Pakistan is at a pivotal point in its history, where internal political challenges are growing and the role of its institutions, particularly the military, is coming under increased scrutiny. In the past 12-18 hours, the political landscape has once again been shaped by court proceedings, street demonstrations, and surprising developments, including a notable press conference by the Foreign Secretary, accusing India of involvement in recent violent incidents within Pakistan. While these allegations are serious, the real focus should be on how internal dynamics—especially the military’s outsized influence—are shaping the country’s future.
One cannot discuss Pakistan’s internal affairs without acknowledging the significant role of its military. Historically, the military has been a central figure in governance, often stepping in during moments of political uncertainty. While this has at times provided stability, the current political climate suggests that this model is no longer sustainable. General Syed Asim Munir, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, stands at the helm of this intricate system. Under his leadership, there appears to be a belief that the political and security challenges Pakistan faces can be managed through the same methods that have been used for decades. However, this assumption is proving increasingly flawed.
For years, the term “establishment” has been used to describe Pakistan’s military and its broader influence on the state. In reality, what we often refer to as “the establishment” has become synonymous with the military leadership itself, rather than a collaborative or institutional decision-making body. Decisions that impact the entire nation are often shaped by a small circle within the military, which has created an environment where power is centralized, and civilian leadership is sidelined.
General Asim Munir’s approach reflects the continuation of this tradition. There appears to be a belief that the military’s role is not just to ensure national security but to actively shape the political narrative. This blurring of lines between military and civilian domains is problematic. The idea that military decisions dictate the political future of the country has become increasingly untenable, especially as the political opposition, particularly the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), faces severe restrictions in its operations.
Recent developments, such as the Election Commission’s decision to revoke PTI’s electoral symbol and the repeated disruptions of their political activities, illustrate a coordinated effort to stifle political opposition. These actions have raised concerns about the transparency of the electoral process and the impartiality of state institutions. While there may be legitimate reasons for such decisions, the timing and manner in which they have been implemented suggest that they serve a broader agenda—one that benefits those currently in power.
It is hard to ignore the role of the military in these actions. The imposition of Section 144 across Punjab, which prohibits political gatherings, is a heavy-handed tactic aimed at curtailing PTI’s ability to campaign ahead of the upcoming elections. Such measures, while legal, send a troubling message about the state of Pakistan’s democracy. Political opposition is a crucial element of any democratic system, and restricting it through legal instruments only reinforces the perception that the military and its allies are attempting to engineer the political landscape in their favour.
Moreover, the military’s focus on controlling the narrative extends beyond politics. Pakistan’s economic challenges have also been shaped by decisions made within military circles. Defence spending continues to take up a significant portion of the national budget, leaving little room for much-needed investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare. While national security is undoubtedly important, there is growing recognition that the country’s economic security is equally critical. A rebalancing of priorities is necessary if Pakistan is to emerge from its current cycle of economic dependency.
The press conference by Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, which highlighted India’s alleged role in recent internal violence, is a reminder of the external threats that Pakistan faces. However, the timing of this press conference raises questions. While the facts presented are credible, one cannot help but wonder if this is part of a broader effort to divert attention from the internal pressures the military and government are facing. Deflecting the public’s focus on external threats has long been a strategy employed by governments to manage internal dissent, and it seems this tactic is being used once again.
General Asim Munir’s leadership is being tested in ways that go beyond the military domain. The decisions being made under his watch are shaping the future of Pakistan’s political landscape, but they are also placing immense pressure on the military itself. The more the military becomes embroiled in political manoeuvring, the harder it will be for it to extract itself from these crises. This is a dangerous precedent that risks further entrenching the military in the very political problems it seeks to manage.
The current approach, which appears to involve micromanaging political processes and maintaining control over civilian institutions, is unsustainable in the long run. Pakistan’s military has traditionally prided itself on stepping in to stabilize the country and then stepping back to allow civilian governance to resume. However, the current scenario suggests a departure from this norm. The military’s deep involvement in politics over the last 22 months, and the accompanying political and economic instability, indicate that this model is failing.
What Pakistan needs now is a rethinking of the military’s role in governance. The military must remain focused on national security and step back from political interference. Civilian institutions must be empowered to function independently, without the shadow of military influence. The country’s democratic institutions—its judiciary, election commission, and parliament—must be allowed to operate without fear of external manipulation.
Furthermore, Pakistan’s economic woes require a shift in priorities. The military’s significant share of the national budget must be reevaluated in light of the pressing needs for economic reform, investment in public services, and long-term development. The continued focus on defence spending at the expense of economic growth will only perpetuate the cycle of dependency on foreign aid and loans.
In conclusion, while the military remains an essential institution for Pakistan’s security, its role in shaping the country’s political and economic future must be carefully reconsidered. The path forward lies in empowering civilian leadership, restoring the independence of democratic institutions, and ensuring that the military serves as a protector of the nation, rather than a driver of its political agenda. Only through such reforms can Pakistan hope to stabilize its political landscape and achieve sustainable economic growth.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
