Civil-Military Accountability in Pakistan; A New Era of Transparency or an Unnecessary Return to the Past?

​

Civil-Military Accountability in Pakistan; A New Era of Transparency or an Unnecessary Return to the Past?

The recent court-martial and 14-year rigorous imprisonment sentence handed down to former ISI chief Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hamid has reshaped Pakistan’s civil-military discourse. For decades, a deep-rooted belief permeated Pakistani society, politics, and the global arena:

“No one in the military’s top brass can ever be held accountable.”

This assumption—expanded by history, reinforced by political narratives, and embedded in public consciousness—has now been challenged in a way few expected. The trial and conviction of a high-ranking former general constitute a landmark development, raising critical questions about institutional transparency, accountability, and the future of governance in Pakistan.

Breaking a Long-Held Perception

For generations, the public perceived the military as an institution above civilian accountability structures, particularly at senior levels. Court-martials were usually limited to lower-rank personnel, while high-ranking officials were widely considered immune to scrutiny.

The Faiz Hamid case disrupted this perception by demonstrating that:

• No rank is beyond the reach of law.
• The military is willing to apply its internal accountability mechanisms at the highest level.
• Institutional discipline and political neutrality are now being enforced more rigorously.

This shift not only strengthens internal discipline but also reinforces public trust—an essential ingredient for institutional legitimacy.

Strengthening Institutional Transparency

The military’s decision to conduct a full Field General Court Martial, issue formal charges, and deliver a substantial sentence sends a powerful message within the institution:

• Political involvement will not be tolerated.
• Misuse of office, resources, or influence carries real consequences.
• The rules governing the armed forces apply to every officer, regardless of status or past achievements.

This strengthens the principle of professional boundaries, reasserting that military leaders must operate strictly within constitutional limits.

Public Confidence and the Rule of Law

Ordinary citizens—long frustrated by selective accountability—now see a sign that Pakistan is moving toward a more balanced legal order. The symbolism of this case is profound:

• It narrows the psychological gap between the state and the public.
• It counters the belief that accountability is reserved only for politicians or the powerless.
• It sets a precedent that institutions are capable of correcting themselves.

A nation’s legal and political culture is shaped not only by laws on paper but by the willingness of institutions to enforce them impartially. This case provides a rare, significant example of such enforcement.

International Implications

Globally, Pakistan has often been viewed through the lens of institutional imbalance, where civilian governments appear weaker than the military. The court-martial of a former top intelligence chief sends a different message to international observers:

• Pakistan is evolving toward modern standards of institutional transparency.
• Internal military mechanisms are becoming more robust.
• Civil-military relations are gradually rebalancing.

This strengthens Pakistan’s democratic image and reassures global partners watching the country’s governance patterns closely.

The Debate: Should Decades-Old Incidents Be Reopened?

Following this case, some analysts argue that older episodes of military and political wrongdoing should also be investigated. However, this viewpoint—though emotionally appealing—ignores several practical realities:

1. Old cases rarely yield conclusive evidence.
   Witnesses disappear, records fade, and institutional memories weaken.
2. Reopening past controversies creates unnecessary political turmoil.
   A nation already grappling with economic and governance challenges cannot afford sustained instability.
3. Courts and national resources are limited.
   Diverting them to unproductive historical litigations weakens the focus on present governance.
4. Nations progress by correcting the present—not endlessly excavating the past.

Historical research has academic value, but turning decades-old controversies into legal battles drains national energy without improving the future.

The Path Forward: Accountability for the Future, Not Revenge for the Past.

Pakistan’s priority should be building a systemic framework that:

• Prevents political interference by any state organ;
• Strengthens institutional checks and balances;
• Ensures transparent, timely accountability for current and future misconduct;
• Focuses on reforms rather than historical retribution.

This approach mirrors the philosophy adopted by successful nations like Singapore, South Korea, and Turkey—countries that chose forward-looking governance instead of stagnating in past grievances.

The real achievement lies not in digging up old wrongs but in ensuring that new wrongs never occur.

Conclusion

The court-martial of Faiz Hamid is not merely a legal decision—it is a psychological and institutional turning point in Pakistan’s democratic evolution. It challenges long-standing perceptions, strengthens institutional credibility, and signals a new era of transparency.

But the next step must be even more crucial:

moving beyond historical baggage and focusing on reforms that secure a better future for the nation.

Pakistan cannot afford to remain trapped in past controversies. Its strength lies in building a system that protects today and safeguards tomorrow.

Author

Syed Ali Raza Naqvi Bukhari

Unity of Peace, Economic Reform, and Global Unity

Founder & Chairman of Tehreek Istehkam Pakistan, and the author of “Law of God” and “Social Democratic System.”

Advocate for truth, social justice, and reform in all sectors of society.