The annual World Economic Forum (WEF) jamboree at Davos is the playing field of political leaders, industrialists, policymakers, academicians, and economic commentators who debate, coordinate, and align economic opportunities. This year, India fielded its cabinet ministers for Electronics & IT, New & Renewable Energy, Agriculture, Civil Aviation, besides a host of chief ministers selling their respective states as investment destinations. In 2018, the Prime Minister himself delivered the keynote address at the plenary session and participated again (virtually) in 2021. This year, the participating Heads of State included the likes of Donald Trump, Emanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Mark Carney, and Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, along with their economic entourage.
The Pakistani delegation was led by its Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif. It had the usual composition of Finance and Revenue Minister, Foreign Minister, Federal Minister for Economic Affairs, Minister for Information and Broadcasting, et al. But one unusual but very prominent delegate who caught the global eye was Field Marshal Asim Munir. Serving military chiefs rarely attend such economic-investment engagements. The fact that his shadowy presence did not entail speaking assignments on any official WEF panels but only side talks added to the intrigue. So why was the uniformed general (albeit in civilian clothes with a rumoured bullet-proof vest) attending at all?
Traditionally, Pakistani military chiefs have had an outsized role in the beyond-mandated affairs of Pakistan. The latest optics of the Pakistani Field Marshal at Davos follows the equally surreal scenes of him alongside his Prime Minister at the Oval Office in Washington DC, a few months back, seemingly “peddling” rare metals to Trump, in a briefcase. The fact is, Munir is increasingly seen as the de facto custodian of security guarantees in restive Pakistan. Standing next to the political head, he adds heft to the assurances of stability that Pakistan seeks and pitches, be it on rare/critical minerals or for reassuring the investment environment at Davos. Therefore, it could be argued that Pakistan has gone for the militarisation of its economic (read, survival) policy. The vice-like confluence of economic diplomacy, military influence, and resource control is complete and visible in the Pakistani narrative.
The indispensability and authority of the “uniform” in the supposedly democratic framework of Pakistani politics was personified by the obliging way the Pakistani Prime Minister directed Trump’s attention by pointing towards Munir in the crowd. Trump acknowledged the Pakistani Field Marshal’s unwarranted presence gleefully, suggesting that the American President clearly understood who the real McCoy in Pakistan was. Just months ago, speaking at the Gaza Peace Summit at Sharm el-Sheikh, Trump spoke about Munir (who wasn’t present) by referencing him as “my favourite Field Marshal”. It all harks back to the murky reality of US-Pakistan history, which insists that Washington D.C. has always had strong ties with Pakistani military leaders such as Field Marshal Ayub Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq or General Pervez Musharraf, and not with the democratically elected politicians.
Downsides of militarism
Trump’s valourisation of Munir legitimises the theory of Pakistan emerging as a military-industrial complex or, at least, a military-business construct. The worst-kept secret of Pakistani generals controlling the essential red lines of governance routinely gets the all-important approval of the United States. The hands of the over-entitled Pakistani military are deep into non-professional domains such as the Fauji Foundation with business interests in fertiliser, food, power, banking, cement, etc. All this leads to the military influencing economic/commercial policies, often to the detriment of free and fair market forces. The political leverage the Pakistani military flexes can then be further abused towards preferentialism and exploitation, as it deems fit.
The perennial fear of security instability affords the Pakistani Field Marshal unmatched leverage with various powers beyond the Americans – the Chinese leadership needs to secure its substantial investment in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the Arab sheikhdoms seek the help of the battle-hardened Pakistani military to meet their security needs, and other powers such as Turkey seek a market for their military hardware exports in Pakistan.
But there is always a long-term downside to the diminishment of civilian control and to the weakening of the institutions of checks and balances in a democracy. Serious investors are always worried about its fallout, particularly the unpredictability of regulations. Transparency takes a backseat, and unilateralism in societal affairs (as in the dark Zia era) comes with its own pernicious outcomes.
For India, a military-industrial Complex in Pakistan comes with dark portents. One of the outcomes is the endless “enemising” of India, to keep the Pakistani populace excited and supportive of the Pakistani military, which then uses the pretext to justify its own lion’s share of the annual budgets. Real peace with India would be inimical to the Pakistani (military) establishment and, therefore, they keep the pot of terrorism and unrest on the boil. In such scenarios, threats from India can be exaggerated, leaving little room for prudent diplomacy. It is almost as if peace is dangerous to the framework of Pakistani governance, where the generals call the shots. A dangerous increase in the capital expenditure on weaponry keeps suppliers/allies like China and Turkey (even the US) on the right side of the Pakistani generals. The additional fear of regressing the national narrative towards puritanism and hyper-religiosity cannot be ruled out, as the “establishment” can simultaneously curry favour with the hardline elements of the Islamic world.
Therefore, pictures emerging from the Oval Office earlier, or from Davos now, with the unwarranted presence of Field Marshal Asim Munir ought to worry Delhi. It is tantamount to democratic backsliding, and that can never work in favour of peace and stability in the long run.
(The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.