Wajahat Ali Khan
Generally, there is a majority opinion in Pakistan that sometimes more and sometimes less, but intelligence agencies have always played a role in domestic politics. This thought is certainly correct to a large extent. Without going into the discussion of the implications of this happening and what its disadvantages or benefits were, we should take a look at the interference or role of agencies in politics in some developed and developing countries of the world.
The fact is that in most countries, their own intelligence agencies influence politics to some extent, whether directly or indirectly, mainly The ideological role or work of intelligence agencies is to deal with terrorism, espionage and external threats for national security, and to provide secret information to government policymakers, that is, in principle, they are not part of the political process but are considered a pillar of state security. In many countries, agencies are seen to have an informal relationship with politics in various ways, for example, influencing policy. Sometimes agencies shape government decisions, foreign policy or security policy through the information or analysis they provide, and this is considered a normal and legal role. Agencies also monitor political parties, keep a close eye on domestic and foreign media, and try to influence elections and play a role in weakening or strengthening governments, but such matters are usually considered controversial, illegal or undemocratic.
For example, the UK is a country with strong democratic and parliamentary oversight, so in our country where we have been living for decades, intelligence agencies cannot formally interfere in politics, as is the same constitutional principle in Pakistan. However, a few points are important to understand their role. For example, there are three key agencies in the UK. MI5 deals with internal security, terrorism and espionage, MI6 deals with intelligence abroad andGCHQ carries out cyber security and electronic intelligence, and the reports of these three agencies influence the decisions of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the National Security Council and are indirectly related to the field of politics but are considered legal and necessary.
Although there is strict oversight of intelligence agencies in the UK, there are some incidents in history that have sparked debates in this regard, such as the accusations that MI5 monitored left-wing leaders during the Cold War in the 1970s and 1980s because they were at risk of communist influence, these incidents are still a subject of debate today, although the official policy was that surveillance should only be on the basis of national security. Then, before the invasion of Iraq, there was intense political criticism of the intelligence reports (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Critics said that the government presented intelligence data according to its political judgment. There is also a common perception that the agencies do the same work behind the scenes as the agencies of third world countries do “in front of the scenes”.
The American CIA The CIA does not directly run American politics, but its influence on American foreign policy is indirect and sometimes very clear in practice. For example, the CIA briefs the American President and the National Security Council daily. These reports are about enemy countries, global threats, terrorist groups and global political changes, and on the basis of this information, American foreign policy is formed in the form of wars, negotiations, sanctions, alliances, etc.
That is, the CIA does not make policy, but its role in determining the direction of policy is the most important. Historically, the CIA has played a practical role in many major events. For example,covert operations in several countries during the Cold War to stop communist governments, intelligence activities in enemy countries, and providing secret assistance to allied countries. Although all these tasks were part of foreign policy, and the CIA also implemented them practically, that is, it works as an “instrument” of foreign policy, not a maker!
The same situation is also in Pakistan’s neighbouring country, India, where RAW cannot formally interfere in the internal political affairs of the Indian government, but according to historical and media reports, its role has been in some external and internal sensitive matters. Some reports indicate that the IB or RAW made attempts to influence internal politics, especially in the 1970s–80s, in view of the fear of insurgency or communism in some states interference in political affairs and internal surveillance.
During the 2004–2009 parliamentary and state elections, the IB prepared several reports on the risks of communal or provincial violence in the elections. These were mostly security alerts and advisories, but in reality, they were direct interference in the elections. Similarly, during the 2010–2014 insurgency and political surveillance in the North-Eastern states, when insurgency and separatist movements were going on in North-East India, such as Assam, Nagaland, etc., the IB and RAW provided information to the government so that the state governments could control the situation. However, the best way to give the impression that agencies around the world are not interfering in political matters is to give the government a script based on internal and external information, which it is necessary for the government to implement without fail!
