Will Pakistanis see sunshine sooner or later? It is hard to tell.
- The core of the problem does not lie in the release of the ex-Prime Minister, it lies in the institutionalization of authoritarianism that has occurred over the last two years. Until internal strife and reform succeed in overpowering the civil-military oligarchy, an authoritarian slide is likely to continue in the future.
By Nazarul Islam | USA
Since the foundation of Pakistan in 1947, this country has continued with its challenging battles, in order to achieve religious freedom. Struggles for equally significant freedoms, have remained less recognized, leading the nation into a dismal abyss. Though the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees equal rights regardless of faith, the frictions between this notion and the country’s identity as an Islamic Republic, has adversely influenced its domestic political and social affairs.
It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s democratic institutions are struggling, intertwined with the country’s conservative Islamic character. Although the civilian government is elected democratically, disruptive civilian and military forces have regularly intruded upon the social contract between the government and the people, whereby the former is mandated to protect the human rights and security of Pakistani citizens.
Pakistan’s democracy therefore has faced significant challenges vis-a-vis enforcing human and civil rights. However, a huge population of the country’s overseas diaspora keep biting their nails, watching the game of throne in the country. Obviously, this is indicative of the fact that Pakistani Muslims can, and have thrived in consolidated democratic systems, such as those in the United States or United Kingdom. Fortunately for the nation, their experiences have positively influenced the ongoing process aimed at strengthening Pakistani democracy followed by rational, equitable implementation of rights.
Historically speaking, Religion has significantly influenced civil-military relations in Pakistan by providing the military with a powerful ideological tool, aimed to legitimize its political dominance, and furthermore, leading to declare itself not only as a viable defense institution but also the “guardian of the nation’s Islamic identity”.
Again, this narrative has enjoyed a popular appeal, yet undermined civilian governments and intertwined national security with religious ideology. Various factors contributed to the new dynamics between the civil government and the military in Pakistan. Over the decades, the military has played a significant role in the country’s politics and governance.
The relationship between civilian rule and military influence in Pakistan is complex in nature. It has also evolved remarkably over time. While civilian governments have remained in power for less than three decades out of eight, the military has held considerable sway, exercising a firm control in matters of national security, foreign policy, and even domestic affairs.
As an institution, a well groomed army of Pakistan safeguards national defense, actively pursuing fresh strategies and dynamics. Unfortunately, this has remained the subject of ongoing debates and analyses among political scientists and historians who continue to study and evaluate Pakistan’s fast changing, political landscape.
Understanding the nuances of this relationship also requires probing into the institutional roles of both the civil government and the military, as well as diverse political and social factors that have given rise to conflicting narratives. A lot is at stake, therefore demands astute leadership skills in keeping pace with our fast-changing world. The damning truth is, Pakistan under a newly crafted leadership model, has in effect evolved into a military-bureaucratic state where civilian institutions are often relegated to the sidelines.
For reasons explained earlier, the consolidation of power has further compelled the military to pursue its goals with impunity. A strategic recalibration is presently underway in Pakistan. In the light of the recent (2025) limited conflict and subsequent aerial combat with India, we strongly felt that our military command, proudly rose up to the occasion. Perhaps it was the opportune moment to let our neighbors know some fundamental truths. A modern, well groomed Pakistani Army can effectively counter New Delhi’s punitive counter-terrorist strikes on Pakistani locations, has changed civil-military dynamics.
Pakistan army’s image has been constantly improving, shaping itself to be viewed from outside as a stabilizing force amid the political flux. This is no longer being contested by civilian leadership, that the armed forces have regained primacy, with defense spending now being observed as a public good vital to this nation’s survival.
On the surface, the scenario has changed effectively. Political parties in the country, once adversarial, are now on the back track, courting fresh military favors. They are abandoning critique for cooperation. Obviously, Sharifs and Bhutto-Zardaris are desperate to keep the new afield Marshal in good humor in order to secure their positions in government. The public, too, exhibits a utilitarian acceptance of military dominance. In this realignment, critiques of the military’s economic entanglements fell silent, replaced by a tacit consensus on its indispensable role.
It is now a reality that minus Imran Khan, politicians and people in power corridors are unwilling to confront even for token sake, therefore refuse to be subdued. Pakistani lawmakers continue to ignore Imran’s latest calls for massive, nationwide protests.
In the face of new, emerging ground realities, that are focused to shape the country’s future and direction, Gen. Munir’s ascent is not a rupture but rather the culmination of a long arc in Pakistan’s history — a pattern wherein the military will be charting the nation’s course, speed and direction.
Democratic impulses, although repeatedly suppressed, have yielded to the steady hands of military authority. Whether he is an officer and a gentleman, we are unsure of his choices. Is he ambitiously looking forward to become another Ayub or Musharraf, or a better General than all of them combined? We do not know the answers, but Gen. Munir’s growing control is seen as a somewhat worrying sign of institutionalized militarism— with a powerful influence extending beyond national borders.
For South Asia, the implications are destabilizing; for the West, past faith in Rawalpindi as a guarantor of order appears increasingly misplaced. Absent of course is a delicate course correction directed toward civilian rule. There may be consequences if Pakistan risks drifting toward unforeseen perils — internally, regionally, and globally.
In the last six decades, Military dictators have sought to rule in Pakistan owing to a combination of political instability, weak civilian institutions, perceived threats to national security (primarily from India), the military’s strong corporate interests and economic power, and a self-perception as the ultimate “saviour” and guardian of the nation’s ideology.
Let’s not forget how we have arrived at this critical moment of trial. What were the key motivations and contributions of past military rulers in Pakistan? Briefly, it can be summarized as:
Civilian Government Failures: Frequent corruption, infighting, and a lack of experience among early civilian leaders created a political vacuum, which the stable and organized military was well-positioned to fill. The rapid turnover of prime ministers in the first decade after independence further discredited politicians in the public eye.
Perception of National Security Threat: From its inception, Pakistan has been heavily focused on security due to its conflict with India, particularly over Kashmir. This environment elevated the military to a central, indispensable role in the national consciousness and justified a disproportionately large share of the national budget and political influence.
Institutional Strength and Cohesion: The military inherited a professional and disciplined structure from the British Indian Army, while other government institutions were built from scratch and remained weak. This gave the armed forces an organizational advantage and a belief in their own competence compared to civilian bureaucracy.
Economic Interests: The Pakistani military has vast economic holdings, often referred to as “milbus”. This includes ownership in industry, commerce, and real estate (such as defense housing societies), which gives the military a significant financial stake in government policies and an interest in maintaining its autonomy and influence over the economy.
Self-Portrayal as the Nation’s Saviour: Military leaders have historically justified their coups by presenting themselves as the only institution capable of restoring order, fighting corruption, and protecting Pakistan’s Islamic identity and territorial integrity. This narrative, often reinforced through state-sponsored media and educational materials, has sometimes garnered public support during times of crisis.
External Power Dynamics: During the Cold War and the War on Terror, foreign powers, especially the United States, found the stable and security-focused Pakistani military to be a more reliable partner than fluctuating civilian governments.
This external validation further empowered the military in domestic politics. It is obvious that these factor created a cycle where civilian instability provided the military with the opportunity and justification to seize power, which in turn had prevented democratic institutions from maturing and establishing long-term supremacy.
Historically speaking, Civil-military alliances in Pakistan, often informal and based on mutual convenience or burdened by shared interests, have repeatedly shaped the country’s political trajectory, frequently undermining democratic processes.
These alliances typically had involved civilian politicians leveraging military support to gain or maintain power, while the military secures its autonomy and influence over key areas like foreign policy and national security.
What did we witness during the past civil-military alliances, and how these influenced Pakistan?
Past Alliances during Military Regime:
General Zia-ul-Haq and Civilian Collaborators: General Zia, who overthrew Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977, cultivated alliances with various civilian politicians and Islamic groups to legitimize his martial law regime. This alliance facilitated the “Islamisation” of Pakistan’s laws and society and provided a civilian facade for his prolonged 11-year rule, fundamentally altering the nation’s social and political fabric.
General Pervez Musharraf and the PML (Q): Following his 1999 coup against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, General Musharraf formed the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid-e-Azam) (PML-Q) with defectors from other parties. This civilian front provided a veneer of democratic legitimacy to his military presidency, though real power remained with the armed forces.
What had been the nature of Alliances during civilian regimes?
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the Military (early alliance): Initially, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto worked closely with the military, particularly under General Yahya Khan, to navigate political issues and consolidate his power after the 1971 war. This cooperation was short-lived, however, leading to a later conflict that resulted in Bhutto’s overthrow by Zia-ul-Haq.
Nawaz Sharif’s Early Career: Nawaz Sharif’s initial rise in politics was widely seen as being facilitated by the military establishment, especially by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to counter the influence of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). He was part of the military-backed Islamic Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) coalition. Over time, as Sharif attempted to assert civilian supremacy and pursue independent policies (particularly regarding India), he clashed with the military, leading to his dismissals and the 1999 coup.
Imran Khan and the Military (pre-2022): The government of former Prime Minister Imran Khan was widely perceived to have a close working relationship with the military leadership under General Qamar Javed Bajwa. This alliance was described as a “marriage of convenience” where the military supported Khan’s rise to power and initial governance in exchange for his government’s cooperation on key security and foreign policy matters and an agreement to freeze the military’s budget during an economic crisis. The breakdown of this alliance eventually contributed to Khan’s ouster in 2022.
Undeniably, the past civil-military alliances have consistently weakened democratic institutions by fostering a political culture where civilian leaders rely on military patronage rather than public mandates, and where the military had played the new role of a political “kingmaker”.
Civil-military alliances have had several detrimental effects on Pakistan’s democracy, primarily, by stunting the growth of robust civilian institutions, entrenching authoritarianism, and fostering chronic political instability.
Again, Key effects have included:
Undermining Civilian Institutions: These alliances consistently marginalize the parliament, judiciary, and other democratic bodies, preventing them from developing autonomy and strength. Civilian leaders often become dependent on military patronage rather than public mandates, weakening accountability to the electorate.
Perpetual Political Instability: The cycle of military intervention and the engineering of civilian governments (often called “hybrid regimes”) has led to endemic political instability. No Pakistani Prime Minister has completed a full five-year term, largely due to military influence in their removal, which creates an environment of uncertainty and an ongoing power struggle.
Erosion of Democratic Norms and Rule of Law: Alliances have been used to implement authoritarian measures, such as media censorship, crackdowns on dissent, and the manipulation of electoral processes, hollowing out the substance of democracy. The military’s use of intelligence agencies to manage political affairs further damages democratic practices.
Judicial Compromise: The military has at various times influenced or co-opted the judiciary to legitimize coups or validate actions against political opponents, thereby eroding public confidence in the courts as neutral arbiters of justice.
Military Dominance over Key Policy Areas: Even during periods of civilian rule, the military has maintained de facto control over critical areas such as national security, foreign policy, and the nuclear program. This limits the scope of civilian governance and ensures the military’s interests remain paramount.
Economic Consequences: The military’s vast, independent economic empire (often referred to as “milbus”) means it operates with financial autonomy from civilian oversight. This has been linked to policies that do not always align with broader national economic development goals, contributing to long-term economic vulnerability and hindering investment.
In essence, these alliances created a situation where Pakistan functioned as a “hybrid regime” with a facade of democracy, while real power often resides within the military establishment, preventing genuine democratic consolidation.
Again most Civil-military alliances in Pakistan had remained inherently unstable because they are typically marriages of convenience designed for power-sharing rather than a genuine institutional balance.
Their breakdown that exists today was primarily caused by power struggles between the civilian and military leadership, specifically when civilian leaders attempt to assert genuine authority or diverge from the military’s core interests.
What factors had created hurriedly needed political alliances that were later rendered to be highly unstable?
These factors have included:
Clashes Over Authority: The fundamental tension lies in who holds ultimate power. While civilian leaders may initially align with the military to gain office, they eventually attempt to assert their constitutional authority, which the military perceives as an encroachment on its entrenched institutional prerogatives.
Diverging Policy Interests: Alliances often fracture when the civilian government’s policies, particularly in foreign affairs or national security, clash with the military’s established strategic vision. A notable example is the breakdown of the alliance with Imran Khan’s government, partly due to disagreements over the appointment of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief and foreign policy stances.
Military’s “Kingmaker” Role: The military acts as a de facto power broker, forging and dissolving alliances to suit its interests. This makes civilian governments dependent on continued military support for survival, leading to instability if that support is withdrawn.
Weak Civilian Institutions: Pakistan’s weak and fragmented political institutions and lack of strong democratic norms make civilian governments vulnerable to military manipulation. Without a robust system of checks and balances, the military can easily exploit political crises to assert dominance.
Military’s Economic and Social Influence: The military’s vast economic empire and its self-portrayal as the guardian of the nation’s ideology give it immense power and financial independence from civilian oversight. This deep entrenchment makes it difficult for any civilian government to exert genuine control.
Public Polarization and Narrative Warfare: When an alliance breaks down, the ensuing political crisis often involves public disputes and accusations between civilian and military figures, as seen after Imran Khan’s ouster. This polarization intensifies instability and can damage the military’s public image.
Lack of Civilian Oversight: The absence of a strong, consistent mechanism for civilian oversight of the military means that the army chief has tremendous informal sway over the administration, which prevents a stable, balanced relationship from forming.
It cannot be overlooked that these alliances had been tactical in nature, rather than transformational, and therefore they collapse under the weight of competing interests and personal rivalries when the civilian side attempts to move beyond the boundaries drawn by the military establishment
In the present context, Pakistan is technically not under a formal direct military rule, but under a a newly devised umbrella of “hyper-hybrid regime” where the military exercises significant, constitutionally enshrined control over the civilian government and key state institutions. The future under this system points to continued military dominance, an erosion of democratic norms, and ongoing political and economic instability.
How can we define the current structure?
Hybrid Regime: While a civilian coalition government is officially in power, it operates under the substantial, often informal, oversight of the military establishment. Critics note that no prime minister in Pakistan’s history has completed a full term, illustrating the military’s pervasive influence.
Constitutional Amendments: Recent developments in November 2025 have solidified the military’s power. The controversial 27th Amendment created a new, powerful post of Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), effectively merging it with the Army Chief’s position and placing all military branches under his command.
Expanded Powers and Immunity: The amendment grants top military leaders, including the current Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, lifelong rank retention, privileges, and permanent immunity from criminal proceedings, a move critics have called a “funeral for democracy”.
Judicial and Media Influence: The amendment also limits the independence of the Supreme Court by creating a new Federal Constitutional Court for constitutional matters, seen as a systematic dismantling of judicial independence. The military also reportedly exercises considerable informal control over the media.
The critical question, we are asking today: As Pakistanis, do we really have a sustainable future?
Several thinkers including members of global think tanks, military leaders and political scientists have analyzed the stream of events in the country, and assessed that Pakistan’s future under this entrenched system will likely to shape it’s destiny based on the following features:
Consolidated Military Dominance: The military is expected to continue acting as the “ultimate repository of political legitimacy,” with civilian leaders remaining in power only as long as they are compliant with the military’s wishes.
Continued Political Instability: The current system has historically led to cycles of political crisis, with civilian governments unable to assert true authority. The popular opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), continues to protest against military interference, contributing to ongoing political tension.
Economic Challenges: The military’s extensive involvement in the economy, often at the expense of transparent governance, combined with a narrow tax base and reliance on external bailouts (like from the IMF), means the country will continue to face significant economic vulnerabilities.
Authoritarian Drift: The constitutional changes are viewed by many as a move from a “hybrid regime” to formalizing dictatorship, with the military shedding the pretense of democracy.
Although the Pakistani government, through its legislative discourse over the last three years, has hindered the protection of the rights of the people for the next few decades through the passing of the OSA and the 26th Amendment, there exists some hope for the future.
In the context of political science, a case study of the elections of 2024 can be seen as a prime example of the potential of such repressive actions. Thus it remains likely that the government will continue to use democratic means to solidify and concentrate political power.
Although efforts have been made by academic and legal bodies such as the All Pakistan Lawyers Action Committee to raise awareness regarding the subject matter, those efforts have gone unheard.
Attempts by the international community and lawmakers in the United States have also remained unsuccessful in improving the condition of democratic principles in Pakistan.
In the past, President Trump’s presidential envoy for special missions Richard Grenell has issued public statements for the release of Imran Khan, yet little progress has been made.
Finally, the core of the problem does not lie in the release of the ex-Prime Minister, it lies in the institutionalization of authoritarianism that has occurred over the last two years. Until internal strife and reform succeed in overpowering the civil-military oligarchy, an authoritarian slide is likely to continue in the future.
Will Pakistanis see sunshine sooner or later? It is hard to tell.
Read: Crises Unfold: Pakistan’s Darkest Hour
______________________
The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.
