Democracy Hijacked: Pakistan’s Civilian Puppets And The Military’s Iron Grip – Analysis
Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has oscillated between fragile civilian governments and outright military rule, a pattern that has entrenched the military as the true arbiter of power. The illusion of democracy in Pakistan has often been little more than a façade, with civilian leaders serving as puppets to the whims of Rawalpindi’s General Headquarters (GHQ), the nerve center of the Pakistan Army.
This article examines how every civilian government in Pakistan’s history has been subservient to the military’s iron grip, how recent elections have been manipulated to maintain this dominance, and how the nation remains a military dictatorship cloaked in democratic garb. Through a nuanced strategy of election rigging, lawfare, and strategic ousters, the military ensures its supremacy, as exemplified by the political trajectories of Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif.
A Legacy of Coups and Puppet Regimes
Pakistan’s political history is a testament to the military’s unyielding influence. The country has endured direct military rule for over three decades of its 77-year existence, with coups in 1958, 1977, and 1999 installing generals Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf, respectively, as heads of state. Between these periods of overt dictatorship, civilian governments have operated under the military’s shadow, their authority curtailed by the generals in Rawalpindi. The first significant military intervention came in 1958 when General Ayub Khan ousted President Iskander Mirza, abrogating the constitution and setting a precedent for military dominance. This pattern repeated in 1977 when General Zia-ul-Haq deposed Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and again in 1999 when General Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif’s government.
Even during periods of civilian rule, the military has maintained a firm grip on critical domains like foreign policy, security, and defense budgets. No prime minister has ever completed a full five-year term, a stark contrast to the military dictators who often ruled for nearly a decade or more.
A Nuanced Strategy: Rigging Elections, Ousting Dissenters
In recent decades, the Pakistan Army has refined its approach, moving away from direct coups to a subtler yet equally effective method of control: manipulating elections to install favoured civilian leaders while retaining the power to oust them when they diverge from military interests. This strategy preserves the democratic façade while ensuring the military’s dominance behind the scenes.
Imran Khan’s political journey exemplifies this dynamic. In the 2018 general election, Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) emerged victorious amid widespread allegations of military-backed rigging. Reports from the time highlighted pre-poll manipulation, including media censorship, abductions of journalists, and coerced defections of politicians from rival parties like the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) to PTI. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan labeled the 2018 polls as among the “dirtiest and most micromanaged” in the country’s history. Khan, a former cricketer turned populist politician, was seen as the military’s chosen candidate, a perception reinforced by his initial harmony with then-Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa.
However, this alignment unravelled by 2022 when Khan resisted the military’s choice for a new Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief, straining his relationship with Bajwa. The military swiftly withdrew its support, orchestrating Khan’s ouster through a no-confidence vote in April 2022. His removal underscored the military’s intolerance for civilian leaders who challenge its authority, even those it once propped up.
Nawaz Sharif’s career offers another case study. A three-time prime minister, Sharif has oscillated between being the military’s ally and its adversary. In 2013, he returned to power with military acquiescence, but by 2017, his efforts to assert civilian control—such as questioning military spending—put him at odds with the GHQ. The military retaliated by leveraging the judiciary, disqualifying Sharif from office in 2017 over corruption charges tied to the Panama Papers. Banned from politics for life and imprisoned, Sharif was sidelined ahead of the 2018 election, clearing the path for Khan. Yet, in a twist of irony, Sharif returned from exile in 2023 with apparent military backing, positioning him as a contender for the 2024 elections after his convictions were overturned—a clear sign of the military’s strategic recalibration.
The 2024 Elections: A Masterclass In Manipulation
The February 8, 2024, general election further exposed the military’s chokehold on Pakistan’s democracy. Despite PTI’s enduring popularity, the military unleashed a relentless crackdown on Khan and his party. Khan was jailed on multiple charges, including a 10-year sentence for violating the Official Secrets Act. At the same time, PTI was stripped of its election symbol—a critical blow in a country where symbols guide a largely illiterate electorate. Thousands of PTI workers were arrested, and its candidates forced to run as independents. Internet and cell phone services were shut down on election day, and delays in result announcements fueled allegations of vote tampering.
Despite these obstacles, PTI-backed independents won 93 seats to PML-N’s 82 and PPP’s 68 in the 336 seat National Assembly. Yet, the military ensured its preferred outcome by brokering a coalition between PML-N, led by Shehbaz Sharif (Nawaz’s brother), and PPP, installing Shehbaz as prime minister. This outcome, marred by credible claims of rigging, demonstrated the military’s ability to shape electoral results while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy. Analysts noted that the confusion and disorganization in announcing results were deliberate, designed to prevent PTI from securing a decisive majority.
Lawfare: Expanding the Military’s Arsenal
Beyond electoral manipulation, the military has increasingly relied on lawfare to cement its authority. In 2024, amendments to the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 extended the tenure of service chiefs—including the all-powerful Army Chief—from three to five years. Passed with minimal debate in November 2024, this legislation, opposed vociferously by PTI lawmakers who labeled it an attack on democracy, ensures prolonged military influence over successive governments. The move echoes a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that extended General Bajwa’s tenure, a decision that required parliamentary approval and highlighted the judiciary’s limited sway over the GHQ.
Other legislative measures, such as the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act of 2023, have criminalized criticism of the military and expanded its role in national development, further blurring the lines between civilian and military spheres. The Official Secrets Act, amended in 2023, has been weaponized against dissenters like Khan, granting intelligence agencies sweeping powers to conduct raids on mere suspicion. These laws, rushed through a compliant parliament, illustrate how the military uses legal mechanisms to tighten its grip, rendering civilian institutions impotent.
Pakistan’s political landscape reveals a stark reality: democracy exists only in name. The military’s dominance is not merely a relic of past coups but a living, evolving system sustained by election rigging, strategic ousters, and legal overreach. With a defense budget consuming roughly 16% of annual government expenditure (approximately $7.5 billion in 2023-24), the military’s economic clout matches its political power, dwarfing civilian priorities like health and education.
For Pakistan to break free from this cycle, a fundamental restructuring of its civil-military relations is essential. Yet, the military’s entrenched interests—bolstered by its control over foreign policy, nuclear assets, and economic ventures like the Fauji Foundation—make such a shift improbable without sustained public pressure. Until then, civilian leaders will remain puppets dancing to Rawalpindi’s tune, and Pakistan’s democracy will persist as a hollow shell, hijacked by the military’s iron grip.