While the state of turmoil in Pakistan's politics is not that unusual in the country's democratic history, recent government-military relations appear to be increasingly problematic: Populist Prime Minister Imran Khan, who came to power in the 2018 general elections promising reforms, is set to vacate his position in April 2022 with a vote of no confidence. resulted in his vacating the prime minister's seat. This event is officially described as a constitutional process. However, military interference and the U.S. government'sparticipationThe accusations have sparked a national and international debate.

Since Khan's abrupt departure from power, Pakistan has been under intense scrutiny and criticism at home and abroad for the state of its political system and its adherence to democratic norms and principles. The political climate continues to change, but serious questions remain. How have political developments unfolded since Khan's ouster? What do these developments mean for Pakistan's political future? More to the point, to fully understand Pakistan's political system, one must acknowledge the influence that the military has played.

Pakistan's military has historically played an important role in shaping the country's political landscape. Although it is often viewed as a politically functional institution, itsmovementis not very prominent; Khan, who was elected prime minister in 2018, is no exception. In general, the backing of the military has been an important part of his successprimary factorIt is believed that it was. The future of democratic politics in Pakistan is in question due to the presence of this long-term influence. A review of civil-military relations is therefore necessary to determine the extent of military involvement in politics. This article explores the shifting alliances and ongoing struggles between Pakistan's democratic institutions, its powerful military apparatus, and the shifting alliances that continue to define the nation's fragile political trajectory.

Prime Minister's Office, Islamabad, Pakistan (Photo:Usman.pg / Wikimedia Commons[.CC BY-SA 3.0])

Overview of civil-military relations (1947-2024)

Since independence in 1947, Pakistan has experienced turbulent times between the civilian government and the military. Military involvement often plays a dominant role. The military has influenced the political direction of the country through coups, direct rule, and underwater interference. The military has directly seized control of the government on four occasions, with four military leaders serving as the country's head for a total of 33 years, during which time three civilian governmentstransportationThe first time, the company was in a position to do so.

The first decade after Pakistan's independence was marked by political instability, weak civilian governments, and frequent leadership changes; the murder of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 and the dissolution of several governments weakened democratic institutions. During this period, the military led by General Ayub Khan gradually gained influence, and in 1958 the government of Feroz KhandissolutionAfter the coup, he led Pakistan's first military coup.

General Ayub Khan instituted martial law and became Pakistan's first military government. He introduced centralized rule and economic reforms, but opposition grew. Amid massive protests, Ayub Khan handed over power to General Yahya Khan in 1969. Elections were held in 1970, and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman's party in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), theAwami League (Japanese political party)won the largest number of seats. West Bangladeshi resistance to this outcome led to a conflict between West and East Pakistan, which resulted in Bangladesh's independence in 1971. The military's failure in this conflict led to a mutiny of military officers that same year, and Yahya Khan was ousted from power. Civilian government under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.revival (e.g. musical)The first time, the company was in a position to do so.

The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sought to strengthen civilian rule, but friction with the military remained intense; after allegations of election rigging were raised in 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq led a third coup, re-establishing military rule. General Zia Ul-Haq led a third coup that re-established the military regime. General Zia imposed martial law, abrogated the constitution, and ruled autocratically. in the 1980s, the Zia regime took a major turn by introducing Islamic law and further consolidating military influence in the country through Pakistan's active participation in the Soviet-Afghan war. in 1988, the mysterious plane crash Zia's sudden death from a mysterious plane crash in 1988 re-established civilian rule in the country.Prompted by.The following is a list of the most common problems with the

Between 1988 and 1999, Pakistan experienced political upheaval as governments switched between the PPP, led by Benazir Bhutto (daughter of the late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto), and Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Both leaders faced great difficulties in completing their terms of office, including military intervention, corruption allegations, and political instability. Frequent clashes between the government and the military undermined democratic institutions, and it was clear that the military had the upper hand. Finally, in 1999, General Pervez Musharraf accused Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of misrule and staged the country's fourth coup, and Pakistan was once againunder military ruleThe company was placed in the

From 1999 to 2008, General Musharraf ruled Pakistan as a military dictator, working closely with the United States during the invasion of Afghanistan and its aftermath following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. General Musharraf brought economic growth and infrastructure development, but also increased political repression and restrictions on civil liberties; by 2007, mounting opposition and judicial activism, particularly from the lawyers' movement, pressured Musharraf to resign as army commander-in-chief. Amidst mounting challenges, Musharraf eventually resigned in 2008,return to democracyThe road to the

From 2008 to 2018, Pakistan had civilian rule, but the influence of the military remained strong; between 2008 and 2013, the PPP government led by Asif Ali Zardari (husband of the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto) was able to serve a full term as president, but national security and foreign policy decisions were made by the militarysupervisedIn 2013, Nawaz Sharif was returned as prime minister, but relations with the military gradually deteriorated. Tensions peaked when the Supreme Court disqualified him following the Panama Papers scandal in 2017. The move was widely perceived to have been backed by the military. Longstanding attempts by civilian leaders to assert their authority in a system where the military continues to play a decisive rolecompositionwas highlighted.

Coups have been orchestrated numerous times in Pakistan's history, four of which were successful. Not only that, but the military has consistently influenced governance under civilian rule by infiltrating the civilian bureaucracy and key social organizations. On the civilian side, Pakistan has had 22 so-called democratically elected prime ministers, including the last, Imran Khan, but none has served a full five-year term. Notables such as Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, each of whom had held the prime minister's post several times, failed to complete their terms. Some prime ministers were able to serve for four years and others for at least three years, while seven interim prime ministers were also appointed. Another five prime ministers served under military presidents.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (2014) (Photo:MEAphotogallery / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0])

Issues related to military leadership appointments

Under Pakistan's constitution, the prime minister has the authority to appoint key military leaders, including the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and the Director General (DG) of the National Intelligence Service (ISI). However, these appointments are often contentious because the military has significant political influence and pressure from other political interests often shapes the decision-making process. Historically, the military has dominated the country's political landscape, often in the shadow of civilian governments. Therefore, the selection of COAS and DG-ISI personnel is seen as a pivotal decision that affects the balance of power between the military and civilian leadership.

Prime Ministers are often under pressure to appoint military leaders acceptable to both the military establishment and political interests, leading to political tension, maneuvering, and instability. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (1947-1951) struggled with civil-military relations and appointed General Ayub Khan as Pakistan's first Supreme Commander after independence. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1973-1977) appointed General Zia-ul-Haq to COAS in place of another senior officer, but this decision backfired when Zia overthrew him in a 1977 coup. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1988-1990, 1993-1996) was the military in both terms, including clashes over the dismissal of DG ISI.interferencefaced.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (1990-1993, 1997-1999, 2013-2017) clashed with COAS General Waheed Kakar in 1993 and appointed General Musharraf in 1998, who later ousted Sharif in a 1999 coup. Clashes also occurred in 2016 over the appointment of COAS. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (2008-2012) had a dispute with COAS and the ISI general commanders over the 2011 "Memogate" scandal.collisionThe first time the Prime Minister of the United States was arrested in the United States was in 1979. The scandal began when the prime minister asked the U.S. for help in preventing a military takeover of his government following the U.S. military raid in which Osama Bin Laden was killed. Prime Minister Imran Khan (2018-2022) was ousted from power in 2021 after a dispute over the appointment of the ISI Commander-in-Chief led to an open controversy and the COAS opposed his selection, resulting in his ouster in 2022.

These repeated tensions have created a fragile balance of power between the civilian leadership and the military in Pakistan.reliefto the "I" in the "I" column.

Parvez Musharraf (2005), who led a military coup in 1999 (photo:US Navy / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

Many prime ministers have been echoed by politically motivated decisions, rather than decisions based on merit, or controversial military appointments. Delays or sudden changes in decisions, as seen with Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif, have led to allegations of favoritism or military interference, and these decisionscontentious natureclarified. The appointment of military leaders is closely scrutinized by the public and the media, often leading to debates over the independence of the prime minister and the influence of the military. Such controversies strain civil-military relations, fuel doubts about transparency, undermine political stability, and further destabilize the fragile balance of power between civilian and military institutions.

The transparent selection process is speculative. On the other hand, the historical political role of the military underscores its relevance, as one wrong move could destabilize the government. Such appointments are increasingly politicized, along with demands for greater transparency and accountability. The military insists on a meritocracy and interferes withdenialIn reality, however, personnel decisions reflect a power struggle between the civilian and military forces, and the political wrangling continues. Despite the prime minister's constitutional authority, the entrenched influence of the military complicates the process and only adds to tensions and public skepticism.

Economic Importance of the Pakistani Armed Forces

Pakistan's economy continues to be in crisis, with billions of U.S. dollars being traded with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ostensibly to stabilize the economy. The crisis is the result of decades of corruption by a greedy elite backed by the military.applyThe military has been a major player in the global economy since the 1960s. The military, on the other hand, holds billions of U.S. dollars worth of enterprises across a variety of sectors. The military's economic dominance began shortly after independence, with the Karakoram Highway and Frontier Works Organization (FWO)EstablishmentExamples include.

Today, military-run conglomerates such as the Fawzi Foundation and Army Welfare Trust are dominant in key sectors such as real estate, manufacturing, housingexistencein the United States. These entities are exempt from paying taxes and are in a much better position than private companies. For example, the Defense Housing Administration (DHA), initially established to provide housing for military personnel, has evolved into a multi-billion dollar real estate giant. In addition to these organizations, the military also owns banks, transportation companies, cement, fertilizer, and grain mills, and a vastEnterprise NetworkThe company operates a

Residential area under the control of DHA, Karachi (Photo:King Eliot / Wikimedia Commons[.CC BY-SA 4.0])

In addition to commercial operations, the military operates schools, hospitals, industrial operations, andTotal Investment Amountis estimated at US$20 billion. Military-owned enterprises control 7% of Pakistan's gross domestic product (GDP), one-third of manufacturing, and 7% of private sector assets. The military also owns state-owned land in13%.The largest landowner and residential developer in the country, owningtopStanding on the

Benefits for Retired Military Executives

After leaving the military, retired senior military personnel are often referred to as "womb-to-grave" care, an extensivewelfare programmeThe company has received The Fauzi Foundation provides resettlement and reemployment opportunities for millions of veterans.paymentinclude free health care, pensions, educational assistance, and low-cost residential and commercial property. Senior officers enjoy additional benefits, such as access to government-salaried personnel and conveniences at military posts. Although these benefits are not influenced by ethnic or religious background, military personnel75%.are from Punjab and are extremely concentrated.

The benefits are also seen in post-service employment. Retired military executives are often appointed to high-profile civilian positions because of their influence over governance and administration. While post-retirement employment of military executives is legal, concerns arise about conflicts of interest when they use their influence to benefit their employers, especially in housing construction and related projects. In addition, retired military executives often play important roles in universities, think tanks, and government, and the military's role as the "savior of the nation"impressionThe government has been strengthening its Despite their retirement, many senior officers continue to exert significant influence in politics, blurring the boundaries between civilian and military affairs and indicating that military influence in Pakistan's political and economic affairs has become the norm.

They also oversee provincial administration as provincial governors of Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, and other provinces. Retired officials also often serve as ambassadors to countries of strategic importance, such as the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, they are appointed to lead state-owned enterprises, including Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), and other key agencies. Some retired executives are also appointed as National Security Advisors (NSAs) and federal ministers, especially in defense-related ministries, where their expertise isusefulThe "I" in "I" is the "I" in "I".

Parvez Musharraf's official car (2006) (Photo:D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

The appointment of veterans to civilian roles in Pakistan has highlighted their influence in the political, economic, and educational spheres and has sparked debate about the military's overreaching intervention in the civilian realm. Critics argue that this undermines democratic institutions, weakens civilian dominance, and blurs the relationship between the civilian and militaryclaimThe "retired officers" are not the only ones who can bring discipline, experience, and efficiency to the job of leadership. However, some proponents argue that retired officers can bring discipline, experience, and efficiency to leadership.

Although there are no legal regulations that explicitly prohibit such personnel decisions, concerns about transparency and civilian control persist. In recent years, there has been a backlash, and compared to past decades, such appointments are onlydecreaseThe military has been a major factor in the development of Pakistan's civil-military relations. Nonetheless, this practice remains an important aspect of Pakistan's civil-military relations, reflecting the enduring influence of the military over the executive and shaping the political and administrative structure of the country.

Imran Khan's rise to prominence

Imran Khan, a nontraditional politician from a cricket legend, founded the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 and began his political career advocating justice, accountability, and the eradication of corruption. However, the PTI failed to win a single seat in the 1997 general elections; in the 2002 elections it won one seat in Mianwali, but the party remained politically weak and boycotted the 2008 elections in protest against the Musharraf regime. the PTI gained momentum with a mass rally in 2011, and his anti In the 2013 elections, the PTI emerged as the second largest party in terms of votes, although it fell short at the national level, and established a provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

After the 2013 election, Khan led an ongoing protest campaign against allegations of electoral fraud and led a 126-day sit-in in Islamabad in 2014. While the campaign did not yield immediate electoral results, it did establish the PTI as the main opposition party in Pakistan. Growing public support and opposition to the ruling PML-N provided a tailwind for the PTI, and after winning the 2018 elections, Khan became Pakistan's prime minister. Many analysts attribute his victory to the important role of the military's support for thefulfillmentHe thinks that

Imran Khan and supporters of the PTI party (2016 political rally) (Photo:King Eliot / Wikimedia Commons[.CC BY-SA 4.0])

Initially, the Khan administration gained support through its anti-corruption stance and its commitment to economic reforms to build a "new Pakistan." However, his administration was plagued by challenges such as economic stagnation and inflation, especially criticism of his mismanagement of Pakistan's fiscal situation.

Imran Khan's downfall

The Khan administration faced serious governance contradictions due to its lack of experience and planning. For example, the response to the economy was very damaging to the Khan administration during the COVID-19 pandemic.economic slumpBecause of this, Khan replaced four finance ministers six times, but none of them was able to revive the economy. Khan also suffered a significant loss of support when he selected the allegedly incompetent Usman Buzdar as chief minister of Punjab, a densely populated and important province. Buzdar's performance had a negative impact on the entire provincial administration and caused the Khan administration to suffer a majordamagegave the

Tension is particularlyremarkablebecame a major policy decision regarding foreign relations, especially relations with the United States and Afghanistan, and when he refused to approve candidates for key positions that the military was pushing for. As time went on, the rift between Mr. Khan and the military grew deeper, especially with regard to military and U.S. security issues.interview (i.e. television, newspaper, etc.)When asked, "Would the U.S. government allow the CIA to be stationed in Pakistan to conduct cross-border counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban?" Mr. Khan denied the idea and replied, "Absolutely not. Khan's firm stance was seen as a direct challenge to the military establishment. This stance became a defining moment in Khan's tenure and underscored a rift with the military establishment.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (left) and Prime Minister Imran Khan (center) (as of 2018) (Photo:US Department of State / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

And in March 2022, Mr. Khan said he had evidence that a foreign country was trying to pull him out of power.claimThe evidence is a diplomatic cable that allegedly shows pressure on the government by the U.S. This evidence is a diplomatic cable purportedly showing U.S. pressure on the government (cypher(see Figure 1). Later, a U.S. government official who was named in the dossier called the claim "false" anddenialThe government did so. A month after this political storm blew in, Khan was ousted from power in a vote of no confidence in April 2022.

After stepping down, Khan's political momentum was severely diminished when he was arrested on corruption charges. This triggered nationwide protests in Pakistan and clashes between his supporters and law enforcement agencies; in August 2023, he was convicted of illegally selling state gifts and sentenced to three years in prison and five years in public office. He was also indicted on suspicion of improperly handling classified diplomatic telegrams. In a separate case involving allegations of corruption, he was also sentenced in January 2025 to 14 years ofjail sentenceHe received a In addition, Mr. Khan has been charged with terrorism, incitement, contempt of court, and numerous other crimes related to his political activities and protests.

Despite being imprisoned and barred from holding public office, Khan remains an influential figure in Pakistan's political landscape. His populist appeal and anti-establishment rhetoric have inflamed public sentiment, especially among the youth, and reinforced the importance of political participation and accountability; general elections, postponed for two years, were finally held in March 2024. Although Khan's party was officially banned from using the party name "PTI" and its iconic electoral symbol, the "cricket bat," candidates supported by Khan won the largest number of seats and Khan's persistentinfluenceThe result was symbolic of the However, Khan's indictment sparked widespread protests among his supporters, which were severely suppressed by the authorities. Thousands were arrested and many were injured in clashes with police, further exposing the ongoing political turmoil and polarization in the country.

Women voting in the 2018 general election (Photo:Commonwealth Secretariat / Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])

The Future of Democracy in Pakistan

From direct coups to behind-the-scenes maneuvering, Pakistan's military remains a key player in politics. While civilian regimes seek to assert control, the military continues to exert influence over national security, foreign policy, and governance, making the establishment of true democracy a perennial challenge. The military has typically played a powerful role behind the scenes. It is unfortunate that Pakistan's political instability has been left unchecked, in part because of the military's continued involvement in governance. However, civilian governments have also often been mired in corruption and mismanagement and have failed to produce effective results. This dual failure of military interference and civilian incompetence has created a cycle of dysfunction that has undermined the country's democratic progress and governance.

The ouster of Imran Khan has reignited the debate about democracy in Pakistan. Critics argue that the influence of the military, as seen in the no-confidence motion and political maneuvering against Mr. Khan, is responsible for the weakening and instability of democratic institutions. Mr. Khan has rejected what he sees as a deal from the military that requires him to support the status quo in exchange for being freed from political incidents, and his defiant stancemaintenanceHe has been. Whether his dismissal was the result of military interference or democratic corrective action remains a matter of opinion. What is clear, however, is that this episode raises serious questions about the future of democracy in a country where Pakistani politics has become increasingly polarized and the military still plays a central role.

As Pakistan moves forward in this turbulent political climate, questions about its democratic future remain central. Can it break the cycle of political instability or will the next elections restore order and accountability? The current government is structured in a historical irony, with two major political rivals, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (brother of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif) and PPP President Asif Ali Zardari, forming a coalition along with four other parties. This highlights the country's fragile political structure and persistent under-the-table interference by the military. But hope for genuine democratic reform also remains alive. The people's desire for change and the equitable distribution of power will determine the course of Pakistan's democratization in the coming years.

Writer: Sajjad Ahmed

Translation: Kyoka Wada

Graphic:Mayuko Hanafusa

Follow @GNV_tweets