From Guardians of the State to Guardians of Democracy? Institutional Change and Military Democratization in Insecure States

  • Cornelia-Adriana BaciuEmail author


This chapter studies military transformation and civil–military relations in insecure states, applying Pakistan as a case study. It aims at (1) assessing the institutional change and transformation of armed forces and (2) conceptualizing the role which civil society organizations (CSOs)–military interaction can have on processes of institutional change of security and defence. The following research questions are examined: (1) “How is the role of the military in insecure and transitional states changing?” and (2) “What are the effects of CSOs on the transformation of the defence and security sector?”. A diachronic, case-oriented methodology is applied, using Pakistan as a “telling” case. The timeframe studied is 1999–2017, encompassing the military rule of Pervez Musharraf (t1) and the post-Musharraf transition period (t2). In total, 88 data points (48 expert interviews and 40 surveys), collected by the author during field research in four sample regions in Pakistan, are used for the empirical analysis. The findings of this chapter advance our conceptual understanding of mechanisms of hybrid security and democratic civilian control as well as the impact of CSOs on the democratic transformation of security and defence institutions. At policy level, the results of this study provide insights for international organizations and donors sustaining the democratization of armed forces in insecure, fragile or otherwise transitional states.


  1. Ackerman, John. 2004. Co-governance for accountability: Beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Development 32 (3): 447–463. Scholar
  2. Alexander, J., J.L. Brudney, K. Yang, and S.C. Mendel. 2010. Are private government, the nonprofit sector, and civil society the same thing? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39 (4): 717–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, Andrew. 2009. Process tracing: A Bayesian perspective. In The oxford handbook of political methodology, ed. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, David Collier, and Andrew Bennett, 702–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2007. Case study methods in the international relations subfield. Comparative Political Studies 40 (2): 170–195. Scholar
  5. Bernauer, Thomas, Steffen Mehrenberg, and Vally Koubi. 2016. How relevant are input and output legitimacy in international environmental governance? NCCR Democracy, Working Paper No. 94.Google Scholar
  6. Biswas, Sawata N. 2009. NGO accountability: Issues and possibilities. KIIT Journal of Management 6 (1 and 2): 1–25.Google Scholar
  7. Boëne, Bernard. 1990. How ‘unique’ should the military be? A review of representative literature & outline of a synthetic formulation. European Journal of Sociology 31 (01): 3–59. Scholar
  8. Bruneau, Thomas C., and Florina Cristiana Matei. 2008. Towards a new conceptualization of democratization and civil–military relations. Democratization 15 (5): 909–929. Scholar
  9. Burns, John F., and Christopher S. Wren. 2001. Saudi Arabia cuts ties with Taliban. The New York Times, September 26, 2001. Accessed June 5, 2017.
  10. Cawthra, Gavin, and Robin Luckham. 2003. Democratic control and the security sector: The scope for transformation and its limits. In Governing insecurity: Democratic control of military and security establishments in transitional democracies, ed. Gavin Cawthra and Robin Luckham, 305–327. Democratic transition in conflict-torn societies v. 1. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  11. Centeno, Miguel Angel. 1994. Between rocky democracies and hard markets: Dilemmas of the double transition. Annual Review of Sociology 20 (1): 125–147. Scholar
  12. Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright. 2010. Causal inference: Old dilemmas, new tools. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 174–177. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Croissant, Aurel, David Kuehn, Philip Lorenz, and Paul W. Chambers. 2013. Explaining civilian control of the military in new democracies. In Democratization and civilian control in Asia, ed. Aurel Croissant, 42–56. Critical Studies of the Asia Pacific. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Desch, Michael C. 1999. Civilian control of the military: The changing security environment. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2008. The economist intelligence unit’s index of democracy 2008. London: The Economist Scholar
  18. Eder, Klaus, Kai-Uwe Hellmann, and Hans-Jörg Trenz. 1998. Regieren in Europa jenseits ¨offentlicher Legitimation? Eine Untersuchung zur Rolle von politischer Offentlichkeit in Europa. In Regieren in entgrenzten Räumen, ed. Beate Kohler-Koch, 321–344. Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Sonderheft 29. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards, Michael, and David Hulme. 2014. Non-governmental organisations—Performance and accountability: Beyond the magic bullet. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, Peter B. 1997. State-society synergy: Government and social capital in development. Research Series Number 94: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Feaver, Peter D. 1999. Civil–military relations. Annual Review of Political Sciences. 2 (1): 211–241. Scholar
  22. Feaver, Peter. 2005. Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil–military relations, 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foster, Gregory D. 2005. Civil–military relations: The postmodern democratic challenge. World Affairs 167 (3): 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox, Jonathan A. 2015. Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development 72: 346–361. Scholar
  25. Geertz, Clifford. 2008. The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays. Princeton, NJ: Recording for Blind & Dyslexic.Google Scholar
  26. Geiser, Urs. 2007. Zivilgesellschaft in Pakistan. Zur Schwierigkeit der Lokalisierung eines spezifischen sozialen Raumes in fragilen postkolonialen Verhältnissen. AS/EA LXI (4): 1183–1200.Google Scholar
  27. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. BCSIA studies in international security. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. German Federal Ministry for Economic Development and Cooperation. 2017. Pakistan. Situation and cooperation. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  29. Gerring, John. 2004. What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review 98 (2): 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goel, O.P. 2004. Strategic management and policy issues of NGOs. Delhi: Isha Books.Google Scholar
  31. Greenwood, Lauren, and Gowthaman Balachandran. 2014. The search for common ground. Civil–military relations in Pakistan. Overseas Development Institute, HPG Working Paper.Google Scholar
  32. Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  33. Human Rights Watch. 2011. We can torture, kill, or keep you for years. Enforced disappearances by Pakistan security forces in Balochistan. Accessed June 27, 2017.
  34. Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil–military relations. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Janowitz, Morris. 1964. Professional soldier with a new prologue. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Khan, Jamshed, and Asmat Ullah Wazir. 2011. Civil–military imbalance in the administration of Pakistan: A case study of Musharraf Era. The Dialogue VI (2): 147–160.Google Scholar
  37. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1994. The social requisites of democracy revisited: 1993 presidential address. American Sociological Review 59 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Ann Thelen. 2010. Introduction. In Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, ed. James Mahoney and Kathleen A. Thelen, 1–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mainwaring, Scott. 1989. Transitions to democracy and democratic consolidation: Theoretical and comparative issues. Kellogg Institute, Working Paper 130.Google Scholar
  40. Masood, Salman. 2017. Facing military pressure, Pakistan’s prime minister ousts 2 top aides. The New York Times, April 29. Accessed June 4, 2017.
  41. Mathews, Jessica T. 1997. Power shift. Foreign Affairs, January/February Issue. Accessed March 22, 2018.
  42. Mearsheimer, John J. 1994/95. The false promise of international institutions. International Security 19 (3): 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mirza, Zeeshan. 2015. Another coup in the works? ARY News, July 25. Accessed June 28, 2017.
  44. Moskos, C.C. 1986. Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed Forces & Society 12 (3): 377–382. Scholar
  45. Nasir, Abbas. 2015. The good and bad Taliban. Al Jazeera, July 30. Accessed June 4, 2017.
  46. Niaz, Ilhan. 2017. Pakistan’s crisis of governance and the resurgence of terrorist violence since August 2016. Asian Affairs 48 (2): 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe C. Schmitter. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Studies in Rationality and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Redmond, William H. 2005. Processes of gradual institutional drift. Journal of Economic Issues 39 (2): 501–509. Scholar
  51. Ricks, Thomas E. 2015. The long-term dangers for Pakistan of believing in ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban, September 29. Accessed June 4, 2017.
  52. Roggio, Bill. 2017. Pakistan places Jamaat-ud-Dawa emir under house arrest. Long War Journal, January 31. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  53. Roughan, N. 2013. Authorities: Conflicts, cooperation, and transnational legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970. Transitions to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics 2 (3): 337. Scholar
  55. Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing control? Sovereignty in the age of globalization. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sattar, Babar. 2001. Pakistan: Return to pretorianism. In Coercion and governance, ed. Alagappa, 385–412. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. Journal of European Policy 4 (1): 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schiff, Rebecca L. 2012. Concordance theory, targeted partnership, and counterinsurgency strategy. Armed Forces & Society 38 (2): 318–339. Scholar
  59. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2015. Efficient process tracing: Analyzing the causal mechanisms of European integration. In Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool, ed. Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel, 98–125. Strategies for Social Inquiry. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Segal, David R., John Blair, Frank Newport, and Susan Stephens. 1974. Convergence and interdependence at the civil–military interface. Army Research Institute, CRSO Working Paper 91.Google Scholar
  61. Serra, Narcís. 2010. The military transition: Democratic reform of the armed forces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Siddiqa, Ayesha. 2016. Military Inc. Inside Pakistan’s military economy. London: Pluto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. Disaggregated sovereignty: Towards the public accountability of global government networks. Government and Opposition 39 (2): 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sorensen, Georg. 1996. Development as a Hobbesian dilemma. Third World Quarterly 17 (5): 903–916. Scholar
  65. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Political legitimacy. Accessed June 23, 2017.
  66. Sternberg, Claudia S. 2015. Political legitimacy between democracy and effectiveness: Trade-offs, interdependencies, and discursive constructions by the EU institutions. European Political Science Review 7 (04): 615–638. Scholar
  67. The Economist. 2017. Why states fail and how to rebuild them: Fixing fragile nations: Lessons from Afghanistan and South Sudan. The Economist, June 7. Accessed June 27, 2017.
  68. Trinkunas, Harold A. 1999. Ensuring democratic civilian control of the armed forces in Asia. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center Scholar
  69. Wood, Geoffrey. 2010. The South African military in transition. Australian Journal of Political Science 31 (3): 387–400. Scholar
  70. Zahra-Malik, Mehreen. 2014. U.S. says Pakistani ‘charity’ front for banned militants. Reuters. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  71. Zürn, Michael. 2000. Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: The EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 183–221. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations