Pakistan's governance has long been shaped by a persistent and deeply entrenched imbalance between its civilian authorities and the powerful military establishment. This complex and often fraught dynamic is not merely a political curiosity but the central challenge affecting political stability, democratic consolidation, and effective policy formulation across the country. The recurring tension between elected governments and the military leadership has cultivated a unique governance environment, often described as a "hybrid regime," where civilian supremacy remains an elusive ideal. This structural condition raises critical and enduring questions about Pakistan's democratic trajectory, its institutional health, and its ability to function as a fully sovereign civilian-led state.
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
Pakistan's history since its independence in 1947 has been punctuated by alternating periods of fragile civilian rule and direct or indirect military intervention. The military's formidable institutional strength, consistently bolstered by strategic imperatives, geopolitical alignments, and a carefully crafted narrative of guardianship, has frequently overshadowed the role of civilian governments. This imbalance is rooted not only in historical precedents but also in Pakistan's complex geopolitical realities, its chronic internal security challenges, and the institutional frameworks that afford the military disproportionate influence over critical domains, including foreign policy, national security, and key internal governance matters.
The military's pervasive role extends far beyond its constitutional mandate of national defense. It has evolved into a sprawling conglomerate with vast interests in economic enterprises, a significant capacity for media influence, and de facto administrative control in various sectors, creating an intricate and often opaque civil-military nexus. Despite clear constitutional provisions, such as Article 245, which subordinates the armed forces to federal government control, the reality on the ground reflects a blurred boundary where the military often acts as a parallel and more potent power centre. This fundamental imbalance profoundly impacts governance effectiveness, democratic accountability, and Pakistan's socio-political evolution, making it the most critical and defining area for any analysis of the nation's political landscape.
Key Dimensions of Pakistan's Civil-Military Imbalance
1. Historical Legacy and Institutional Entrenchment
The roots of Pakistan's civil-military imbalance lie in a legacy of early and repeated military interventions that established a powerful precedent for future power dynamics. The country's first military coup in 1958, led by General Ayub Khan, dismantled the nascent democratic structure and set the stage for the military's role as the ultimate arbiter in national affairs. This intervention, and subsequent ones, were often legally justified by a pliable judiciary through the controversial "Doctrine of Necessity," which provided a veneer of constitutional legitimacy for patently unconstitutional acts.
This historical entrenchment was further solidified during the long and transformative dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988). His rule not only suspended democracy but also fundamentally altered the state's ideological fabric through a sweeping process of Islamization. The legacy of this era includes the introduction of contentious laws and the military's deep involvement in the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad, which empowered its intelligence agencies, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and solidified its control over foreign and security policy related to the western border. The fourth direct military takeover by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999 further institutionalized the military's role in governance. Musharraf introduced structural changes, such as the creation of the National Security Council (NSC). This institutional forum formalized the military's seat at the policy-making table alongside elected leaders, often ensuring its perspective prevailed. These repeated interventions have created a deep-seated institutional culture where the military perceives itself as the ultimate guardian of national stability and sovereignty, reinforcing its autonomous decision-making and perpetuating a cycle of tension and mistrust with civilian counterparts.
2. Pervasive Influence over Foreign and Security Policy
Pakistan's foreign relations and national security policies are predominantly shaped and often dictated by the military establishment, specifically the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. This is most evident in critical foreign policy arenas. For instance, policy towards India has historically been driven by the military's security-centric paradigm. The 1999 Kargil War serves as a stark example; the military operation was launched by the army leadership, catching the civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by surprise and ultimately sabotaging a promising peace initiative, the Lahore Declaration, signed just months earlier.
Similarly, Pakistan's policy towards Afghanistan has been heavily influenced by the military's long-standing doctrine of seeking "strategic depth." This has often meant maintaining relationships with various factions within Afghanistan to counter Indian influence. This policy has not always aligned with the stated goals of civilian governments seeking regional peace and trade. The military's overarching control is also visible in its relationship with the United States, particularly concerning counter-terrorism operations. Incidents like the 2011 Raymond Davis affair, where a CIA contractor was handled directly by the ISI, and the subsequent US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad exposed the civilian government's lack of control and information on sensitive security operations occurring on its soil, leaving it to manage the diplomatic fallout. This structural dominance over intelligence agencies and the defence apparatus effectively sidelines civilian oversight and hampers the development of a coherent, unified national policy aligned with broader, non-military national interests.
3. The Military's Expansive Economic and Social Reach
Beyond the realms of security and geopolitics, the military's extensive and ever-growing involvement in Pakistan's economy and social sectors is a key pillar of its influence. Through a vast network of military-owned businesses, often referred to as "Milbus" (Military Business), the armed forces control significant segments of the national economy. Conglomerates such as the Fauji Foundation, Army Welfare Trust (AWT), and the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) are major players in sectors ranging from banking, insurance, and real estate to cement, fertilizer, and transportation.
This extensive economic empire, as detailed in academic works such as Ayesha Siddiqa's "Military Inc.," provides the military with a substantial degree of autonomy from civilian fiscal oversight and entrenches its role as a powerful stakeholder in national governance. Furthermore, the practice of awarding senior military officers with valuable agricultural or residential land upon retirement creates a loyal and economically powerful elite. The military's social reach is amplified through its sophisticated media management wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), which has evolved into a powerful tool for shaping public opinion and political narratives. The "Dawn Leaks" incident in 2016, where a leading newspaper faced immense pressure for publishing a story about a high-level civil-military meeting, demonstrated the establishment's power to control the narrative and pressure civilian governments into compliance. This deep penetration into the economic and social fabric blurs the lines between military and civilian domains, fundamentally undermining democratic checks and balances.
4. Weakness of Civilian Institutions and Political Fragmentation
The persistent civil-military imbalance is not solely a product of military strength but is also enabled by the chronic weaknesses of Pakistan's civilian institutions. Political parties are often fragmented, dynastic, and plagued by internal divisions and corruption, which limits their capacity to assert authority or implement reforms that could challenge military dominance. The country's history is replete with examples of political instability—frequent votes of no confidence, party switching, and weak coalitions—providing a convenient pretext for military intervention or "arbitration."
Moreover, civilian leaders have often sought the military's support to gain or maintain power, creating a symbiotic but profoundly imbalanced relationship. The military establishment has been accused of political engineering, including making "king's parties" like the PML-Q during the Musharraf era to sideline mainstream political forces. More recently, the narrative of the civilian government and military being on the "same page" during the early years of Imran Khan's premiership was widely seen as indicative of a military-backed political project. This reliance on non-democratic support structures hampers the development of robust, independent democratic governance and erodes public trust in civilian political processes, perpetuating a cycle of dependency.
Implications for Democratic Development and Governance
The profound civil-military imbalance poses the most significant challenge to Pakistan's democratic consolidation. The military's overriding influence undermines the principle of civilian supremacy, restricts genuine political competition, and severely limits institutional accountability. This environment weakens democratic norms, delays essential governance reforms, and constrains meaningful citizen participation in decision-making. Furthermore, the opacity of the defence budget, which constitutes a substantial portion of national expenditure, and the military's autonomy in its corporate activities prevent effective civilian oversight and divert resources from critical human development sectors, such as education and healthcare. Until this structural imbalance is addressed, Pakistan's journey towards a stable, sustainable, and prosperous democracy will remain fraught with obstacles.
Join 3-Day Free Orientation for CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis Course
Learn to Qualify for CSS 2026/27 & PMS with Sir Syed Kazim Ali’s free 3-day online orientation. Learn essay & precis writing. Limited seats available; register via WhatsApp by June 29!
The civil-military imbalance in Pakistan is a complex, self-perpetuating challenge rooted in historical precedent, institutional design flaws, and pressing strategic imperatives. While the military leadership consistently justifies its expansive role as essential for guaranteeing national security in a hostile neighbourhood, its resulting dominance disrupts democratic accountability, stunts institutional growth, and distorts civilian governance. Any effort to recalibrate this balance must confront not only the military's entrenched power but also the deep-seated weaknesses and fragmentation within the political class. Enhancing civilian institutional capacity, fostering a culture of constitutionalism, and achieving a broad-based political consensus on the "rules of the game" are critical but monumentally complex tasks that require sustained political will and societal support.
In summary, Pakistan's core governance dilemma remains centred on the enduring civil-military imbalance that systematically undermines civilian authority and hinders democratic development. Forging a path toward a more stable and resilient democracy demands a concerted and courageous effort to strengthen democratic institutions, ensure unequivocal civilian supremacy over security and foreign policy, and promote transparency and accountability in all military affairs. A constructive and institutionalized dialogue between civilian and military leadership, grounded firmly in constitutionalism and mutual respect for delineated roles, is essential to advance effective governance, national stability, and democratic resilience. Without a fundamental and decisive resolution to this foundational imbalance, Pakistan's democratic prospects will continue to hang in a precarious balance, perpetually vulnerable to the tides of political instability and institutional friction.
