy with the curbs, which were imposed by the military
regimes. The regimes too made to conscious and sustained efforts to win over

30. 30
intelligentsia except the publicity made by the electronic media of the
government. The politicians on the other hand were able to exploit the middle and
low classes of society.
xii. Each military regime tried to hold elections on non- part- basis; which polluted
more the political atmosphere of the country, than before. The plan of the present
military regime to hold local bodies‟ election on non-party basis will not bring
different- result from the past.(khan Dr,sultan,2009,pp.121-123)

31. 31
9. Conclusion:-
The causes of military interventions in the politics of Pakistan & Bangladesh have stayed a
major debate after their birth. The numerous causes of military interventions in politics are found
during the research. The vested interest of the military, low political culture, weak political
institutions, corruption, poverty, political crises, legacy of the British army, poor ideologies and
legitimacy crisis etc. The military overthrow is often done on the basis of awful condition and
corruption. Military interference in politics is always remained a key phenomenon in the politics
of developing countries specially Pakistan. It is also observed that military never come back the
political power to the civilian. The common things which are found in developing countries i. e,
economic crisis, political crisis, poverty issue, inflation, elite class crisis, and role of religion in
politics. The civilian government are badly failed to fulfill the need of the general masses.
Following things are relates to each and every citizen which they wants in their routine life like
economic matter, poverty, illiteracy, diseases etc. The political issues are highlighted in
connection with ringing, corruption, nepotism and constitutional modification that are the main
point of military interventions in the politics. The causes of military interventions in the politics
are needed to follow the strict measurement and stop the way of military involvements in the
politics. To strength the political institutions and given the freedom to each and every institution,
the institution will be kept far away from the internal as well as the external interference. It is
suggested that to build the strong political institutions also provided the entire autonomy to each
and every political units under their jurisdiction. Each and every institution should be kept free
and fair from the participation of internal as well as external. The criteria for the selection of
candidate as representative of people should be at least Master degree holder in the discipline of
Political Science/International Relation including L.L.B. An appropriate mechanism for check
and balance should strictly be followed. Corruption, nepotism, riggings, political victimization,
and other political weaknesses should strictly be removed from the politics. All these things are
the main sources of military interventions in politics. The significant role of economic stability
and the successful growth of democratization should be adapted. The economic position of the
democracy should strictly be followed by all the political parties in connection with their
participation in the political developments of developing countries like Pakistan Bangladesh.
Particularly the young generation should take part the in political activities and moderate the

32. 32
responsibilities of politicians. The role of youth will stop the military interventions in the politics
of two countries. The opportunities should be provided to the middle class to take part in the
politics. The strict measurement for check and balance of each and every government should be
followed by any responsible department of the government. A separate political unit should be
established for the training of politicians. The ban should be imposed on care taker government
with the request that not to participate in the functions of any political parties during the
activities of their elections.

33. 33
10.References:-
Agha Ayesha, Siddiqa,(2007) Military In Corporation, London: Oxford university press.
Ahmed, Emajuddin (1998), Military Rule and the Myth of Democracy, Gatidhara, Dhaka.
BBC News history of indo Pakistan summits, 11 July 2001.
Burk, James (2002), Theories of Democratic Civil Military Relations, Armed Forces and
Society.
Clapharn, Christopher (1992), Third World Politics: An Introduction, Ocean Honton Ltd, USA
Finer, S.E (1962), The Man on Horseback: The role of the Military in politics, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick (U.S.A) and London (U.K).
Rizvi Hasan, Askri (1997) Military and Politics in Pakistan 1947-97, Lahore, Sang-e Meel
Publishers.
Islam, Nazrul, Md. (2009), Political Sociology, Progati Publishers‟, Dhaka.
Khan, Dr Sultan (2008) Comparative and developmental politics, political culture, Lahore; GF
printers.
Khan, Dr sultan( 2008) Ideology and Dynamics of Pakistan, Lahore, GF printers.
Khan,Dr sultan(2009)Ideology and dynamics of Pakistan ,role of military in politics , Lahore, GF
printers.
Lawrence Ziring(2004) Pakistan at cross road of history, Lahore: Vanguard books.
M.C. Rickleffs, B. Lockhart, A. Lau, P. Reyes, M. Aung-Thwin (2010) A New History of
Southeast Asia, Palgrave-MacMillan, London.
Maniruzzaman, Talukder (1987), Military Withdrawal from Polities: A comparative study,
Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, UK.
Marcus Mietzner (2009) Military Politics: Islam and the State in Indonesia, Institute of SE Asian
Studies, Singapore.

34. 34
Najum Mushtaq (2007) America„s Musharaf Dilemma Editor, John Feffer.
Nehal H. Rizvi (2000) Military Intervention: in Pakistan editor, Verinder Grover Pakistan
government and Politics Deep and Deep publications, New Delhi.
P.J. Vatikiotis (1961) The Egyptian Army in Politics, Indiana University Press.
Razvi, Hasan Askri(2013) The Military and Politics in Pakistan 1947-1997, Lahore, Sange-e-Meel
Publications.
Rehman sarmad Lillah(23 sep, 2014) What Should be the Role of Army in Pakistan‟s Current
Political Crisis? - See more at: http://muslim-academy.com/role-army-pakistans-current-
political-crisis/#sthash.dubkSb9h.dpuf
Sattar,Abdual(2007) Pakistan„s foreign policy a concise history, London: oxford university
press.
Siddique, Muhammad Abdullah (2009) Comparative and developmental politics, political
culture, Lahore,M Arif, Younas printer.
Steven. I. Wilkinson (2000) Democratic Consolidation and failure: Lesson from Bangladesh and
Pakistan Journal. Vol. 7 Issue, No. 3.
Veena Kukreja(1986) Military Intervention In Pakistan, New Delhi: NBO Publishers
distributors, H green Park Extension.
Veena Kukreja(1995) Military Intervention in Politics: Contrasting Cases of Pakistan and India
in Verinder Grover .ed. Political System in Pakistan Vol. 7 New Delhi: Deep and Deep
Publications.
Ziring, Lawrence (2004) Pakistan: at the crosscurrent of history, Lahore: vanguard books.
Ziring, Lawrence (1997) pakistan in the Twentieth Century: Apolitical history, new York press.