Pakistan’s troubled history with democratic governance is less a story of political evolution and more a cautionary tale of enduring military dominance. Although founded in 1947 with republican aspirations, the country has consistently failed to establish a stable democratic order. The chief obstacle to this goal—widely acknowledged yet rarely held to account—is Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, which has entrenched itself at the heart of political authority while steadily undermining civilian rule.
Today, Pakistan functions as a hybrid regime at best, where a nominal civilian government exists under the shadow of a deeply entrenched military power structure. When public dissatisfaction with this imbalance grows, the military routinely reasserts itself as the nation’s ultimate guardian. It does so by invoking familiar narratives—external threats from India, internal instability, or imagined foreign conspiracies—often amplified by loyal media outlets and affiliated non-state actors. This pattern was evident when Army Chief General Asim Munir began signaling nationalist rhetoric ahead of the April 22 Pahalgam attack, seemingly anticipating a confrontation that could once again consolidate the military’s grip on power.
This militarized dominance stands in stark contrast to the democratic vision laid out by Pakistan’s founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In his 1948 address to the 5th and 6th Ack Ack Regiments—military units inherited from the British Indian Army—Jinnah emphasized the importance of “Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice, and the equality of manhood.” Yet, the very institution he urged to uphold these values soon veered off course. While Jinnah’s historic speech to the Constituent Assembly remains a celebrated articulation of Pakistan’s ideological foundation, it was ultimately sidelined as the military expanded its political role.
This deviation became institutionalized by 1958, when President Iskandar Mirza and General Ayub Khan conspired to abrogate the 1956 Constitution, dismantling Pakistan’s first attempt at democratic governance. Ironically, Mirza was quickly ousted by the very military apparatus he had empowered, initiating a long era of direct military rule. This rupture cemented the military’s political supremacy and set the stage for recurring instability, culminating in the 1971 secession of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.
The military’s reach has since extended beyond politics into Pakistan’s economy and society. Under General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime in the 1980s, military authority was consolidated further through aggressive Islamization policies that reshaped the nation’s ideological fabric. By 2020, Pakistan’s military had evolved into an economic behemoth, controlling a business empire valued at over $20 billion. Through enterprises such as Askari Cement, Askari Bank, and Fauji Meat—managed under foundations like the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust—the armed forces dominate sectors ranging from banking and agriculture to retail and real estate.
This sprawling economic footprint has elevated the preservation of military power from a matter of national security to one of institutional self-interest. Protecting this economic and ideological empire has become central to the military’s mission—often at the cost of democratic development and civilian autonomy. As a result, elected governments operate within tightly constrained parameters, allowed authority only so long as they do not threaten the military’s supremacy.
Any civilian leader who defies these boundaries risks removal. The 1979 execution of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, following his ouster in a 1977 military coup, marked a grim precedent. Bhutto’s growing popularity and efforts to assert civilian authority were seen as intolerable threats. That same authoritarian logic appears to underpin the current political crackdown on former Prime Minister Imran Khan, whose incarceration is widely interpreted as punishment for challenging the military’s dominance.
These recurring cycles of suppression reveal the military’s institutional aversion to genuine political pluralism. Pakistan’s civilian leadership has never been allowed to consolidate democratic authority independently, as the system is deliberately structured to ensure military preeminence. This is not merely an accidental imbalance—it is a calculated form of authoritarianism, masked by periodic elections and democratic rituals.
Breaking this cycle requires far more than momentary outrage or symbolic resistance. It demands a sustained, unified, and credible political movement—one capable of challenging both the ideological legitimacy and material interests underpinning military rule. Without such a movement, Pakistan will remain trapped in a model of managed democracy: a state where elected governments serve not the people, but the guardians of an entrenched military order. Until that changes, Pakistan’s democracy will remain a façade—functional in appearance, but hollow at its core. (Source: IANS)
