Pakistan: A Democracy In Danger

History is repeating itself in the most dangerous fashion in Pakistan.  In an eerie parallel with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s ascent to power in the 1970s, Pakistan’s current Chief of the Army Staff Asim Munir appears to have taken a few pages from his predecessor’s book. The military has established itself once again as the most powerful institution in the nation. 

The state of civil military relations in Pakistan is troubling for a myriad of reasons. For starters, in a healthy democracy the military should subordinate itself to civilian control. However, since Pakistan’s inception, the military has a long standing history of political intervention credited to weak political institutions, inadequate political leadership, and entrenchment of civil military bureaucracy. Such issues with Pakistan’s civil military relations can be traced back to British colonial policies. British generals continued to head Pakistan's military until 1951, when the authority was transferred to General Ayub Khan, who became Pakistan’s second president through a military coup. 

While the nation has always had a strong military presence, it has had weak political institutions that have failed to establish an effective political and constitutional system. This has seriously handicapped the government’s ability to properly respond to the multitude of external and internal challenges that the country faces. In this power vacuum, the bureaucratic military elite have been able to increase their authority and power over the country’s political elite. They have been able to garner so much influence, that despite the civilian government’s inability to control them, the country’s army stands out as the most trusted institution - with more than 80 percent public approval.

Recent examples of the military’s dominant role in the Pakistani political and economic sphere include the previous Prime Minister Imran Khan granting General Bajwa a position as a member of the government’s National Development Council in 2020. Additionally, Bajwa met privately with top business leaders to discuss ways to aid the failing economy, increasing the military’s role in the economic and political issues that were plaguing the nation. The then Prime Minister Imran Khan’s desire to work with the military through political concessions shows the inherent tension in civil-military relations in Pakistan. 

The true show of the overly politically involved Pakistani military happened in April 2023, when former Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted from power after a vote of no confidence from the General Assembly. His removal from office was clear to all that it was not a matter of his incompetence or supposed corruption, but rather because the army felt threatened by his brazen imperative to disagree with them. At this point, tensions between Bajwa and Khan were at an all time high due to an ongoing dispute following Khan’s refusal to endorse the appointment of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief that Bajwa wanted. In May 2023, Imran Khan was arrested, despite his protests that the Army was behind threats against his life and that prominent military leaders were behind ongoing plots against him. Khan’s arrest is not unusual in Pakistan’s political history - with the past five prime ministers having been either indicted or imprisoned after leaving office. In an ironic twist, Khan rose to power in 2018 due to the military’s support and saw himself removed from office in 2022 when he lost their approval. As the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace put it, “where the Pakistan Army’s will exists, it carries, and typically persists no matter the consequences.” 

Since Khan’s arrest, protests have shaken the country and the military has cracked down in terrifying ways. In June 2023, the new Chief of Staff Asim Munir fired three high ranked commanders and punished another fifteen for their conduct during pro-Imran Khan protests. Additionally, protestors from Khan’s party PTI have accused the military of human rights violations while being held in custody. Most recently, in March 2024 protests erupted once again over what many believe to have been a rigged election. The police have been accused of launching brutal retaliations to these protests and arresting over one hundred protestors in the process. 

The precarious state of Pakistan’s democracy is concerning for the future of the nation. Without healthy civil-military relations and a stable democracy, the country can never implement much needed policy reforms. Pakistan can never be a nation that serves its citizens if it remains in the clutches of a corrupt military that chooses its own power over the best interests of the people.

A Pandemic in 2024

By: Avery Sigler

In January 2020, Haiti was declared two-years cholera free, after a decade-long struggle to eliminate the disease, which was not native to the island. While left unacknowledged until 2016, cholera was introduced by UN volunteers who came from Nepal to help Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake. Only ten months later, in November of 2020, there were 600 confirmed cholera cases, and another 6,500 suspected. Haiti was no longer cholera-free, and a new pandemic was about to begin.

As of April 11, there have been a total of 31,705 cholera cases worldwide, with a case fatality rate of 2.2 across the global south, including Africa and the Caribbean. The UK, where the largest outbreak of cholera occurred in the mid-19th century, has not had a case since 1893. These cases are primarily concentrated in former colonies, with twenty-five of the twenty-seven countries with recent reported cases fitting this descriptor. The World Health Organization classified the cholera pandemic as a grade three emergency in January 2023, its highest internal level for emergencies. And yet, it has barely made the news.

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who does not understand the implications of pandemic in 2024. However, in the case of a disease such as cholera, which has been eliminated for so many years, those in global north countries tend to overlook it likely due to the fact that it is a disease that is relatively isolated to low-income countries. Cholera is caused by the ingestion of food or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. Severe forms of the disease without immediate treatment can kill in hours. There are many strains of the bacterium but only two - O1 and O139 - can cause outbreaks, though O1 has caused all recent outbreaks. The spread of the disease is easy to avoid if a country has proper infrastructure, such as sewer systems. In modern times, the disease only affects countries that can’t afford proper sanitation in the water-supply. There also is a vaccine, known as the Oral Cholera Vaccine (OCV), but countries that lack the infrastructure for its development don’t have the means to vaccinate against it causing higher infection rates. In 2023, fourteen countries requested a total of 78 million OCV from the World Health Organization, but only 38 million were available. As of March 8th, only previous requests for vaccinations can be filled. Though this deadline has recently passed, a spike of cholera cases in another country that does not have the technology to replicate these vaccines, would be left completely vulnerable.

The othering of countries, from developed to developing, is likely the link between the high CFR and the underreporting in the media. From the perspective of global north nations, cholera is not a threat due to development on the backs of the countries suffering today. Those in the countries currently facing a cholera pandemic have to live with that constant fear, the same way that countries like the United States did during COVID-19, but without the infrastructure and the governmental influence to help to improve public health. Cholera may seem to the people in Western countries a disease of medieval times, but it is a very real threat to millions of  people worldwide.

The Worldwide Responsibility to End Hostilities in Sudan

By: Brooke Blosser

Since April 2023, the Sudanese Civil War has been creating a humanitarian disaster. Sudan is currently facing “one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”, while much of the focus of the rest of the world is on other geopolitical issues. Due to dwindling global aid, The United States and other world leaders should take a more decisive stand on the war in Sudan, and commit to ending the humanitarian crisis and promoting democracy within the country.

The Sudanese Civil War is a consequence of political regime changes in Sudan over the past thirty years, most of which have come through violent military coups. Thus, political violence has been the norm in Sudan, and the country has had a difficult time achieving democratic stability. These trends set the stage for the power struggle between two factions of the Sudanese military: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group. These two groups worked together in 2019 and 2021 to carry out a coup and consolidate their power. However, questions of how the groups would work together led to a power struggle, and ultimately, the outbreak of the Civil War. The difference between this conflict and past conflicts in Sudan is that both groups are recognized by the government - neither of them can be considered rebels. With the fighting not expected to end anytime soon, the humanitarian situation can only grow worse.

The UN reports that 12,000 Sudanese have been killed and eight million have been displaced. It is difficult for children to attend school and hunger is widespread, with 90 percent of the population facing food insecurity. Additionally, the Civil War has internally and externally displaced millions, adding to the instability both within Sudan and the Horn of Africa region. Refugees in surrounding countries like Chad and South Sudan are straining the already precarious economic systems, and compounding upon existing infrastructure issues in those countries. This crisis is currently one of the worst humanitarian issues in the world, and international organizations and world leaders need to step up to assist with ensuring humanitarian assistance reaches the people of Sudan.

Aside from assisting with humanitarian needs, organizations like the United Nations and world leaders, like the United States, must assist with brokering a peace, or, at the very least, a ceasefire to ensure protections. Aside from the obvious need to end the war for humanitarian reasons, the United States has a strategic interest in ending hostilities. If Sudan fails to return to peace, the country will become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorist organizations. Additionally, when more migrants are forced to resettle in neighboring states, instability could spread and incite greater violence in the region and create even more space for terrorism to grow. However, even with these high stakes, no country or organization has been able to foster productive peace talks. One set of talks, organized by Saudi Arabia and the United States, fell apart due to disagreements between the Saudis and Americans. This is unacceptable, both for the citizens of Sudan stuck in a humanitarian crisis, and the world at large under the threat of terrorism.

However, it would be beneficial for both sides to explore peace: the RSF remains unpopular with the Sudanese people, while the SAF struggles to maintain order in an increasingly disorganized military structure. The incentives to pursue peace exist, both for actors in Sudan and around the world. The United Nations and other influential world leaders need to step up and provide areas for mediation to end the hostilities and protect the people in Sudan from a terrible humanitarian crisis. Additionally, the world must be committed to continuing this support through assisting with peaceful transitions of power and other democratizing measures in Sudan. Creating a culture of a peaceful democracy, which is a popular idea with the Sudanese, should not be undertaken with a goal of creating a “Western” democracy. Rather, the world should work with Sudan to create a peaceful democracy on their terms, not ours. By taking into account Sudanese culture, the world can assist with creating a lasting democracy that protects the Sudanese people from humanitarian crises, and the world from terrorists growing within their borders.