Verging on takeover?

In a dramatic, but not altogether surprising move, former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, in a recent statement, warned that the prevailing economic and political crisis affecting Pakistan has all the makings of a military takeover. Elaborating further, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader clarified that Martial Law always remains a possibility if the system faces a conflict between institutions and political leadership, resulting in an imbroglio. Abbasi even averred that the military had intervened in the past in much less serious circumstances. Significantly, he urged the top stakeholders to initiate a dialogue to diffuse the tension. Amid this backdrop, Abbasi reckoned that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, PML-N Chief Nawaz Sharif, and the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Syed Asim Munir were the three important players, and it seems imperative on their part to initiate a dialogue without any further delay.

Here, it would appear realistic when the ex-PM said that Pakistan has never witnessed a more severe economic and political situation. Yet, Abbasi hoped that the military was not considering the option of imposing Martial Law. He felt the military was possibly keeping the choice in mind, and only when driven to the hilt, it might resort to a takeover. In the same vein, Abbasi clarified that if the Army were to assume control, it would make things worse instead of doing anything worthwhile. Admitting the government's failure in the preceding years, he further stated that a political dispensation was the only way forward.

Analysing the recent articulations by Abbasi, it distinctly appears that history has been a witness to military takeovers in the past in lesser significant happenings afflicting Pakistan. For example, General Ayyub Khan (later Field Marshal) took over the reins of the country in 1958 without any major provocation, internal or external threats threatening the country's integrity. He continued to rule with an iron fist for another 11 years, till 1969. Subsequently, General Yahya Khan took over and presided over the dismemberment of Pakistan, with Bangladesh emerging as a free country. Similarly, Generals Zia ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf can be cited as perfect examples of perpetrators of military takeovers without any justification for such extra-constitutional acts.

After a close examination of Abbasi's recent statement, it looks evident that the situation is much graver at this juncture, as a failing economy and an almost "out of control" terror scene can give a convenient excuse to the all-powerful military to take over. At the same time, it would seem that the military, under General Asim Munir, is very closely watching the developments, and is in no hurry to crack the military takeover, instead possibly waiting for a more opportune moment to strike when the situation has drifted on its own to a point of no return. This is perhaps because a military takeover can then be justified, and the so-called legitimacy can be accepted by the Western countries, especially the US.

From the available indications, there are traces of evidence that Pakistan is being closely watched by the US, which does not appear to be comfortable with the current civil political dispensation in Pakistan. It might find it easier to deal with a military leadership instead. This is also because the US is well accustomed to dealing with successive military rules in Pakistan for the sale of military hardware, military-linked issues, and, above all, using the Pakistani military as a pliable partner. The PML-N leader's statement has caused ripples in the Pakistani political and military circles, and has also set a trail for "food for thought" for the thinkers in both military and the polity.

Meanwhile, in a significant military-related development, Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir has embarked on a maiden visit to China. This is seen by many as vital amid the rapidly changing geopolitical scenario, heightened political instability, economic turmoil, and an avalanche of terror attacks in Pakistan. The official version from the Pakistani military, however, is that the COAS's four-day official visit to China is to enhance bilateral military relations. The visit is more than what meets the eye. It may be recalled that General Munir assumed charge of the Army on November 29 of last year, and unlike his predecessors, he took much more time (nearly five months) to visit the all-weather ally. Military thinkers, reacting to this visit, have given out that with the recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, facilitated by China, Pakistan appears keen to take advantage of the fresh alignments.

Furthermore, in recent months, Pakistan has unsuccessfully tried to convince the US to prevail upon the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for an economic bailout. In despair, it now wants to focus on China for whatever economic assistance it can receive to mitigate its collapsing economy. China may lend its ears to the new Army Chief, factoring in all the developments. China, as always in the past, is determined to wean Pakistan away from any US overtures. China is also worried about the spate of killings of Chinese in Pakistan, and the Chinese military leadership will certainly bring it to the notice of the visiting Army Chief to contain such indiscriminate murders.

Most crucially, however, is the likelihood of the Chinese military dispensation gauging from General Munir if the Army has any intentions of a military takeover in Pakistan, in view of the fledgling military and political situation prevailing in the country, as candidly articulated by Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. This, in all likelihood, will figure during the talks of the visiting Army Chief and his Beijing counterparts. In the meantime, the ongoing visit of the Army Chief (now concluded) would require close examination by think tanks to analyse if a military takeover in Pakistan is on the anvil.

The writer is an IPS officer, Adviser NatStrat, security analyst and a former National Security Advisor in Mauritius. Views expressed are personal