Pakistan Studies

Topic:A Critical Evaluation of Civil-Military

Relations During Nawaz Sharif’s Third Term as
Prime Minister of Pakistan (2013-2017)
Submitted To: Sir Sannan Ahmed
Date: 11-May-2025
Submitted By: Ameer Murtaza (4360-BS-PS-23)
Hammad Samar (4348-BS-PS-23)
Class: Semester 4 Self Supporting
A Critical Evaluation of Civil-Military Relations During Nawaz Sharif's
Third Term as Prime Minister of Pakistan (2013-2017)

Introduction

The history of Pakistan has been indelibly marked by a complex, often contentious, and
imbalanced relationship between its civilian governments and the powerful military
establishment. Nawaz Sharif's third term as Prime Minister, commencing in June 2013 and
prematurely concluding in July 2017, stands as a significant chapter in this ongoing saga.
Elected with a substantial mandate that fueled hopes for a definitive assertion of civilian
supremacy, Sharif's tenure was instead characterized by a persistent, and arguably reasserted,
dominance of the military in key spheres of national security, foreign policy, and eventually, the
political landscape itself. This assignment critically evaluates the dynamics of civil-military
relations during this period, arguing that despite initial aspirations and some assertive moves by
the civilian government, a confluence of historical precedents, pressing security challenges,
specific political crises, and the military's institutional resilience ultimately circumscribed civilian
authority and reinforced the traditional power imbalance.
The backdrop to Sharif’s third term was a landscape scarred by direct military coups and
indirect interventions that had historically undermined democratic consolidation. Sharif himself
had been ousted in a military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999, an experience that
was expected to inform his approach to dealing with the military. His PML-N party’s electoral
victory in 2013 was seen by many as a crucial opportunity to recalibrate these relations in
favour of civilian institutions, as mandated by the Constitution. However, the period unfolded
as a high-stakes contest for control, with the civilian government attempting to carve out its
legitimate domain while the military sought to preserve its influence, particularly in areas it
considered its core responsibilities. This evaluation will explore the initial assertions of civilian
authority, the critical domain of national security and counter-terrorism, the contested terrain
of foreign policy, key flashpoints that defined the relationship, and the consequent erosion of
civilian space, culminating in Sharif's disqualification.

Chapter 1: Initial Hopes and Assertive Postures

Nawaz Sharif's return to power in 2013 was accompanied by a palpable sense of optimism
regarding the strengthening of democratic institutions. His party, the Pakistan Muslim League-
Nawaz (PML-N), secured a comfortable majority in the National Assembly, providing a
seemingly strong foundation for civilian assertiveness. Sharif, seasoned by past experiences,
initially signalled an intent to redefine the contours of civil-military relations, aiming to establish
the supremacy of the elected government as enshrined in the Pakistani Constitution.

One of the earliest and most significant demonstrations of this intent was the decision to
initiate high treason charges against former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf. This was
an unprecedented move in Pakistan's history, where former military chiefs had traditionally
enjoyed impunity. The civilian government’s argument was rooted in Musharraf's abrogation of
the Constitution in November 2007. This act was not merely a legalistic pursuit but a symbolic
challenge to the military's perceived status as an institution above the law. It was intended to
send a clear message that the era of military adventurism was over and that accountability
would extend to all, regardless of institutional affiliation. The military, while not publicly
opposing the trial, was reportedly deeply uncomfortable with one of its former chiefs facing
such charges, viewing it as an affront to the institution itself. This discomfort would simmer and
contribute to the underlying friction that characterized the entire term.

In the realm of foreign policy, Sharif sought to take the lead, particularly in improving relations
with India and Afghanistan. His attendance at the swearing-in ceremony of Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi in 2014 and subsequent diplomatic overtures were seen as civilian-led
initiatives aimed at regional peace and economic cooperation. These moves, however, often
ran parallel to or, at times, seemingly diverged from the security establishment's traditionally
more hawkish stance, especially concerning India. The Prime Minister's office also attempted to
assert greater control over the narrative surrounding foreign policy, a domain often heavily
influenced by the military's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).
Furthermore, the civilian government initially attempted to exercise its prerogative in key
appointments within the security apparatus. The selection of the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) is
always a critical juncture, and while Sharif followed seniority in some instances, the underlying
consideration was always how a particular choice might impact the delicate civil-military
equilibrium.

However, these initial assertive postures were undertaken against the backdrop of an inherent
structural imbalance. While the Constitution theoretically places the military under civilian
command, decades of direct and indirect military rule had entrenched the armed forces as a
powerful political actor with significant influence over strategic decision-making, resource
allocation, and even aspects of internal governance. The military's narrative of being the
ultimate guarantor of national security and stability often resonated with a segment of the
population, providing it with a degree of public legitimacy that civilian governments struggled
to match, especially when faced with governance challenges. Thus, Sharif's early attempts to
assert civilian authority were, from the outset, navigating a deeply entrenched system of power
dynamics that would prove remarkably resistant to fundamental change. The unspoken red
lines of the military establishment were ever-present, and crossing them would invariably invite
a pushback, setting the stage for the subsequent conflicts and crises that defined his term.

Chapter 2: National Security and Counter-Terrorism ,The Military's Prerogative

The domain of national security and counter-terrorism proved to be the most significant arena
where the military's influence remained paramount, often overshadowing civilian initiatives
during Nawaz Sharif's third term. While the civilian government was ostensibly in charge, the
formulation and, crucially, the implementation of security policies were heavily driven by the
military establishment, reinforcing its image as the nation's primary security vanguard.
The security landscape inherited by Sharif's government was dire. The Tehreek-e-Taliban
Pakistan (TTP) and its affiliates posed a significant internal threat, launching frequent attacks
across the country. Following the devastating attack on the Army Public School (APS) in
Peshawar in December 2014, which claimed the lives of 141 people, mostly schoolchildren, the
nation demanded decisive action. This tragedy became a critical turning point, galvanizing
public and political consensus for a robust counter-terrorism response. The military, under the
leadership of then COAS General Raheel Sharif, launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North
Waziristan in June 2014, even before the APS attack, but the latter event significantly amplified
its scope and public backing.
While the civilian government fully endorsed Operation Zarb-e-Azb and provided political
support, the planning, execution, and narrative surrounding the operation were
overwhelmingly controlled by the military. General Raheel Sharif, in particular, cultivated a
strong public image as a decisive leader in the fight against terrorism, often overshadowing the
Prime Minister. The ISPR played a crucial role in shaping public perception, highlighting the
military's successes and sacrifices, which further enhanced the COAS's popularity and, by
extension, the military's institutional standing.

In the wake of the APS attack, the government formulated the National Action Plan (NAP), a 20-
point agenda aimed at comprehensively tackling terrorism and extremism. The NAP was
ostensibly a product of civilian-military consensus, developed through all-parties conferences.
However, its implementation heavily relied on military and intelligence agencies, particularly
components like the establishment of military courts to try terrorism suspects. The decision to
establish military courts, through the 21st Constitutional Amendment, was controversial. While
argued as a necessary evil to expedite justice due to weaknesses in the existing judicial system,
critics saw it as a significant concession of civilian judicial space to the military and a step that
could undermine due process and human rights. The military's strong advocacy for these courts
underscored its influence in shaping legal and judicial responses to terrorism.
The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's premier intelligence agency, continued to play a
pivotal role in both internal and external security matters. Its operations, while crucial for
national security, often remained opaque to full civilian oversight. The extent of the ISI's
influence on domestic political management and foreign intelligence operations remained a
sensitive area, with the civilian government having limited capacity to direct or fully scrutinize
its activities. This created an environment where the military, through the ISI and its
operational command, effectively steered the national security agenda.
The substantial budgetary allocations for defence, often passed with minimal parliamentary
debate, also signified the military's entrenched power. While national security was undeniably a
priority, the lack of transparency and detailed civilian oversight in defence spending further
limited the civilian government's ability to assert comprehensive control. Consequently, despite
Nawaz Sharif's initial intentions, the pressing security challenges and the military's established
role in addressing them meant that this domain remained largely under military stewardship,
significantly shaping the overall civil-military dynamic during his tenure. The civilian
government was often seen as ratifying military-led initiatives rather than spearheading them,
highlighting the persistent imbalance of power.
Chapter 3: Foreign Policy – Navigating Contested Terrains

Foreign policy, a domain constitutionally under the purview of the civilian government, became
another significant area of contestation and, ultimately, military influence during Nawaz Sharif's
third term. While Sharif demonstrated a clear ambition to direct Pakistan's external relations,
particularly with key neighbours and global powers, the military establishment, with its deep-
seated interests in regional security and strategic alliances, consistently played a powerful,
often decisive, role in shaping the contours and execution of foreign policy.
Nawaz Sharif’s flagship foreign policy initiative was the pursuit of improved relations with India.
He believed that peace and economic cooperation with India were vital for Pakistan's progress.
His attendance at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's inauguration in May 2014, followed
by further high-level meetings, such as the one in Ufa, Russia, in 2015, signalled a civilian-led
push for rapprochement. However, these initiatives were often met with skepticism and, at
times, perceived obstruction from the security establishment, which traditionally maintained a
more cautious, if not outright hawkish, stance towards India, particularly concerning the
Kashmir dispute and India's military capabilities. Incidents like the Pathankot airbase attack in
India in January 2016, and the subsequent blaming of Pakistan-based elements, quickly derailed
diplomatic progress, with many analysts suggesting that hardline elements within the Pakistani
establishment were either unwilling or unable to fully support Sharif's peace overtures.
Relations with Afghanistan also remained a complex issue with differing approaches often
visible between the civilian government and the military. While Sharif's government officially
supported an Afghan-led peace process, the military and ISI were widely seen as maintaining
significant leverage over certain Afghan Taliban factions, viewing them as strategic assets. This
duality often complicated efforts to build trust with Kabul and Washington, who frequently
accused Pakistan of not doing enough to eliminate militant sanctuaries. The military’s
perspective, focused on securing Pakistan's western border and countering Indian influence in
Afghanistan, often took precedence in shaping policy towards Kabul.

The relationship with the United States was another critical axis where civil-military divergences
were apparent. While the civilian government sought a broad-based partnership encompassing
economic aid, trade, and diplomatic support, the military's engagement with the US was
primarily focused on security cooperation, counter-terrorism efforts, and military assistance.
Issues such as US drone strikes on Pakistani soil, though publicly condemned by the civilian
government, were widely believed to have tacit military consent, highlighting a separate
channel of communication and understanding between the Pentagon and GHQ Rawalpindi.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multi-billion dollar infrastructure and

investment program, emerged as a cornerstone of Pakistan's foreign and economic policy
during Sharif's term. While celebrated as a game-changer by the civilian government, CPEC's
security, particularly in volatile regions like Balochistan, became a primary responsibility of the
military. The army raised a Special Security Division to protect CPEC projects and personnel.
This not only expanded the military's role in economic governance but also gave it significant
say in matters related to CPEC's implementation and strategic implications, further intertwining
economic policy with security considerations dictated by the military.
The perception that the military establishment, particularly the ISI, shaped key aspects of
foreign policy behind the scenes was pervasive. Important decisions regarding national security
and relations with India, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the US often seemed to require
the military's explicit or implicit approval. The absence of a full-time Foreign Minister for a
significant portion of Sharif's term (with the portfolio often managed by Sharif himself or Sartaj
Aziz as an advisor) was also seen by some as a factor that allowed the military greater room to
manoeuvre in foreign affairs. This reinforced the narrative of a "hybrid system" where the
civilian government managed the facade of foreign policy while the military establishment
steered its strategic direction, particularly on issues deemed critical to national security.

Chapter 4: Key Flashpoints and Deepening Crises

Several critical events and crises during Nawaz Sharif’s third term served as flashpoints, starkly
illuminating the underlying tensions and power struggles between the civilian government and
the military establishment. These episodes not only strained the relationship but progressively
weakened the civilian government's authority.

The Pervez Musharraf Trial:

As discussed earlier, the decision to try former Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf for high
treason was a bold assertion of civilian authority. However, it immediately set the government
on a collision course with the military, which viewed the prosecution of a former chief as an
attack on the institution’s honor and prestige. The military's displeasure was palpable,
conveyed through subtle and sometimes overt signals. Musharraf’s eventual departure from
Pakistan in March 2016 for medical treatment, despite being on the Exit Control List, was
widely seen as a compromise forced upon the civilian government, demonstrating the limits of
its ability to confront the military’s core interests. The trial stalled, and the episode left a
lingering bitterness, with many analysts believing it was a primary factor in the military's
subsequent uncooperative stance towards Sharif's government.

The 2014 Dharnas (Sit-ins):

In August 2014, massive anti-government protests and sit-ins (dharnas) led by Imran Khan's
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Tahir-ul-Qadri's Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) paralyzed the
capital, Islamabad, for several months. The protestors accused the Sharif government of
widespread rigging in the 2013 elections and demanded the Prime Minister's resignation.
Throughout this crisis, there were persistent allegations and strong suspicions of tacit military
backing, or at least acquiescence, for the dharnas, aimed at weakening Sharif's government and
curtailing his assertive agenda. The then Director-General of the ISI, Lt. General Zaheer-ul-Islam,
was particularly implicated by some government insiders and media reports, though these
claims were officially denied. The military's public posture was one of neutrality, even offering
to mediate, but the optics of a beleaguered civilian government seemingly at the mercy of
street power, with the military as a potential arbiter, significantly damaged civilian prestige and
showcased the military's role as a powerful political influencer.
"Dawn Leaks" (2016): This controversy erupted in October 2016 after a story was published in
Dawn newspaper detailing a high-level civilian-military meeting. The report, authored by Cyril
Almeida, claimed that the civilian leadership had confronted senior military officials about the
alleged lack of action against certain militant groups, warning that this was leading to Pakistan's
international isolation. The military reacted furiously, terming the story a breach of national
security. An investigation was launched, and the government came under immense pressure.
Eventually, a key aide to the Prime Minister, Tariq Fatemi, was removed from his post, and the
journalist faced travel restrictions. The episode was widely interpreted as a direct assertion of
military power, forcing the civilian government into a defensive and concessionary position. It
underscored the military's intolerance for public discussion of sensitive security matters that it
felt cast the institution in a negative light and highlighted clear "red lines" that the civilian
government could not cross without repercussions.

The Panama Papers and Sharif’s Disqualification (2016-2017):

While the Panama Papers scandal, which erupted in April 2016 revealing offshore assets of
Nawaz Sharif's family, was primarily a legal and political crisis, its trajectory and outcome were
viewed by many through the prism of civil-military relations. As the Supreme Court investigated
the allegations, the military maintained a public silence. However, the inclusion of
representatives from military intelligence agencies (ISI and Military Intelligence) in the Joint
Investigation Team (JIT) formed by the Supreme Court to probe the Sharif family's finances was
a significant development. Critics argued that this institutionalized the military's role in what
was ostensibly a civilian accountability process. While there is no direct public evidence of
military orchestration of Sharif’s eventual disqualification by the Supreme Court in July 2017 on
grounds unrelated to the core corruption charges (non-declaration of a receivable salary from a
Dubai-based company), many analysts and Sharif’s own party suggested that the military
establishment was, at the very least, content with his removal. His ouster was seen as the
culmination of the sustained pressure and the weakening of his authority that had occurred
through the preceding crises, creating a political environment more amenable to the military's
preferred balance of power.
These flashpoints collectively demonstrated the civilian government's vulnerability and the
military's enduring capacity to influence political outcomes, safeguard its institutional interests,
and ultimately define the limits of civilian authority in Pakistan. Each crisis chipped away at
Sharif's mandate and his ability to govern effectively, paving the way for a political transition
that many observers believed aligned with the military's strategic preferences.

Chapter 5: The Erosion of Civilian Space and the Hybrid Regime Narrative
The cumulative effect of the ongoing security challenges, the specific flashpoints in civil-military
relations, and the military’s strategic responses led to a discernible erosion of civilian space
during Nawaz Sharif's third term. This period saw the military not only consolidate its
traditional dominance in security and foreign policy but also expand its influence into areas
previously considered the primary domain of civilian administration, giving rise to widespread
discussions about Pakistan operating under a "hybrid regime."

The concept of a hybrid regime suggests a system where democratic institutions formally exist,
but a powerful, unelected institution—in Pakistan's case, the military—wields significant de
facto control behind the scenes, shaping policies and influencing political outcomes. During
Sharif's tenure, several indicators pointed towards this evolving dynamic. The military's public
relations wing, the ISPR, became increasingly sophisticated and assertive in its communication
strategies, often setting the national narrative on security issues, counter-terrorism successes,
and even on matters of national development and CPEC. This proactive media management
frequently overshadowed civilian government messaging and projected the military as a more
efficient and reliable institution.
Furthermore, the military’s economic footprint, already substantial through its various business
conglomerates, appeared to expand with its central role in the security of CPEC. While CPEC
promised significant economic benefits, the military's deep involvement in its security and
logistical aspects granted it considerable influence over this flagship development project,
extending its sway into economic planning and regional connectivity initiatives.
The civilian government's responses to these encroachments varied. At times, Sharif’s
administration attempted to push back, as seen with the Musharraf trial or initial foreign policy
overtures. However, more often, particularly after the 2014 dharnas and the Dawn Leaks
controversy, the government appeared to adopt a more cautious or even appeasing stance,
seemingly to avoid direct confrontation. This approach, while perhaps aimed at self-
preservation, inadvertently contributed to the perception of a civilian leadership ceding ground
to the military.

The judiciary's role during this period, particularly in the Panama Papers case leading to Sharif's
disqualification, also came under scrutiny. While the Supreme Court asserted its independence,
the inclusion of military intelligence officials in the JIT and the nature of the final verdict led to
accusations from Sharif's supporters that the judiciary was influenced by, or its actions
inadvertently aligned with, the military establishment's perceived desire to remove a non-
compliant prime minister.

This erosion of civilian space had profound implications for Pakistan's democratic consolidation.
It reinforced the notion that a civilian government’s survival and effectiveness were contingent
upon maintaining a working relationship with the military, often on the latter's terms. The
institutional balance, heavily skewed in favour of the military, meant that critical policy
decisions were frequently the result of negotiations and compromises between civilian and
military leaders, rather than flowing directly from the mandate of the elected government. The
capacity of Parliament to effectively oversee the military and intelligence agencies remained
severely limited, and public discourse on sensitive civil-military issues was often constrained by
direct and indirect pressures.

The political environment by the end of Sharif's term was one where the military was perceived
to be firmly in control of the "red lines" of governance, with the civilian government operating
within these implicitly defined boundaries. This dynamic set the stage for the political
developments that followed, including the 2018 general elections, which were also marred by
allegations of pre-poll engineering and military interference to favour a particular political
outcome.
Conclusion
Nawaz Sharif’s third term as Prime Minister (2013-2017) began with a strong electoral mandate
and genuine aspirations for strengthening civilian supremacy, yet it concluded with his
disqualification and a civil-military relationship that underscored the military's enduring
dominance in Pakistan's power structure. Despite Sharif's initial assertive steps, particularly the
initiation of the Musharraf trial and attempts to independently steer foreign policy, the period
was largely defined by the military establishment's capacity to protect its institutional interests,
control the national security narrative, and influence political outcomes.

Key flashpoints such as the Musharraf trial, the 2014 dharnas, the Dawn Leaks controversy, and
ultimately the Panama Papers investigation, progressively weakened the civilian government
and showcased the limits of its authority. The military's pivotal role in counter-terrorism efforts,
particularly Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the implementation of the National Action Plan, while
necessary for national security, further solidified its influence and public image as the nation's
principal guardian. Similarly, its significant say in foreign policy concerning India, Afghanistan,
and the US, as well as its central role in CPEC security, demonstrated its control over strategic
domains.

The civilian government, faced with these pressures, often found itself in a reactive or
concessionary position. The structural imbalances, historical precedents of military
intervention, and the military's institutional cohesion and resources proved formidable
obstacles to any fundamental recalibration of power. By 2017, the space for civilian
manoeuvring had visibly shrunk, and the narrative of a "hybrid regime" gained increasing
currency, suggesting a system where formal democratic processes were overshadowed by the
deep state's informal, yet decisive, influence.

Nawaz Sharif's ouster, while ostensibly a judicial decision, was widely interpreted as the
culmination of this protracted power struggle, an outcome that many analysts believe was, at a
minimum, acceptable to the military establishment as it removed a prime minister who had
repeatedly sought to challenge its traditional spheres of influence.
Ultimately, the civil-military relations during Nawaz Sharif's third term serve as a compelling
case study of the complexities and challenges inherent in Pakistan's democratic journey. It
highlighted that a strong electoral mandate alone is insufficient to guarantee civilian supremacy
in a state where the military has long been a dominant political actor. The period underscored
the deep-rooted nature of the civil-military imbalance and the significant hurdles that remain in
establishing a political order where elected civilian institutions can exercise their constitutional
authority fully and unequivocally, particularly over matters of national security and strategic
policymaking. The legacy of this era continues to shape Pakistan's political landscape,
emphasizing the ongoing struggle for a truly democratic and civilian-led state.