Civilian supremacy?

AN interesting consequence of the change of government in April is public displays of anger against the military leadership from PTI supporters. While most of this anger remains online, placards and slogans were also raised in a number of public demonstrations held in the preceding three months. This anger has found further encouragement through fairly pointed remarks on the (feigned) neutrality of the establishment by former PM Imran Khan.

For observers of Pakistani politics, this reaction poses a couple of interesting questions. Does the bitter complaint of being 'left stranded' by the establishment suggest a turn in the PTI's political platform? In other words, will it now rethink its strategy to become more self-sufficient as a political actor, rather than relying on the military's political influence as a useful crutch in and outside of office?

Read more: The importance of being neutral

A second related question is that since every mainstream party has experienced a very public falling out with the military (at some point); will we see a correction in the civil-military imbalance? This is based on the fact that there are no easily trustworthy options available to play their role as a 'junior partner' for an extended period of time.

Less charitable observers say that PTI's current resentment and the anger of its supporters amount to a tantrum that is probably limited to the current military leadership. Such sceptics argue that there is no ideological opposition to the establishment's extra-constitutional role in politics, and that if given the option, they would be more than happy to cede governing space to the military in exchange for being back in power - as was the case prior to this current phadda (fight).

The establishment is an entrenched political actor and is unlikely to lose influence in key matters of the state overnight.

On the face of it, this sounds very similar to what other parties have done at various points in the past. So while the critique that says PTI's anger is a post break-up tantrum may be valid, it applies to nearly every other party's approach towards civil-military issues as well. Either everyone has 'anti-establishment potential' or no one passes a stringent purity test given how bargains are struck so frequently.

Another oversight that we often make while thinking about the civil-military imbalance is assuming it to be a switch that can flip from one end to another. That there will be a day when suddenly -...