In the shifting landscape of South Asian politics, the instability of Pakistan cannot be understood without tracing the deeply rooted tensions that have shaped its national trajectory since its inception. The causes of political fragmentation, ideological confusion, and systemic breakdown are not accidental. They stem from a series of historical compromises, leadership crises, and institutional failures that have left the country vulnerable to recurrent waves of authoritarianism, economic malaise, and internal discord. The post-independence state was born with lofty ideals and emotional promises, yet these visions lacked practical coherence and institutional grounding. The founding moment was emotionally charged, but institutionally hollow.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
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.
The state machinery inherited from the British colonial system was never adequately reformed to align with the needs of a democratic federation. Instead, the bureaucracy and the military rapidly emerged as dominant actors, sidelining political representatives. Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination in 1951 robbed the nation of a key statesman capable of negotiating a fragile unity among provinces, ethnicities, and religious sects. What followed was a series of weak civilian governments that failed to deliver constitutional stability or a consensus-driven vision for the new state.
The country operated without a constitution for nine years, relying on the Government of India Act 1935 as an ad hoc framework, which exposed a deep-rooted crisis of political direction and institutional clarity. The 1956 Constitution, when finally passed, was short-lived, as Iskander Mirza and General Ayub Khan dismantled it within two years. This marked the beginning of the military’s overt role in politics, a role that would expand under every subsequent regime change, and effectively substitute constitutional order with extra-legal authority.
The federation’s fragility was further exposed by unequal treatment of East Pakistan. Despite having a larger population, the Bengalis were systematically denied proportional representation, economic parity, and linguistic recognition. The refusal to grant Bengali the status of a national language despite mass protests in 1952 was emblematic of the center’s disregard for federal equity. The seeds of secession were sown not in a moment, but over decades of political and economic marginalization.
The 1971 breakup of Pakistan, often attributed to India’s intervention or Bengali nationalism, must be seen in light of the internal contradictions of a centralized, authoritarian, and West-dominated state structure. Even after the traumatic loss of its eastern wing, the state refused to introspect meaningfully. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, despite initial promise, centralized power further, sidelined opposition, and laid the foundations for political intolerance that persists to this day.
General Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamization in the 1980s deepened ideological confusion by blending religion with the state apparatus without clarity or consensus. Zia’s Hudood Ordinances and blasphemy laws institutionalized a narrow interpretation of religion, leading to widespread fear, sectarianism, and human rights abuses. Political parties, meanwhile, devolved into patronage networks, with little ideological coherence or democratic internal culture.
The 1990s witnessed musical chairs between Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Muslim League, with each party accusing the other of corruption, and the establishment manipulating outcomes from behind the scenes. Rather than evolving into platforms of reform and accountability, these parties became instruments of elite bargaining. According to Transparency International, corruption perceptions and lack of judicial independence increased sharply during this period, eroding public trust in democracy. The military returned directly in 1999 under General Musharraf, who again promised reform, stability, and modernization. However, his tenure ended with further institutional erosion, judicial crises, and political manipulation.
In recent years, democratic transitions have occurred, but they remain fragile and largely cosmetic. Civilian governments often operate within limits set by non-elected institutions, especially the military and intelligence services. Parliament remains weak, judiciary inconsistent, and bureaucracy politicized. National policy is reactive rather than strategic, with little consensus on economic reform, education, or foreign policy. The media, while vibrant, often serves partisan interests, and sensationalism dominates serious policy discourse.
The rise of populist rhetoric, religious extremism, and social polarization has further complicated national unity. Educational institutions have failed to produce critical thinking or civic responsibility, and instead, often reproduce historical distortions and ideological confusion. Regional disparities continue, with Balochistan, Sindh, and former FATA areas demanding autonomy, resources, and justice. The centralized mindset of the state persists, undermining the spirit of federalism enshrined in the 18th Amendment. Yet even that amendment remains contested and poorly implemented.
CSS Solved Past Papers from 2010 to Date by Miss Iqra Ali
Explore CSS solved past papers (2010 to Date) by Miss Iqra Ali, featuring detailed answers, examiner-focused content, and updated solutions. Perfect for aspirants preparing for CSS with accuracy and confidence.
Pakistan’s instability is not the product of a single event, regime, or ideology. It is the outcome of a long process of institutional decay, elite capture, and ideological incoherence. Unless there is a serious effort to reconstruct political culture on the basis of constitutionalism, provincial autonomy, pluralism, and accountability, the state will remain locked in cycles of crisis.
The way forward must involve not just reformist slogans, but deep structural change. This includes empowering local governments, depoliticizing the judiciary and bureaucracy, investing in quality education, and ensuring that national identity is inclusive, historically grounded, and not based on reactive emotion or religious exclusivism. The road to stability is long, but not impossible. It requires leadership that is courageous, visionary, and accountable to the people rather than to institutions or ideologies that have failed the country repeatedly.
