Pakistan's military dictatorship and its Impact on democracy

PAKISTAN’S protracted struggle with democratic governance resembles less a narrative of political maturation and more a cautionary example of institutional domination.

- 

Though envisioned as a republican state by its founding leadership in 1947, Pakistan has consistently fallen short in establishing a truly democratic system. The primary actor behind this failure is widely recognised but seldom challenged: the Pakistan military. Over successive decades, it has embedded itself within the core of political authority, persistently undermining civilian leadership and weakening democratic institutions from within.

At present, Pakistan functions, at most, as a hybrid regime—a superficial civilian administration concealing a deeply embedded military establishment. Whenever public dissatisfaction with this setup intensifies, the military has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to rebrand itself as the essential guardian of national security. It habitually relies on familiar narratives—Indian hostility, internal subversion, or foreign plots—frequently amplified through compliant media and affiliated non-state actors, to legitimise its dominant position. This dynamic was evident when Army Chief General Asim Munir began employing political dog-whistles ahead of the April 22 Pahalgam attack targeting tourists in Jammu and Kashmir, anticipating a forceful Indian reaction that the military elite could exploit to consolidate public support.

This militarised approach to governance stands in stark contrast to the political ideals of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father, who envisaged an Islamic republic grounded in democratic principles, institutional probity, and socio-political equality. Significantly, in his address to the 5th and 6th Ack Ack Regiments of the Pakistan Army—formations previously part of the British Indian Army—on 21st February 1948, Jinnah urged the military to uphold the values of “Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice, and the equality of manhood” within the geographical bounds of the newly established state.