Military and “institutionalised corruption”

Ray · 05-18-2006, 18:06 PM

Quote:

hursday, May 18, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

EDITORIAL: Military and “institutionalised corruption”

In an interview to the BBC, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto accused the military of “institutionalised corruption”. This is an interesting charge since it is normally the military that blames the politicians for corruption. Indeed, this is a key argument by the military to justify its intervention in politics. The implicit assumption of this argument is that the military is not corrupt, and if and when one of its (military’s) members does step out of line the military has its own ways of dealing with and punishing him. So it is broadly true that the common man, for all his other complaints against a military or a quasi-military government, is generally inclined to the view that a post-coup government is relatively clean compared to the political dispensation it displaced. Now Ms Bhutto says the military is corrupt as an institution. Let’s consider some facts.

Various studies have determined that interventionist militaries develop a broad agenda of interests which includes not only political but also corporate interests. Every cycle of military intervention not only expands these interests but also entrenches them. Years of military rule also enhance the capacity of an organised military to operate and do things more efficiently than civil-society organisations that are much more diffuse and therefore much less cohesive and organised. This allows the military to perform acts of governance and claim, on the basis of better performance, that its ability to do so is greater than that of political parties and civilian governments.

But this argument is self-serving. By its very nature the military is more cohesive; by being so its capacity to act as one body is far more disciplined and synchronised than civil-society organisations. On top of this, whether directly in power or outside it, the military manages to get the lion’s share of budgetary allocations. This money is spent to further enhance its capacity. Its personnel are trained carefully and that training is manifested not only in organisational integrity but also in the way they can outperform their civilian counterparts. They thus manage through their dominance of the system to develop their organisational sinews and then use this lean strength to further dominate civil society.

To this end the military also watches out for the interests of its members. It gets into business and other activities to generate money and uses those funds to take care of its personnel, retired as well as serving. In fact studies have shown that most interventionist militaries develop large business interests like the Pakistani military. Many reports have indicated the reach of military-led organisations and the uneven competition they give to the private sector in those areas. These military-led organisations stride the line between the public and private sector: they are branded as private entities but when they go in the red, the military uses its levers of power, direct and indirect, to use public funds to bail them out.

Over the years the military has also developed vast real estate interests. Land is given to general-staff officers and others and all of this is done “legally”. It is this aspect of “corruption” that Ms Bhutto is talking about: when an organisation has the capacity to dominate a system, develop rent-seeking tendencies and legalise its domination of most, if not all, walks of life, it shows itself to be institutionally corrupt. Formalistically speaking, the military does most things legally because it has made or bent the law to suit itself. The generals can be given land; the military can do business; it can run corporations and so on. But the question is: would it be able to do all this and more if it did not enjoy the political power that it does? The answer is: no. A strong civilian government would not have allowed the military to legalise its predominance and secure its business interests; at least not in a way that empowers it further.

In the middle of this activity somewhere, individual officers also manage to do things to amass wealth. Since most do so openly, everyone watches everyone else’s back. This is a complex web and there is further need to study this phenomenon and the impact of this rent-seeking behaviour on the health of the polity.

However, while Ms Bhutto is correct in her assessment of the military, her contention that politicians are largely innocent is a case of shirking responsibility. The fact is that politicians are equally corrupt, though most do not have the means to indulge themselves by legalising their corruption. Some make money and enjoy perks while in office; others do so by latching on to a military government and by providing political support to it. They thus become as much a party to the overall problems of governance as the military. Ms Bhutto has lashed out at General Pervez Musharraf for keeping her in the dock. But most cases pursued by the military government against her were “cooked up” against her by her erstwhile archrival and current pal, Mian Nawaz Sharif. General Musharraf is merely using them to keep the heat on her. But we agree with Ms Bhutto that most of these cases are based on malafide intentions. She is being hounded because her return and active participation in politics is seen as a threat by the military government and its current political sidekicks. *

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-5-2006_pg3_1

This is an interesting commentary and there is no doubt that what Ms Bhutto has stated has much truth in it. The newspapers are full of such legalised corruption. I had in some thread or the other indicated the commercial interests the Pakistani army controls. It is phenomenal, apart from their Fauji Foundation.

There is no doubt that Power corrupts.

The fact that the Pakistani Army has repeated taken over the reins of government from their civilian counterparts and have tasted blood (in a manner of speaking), they yearn for more blood and get deeper in this mugs game.

It is not usual for such a thing to happen, when coups are commonplace and governance by the military is routine.

However, there is no doubt that politicians are no angels!

Ray · 05-18-2006, 18:11 PM

Quote:

Thursday, May 18, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Bureaucrats want status elevation

By Zulfiqar Ghuman

ISLAMABAD: The Secretaries Committee, country’s top bureaucratic forum, has decided to seek elevation in its status from that of consultative to recommendatory authority, according to official sources.

The committee has decided to push the government to revise and redefine rules regarding its work, mandate and status to make them more transparent, sources said.

Sources said that the committee had prepared certain amendments to its existing rules to make it more powerful and effective. The committee has also decided to seek certain procedural amendments to its terms of reference, following a January 23 meeting in which several senior secretaries noted that the committee’s agenda was often not implemented.

According to the recommendations presented to Dr Ishrat Hussain, National Commission for Government Reforms chairman and former State Bank of Pakistan governor, the committee has requested that its role be defined as a recommendatory and decision-making body, adding that it should be considered the highest permanent consultative government forum and given due importance in national and strategic decision-making.

It said that decisions or recommendations by the committee should be submitted to the prime minister through the cabinet secretary for ratification. Following ratification by all relevant parties, the committee’s decisions should be implemented without delay, sources quoted committee officials as saying.

Sources said that the committee had identified areas of national strategic importance where it could play a recommendatory role, such as Balochistan, dams, education policy, population planning, tourism, poverty alleviation, inter-provincial harmony and law and order.

The committee proposed to hold regular meetings at three-month intervals, even in the absence of a specific agenda.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...8-5-2006_pg7_5

Under the Westminster system of governance, it is the bureaucrats who are the Top Enchiladas and with the military having taken their rightful place, obviously there is this discontent!

Tronic · 05-18-2006, 19:37 PM

did I read corruption??? welcome to South Asia Ray...

Ray · 05-18-2006, 21:32 PM

05-18-2006, 19:37 PM	#3 (permalink)
Tronic Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-27-04 Location: Patiala, India Posts: 5,447 Country:	did I read corruption??? welcome to South Asia Ray... __________________ *Nabha Sparasham Deeptam* *-Touch The Sky With Glory*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-18-2006, 21:32 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,369 Country:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)