You can’t talk about politics in Pakistan without talking about the military. It’s like trying to explain biryani without rice — it simply doesn’t work. Since the birth of the country in 1947, Pakistan’s political story has been shaped, interrupted, and often dominated by its men in uniform.
From direct military takeovers to behind-the-scenes “advice” to civilian leaders, the armed forces have remained a central player in the nation’s governance. For ordinary Pakistanis, the phrase “civil-military relations” is not just jargon; it is shorthand for how power really works here — beyond fiery press conferences and televised parliamentary sessions.
As we move deeper into 2025, these relations remain under scrutiny. Citizens are asking sharper questions, social media is breaking taboos, and political players are learning — often painfully — that without redefining this relationship, Pakistan’s democratic journey will remain incomplete.
This article unpacks the history, the turning points, and the present-day challenges of civil-military relations in Pakistan — and explores whether the dream of civilian supremacy is really possible in the near future.
Flashback: A Nation Interrupted by Uniforms
Pakistan has witnessed three full-scale military coups that reshaped its political destiny:
- 1958: General Ayub Khan staged the first coup, dissolving assemblies and ushering in an era of centralized, controlled governance. He introduced the “Basic Democracies” system, curbing parliamentary politics while strengthening the executive.
- 1977: General Zia-ul-Haq toppled Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a coup that not only changed leadership but redefined Pakistan’s ideological compass. His regime entrenched Islamization policies, the impact of which continues to influence society today.
- 1999: General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif after a dramatic airport standoff. His tenure saw Pakistan become a key U.S. ally in the War on Terror, bringing both international aid and domestic turmoil.
The bottom line? Out of 77 years of Pakistan’s existence, nearly half the time has been under direct military rule. Even in periods of civilian governance, the shadow of the khaki has loomed large.
Why the Military Became the “Crisis Manager”
So, why did Pakistanis — at least for decades — look to the army as the ultimate problem-solver?
- Weak Civilian Institutions: At independence, Pakistan inherited fragile political institutions. Frequent government changes, lack of constitutional clarity, and administrative chaos created a vacuum.
- Political Infighting: Prime ministers rarely completed terms. Factionalism, no-confidence votes, and horse-trading weakened civilian credibility.
- Cold War Geopolitics: From the 1950s onwards, Pakistan’s army became the darling of Western powers. The U.S. channeled aid and weaponry largely through the military, bypassing civilian governments.
- Security Dilemmas: With two hostile neighbors — India and Afghanistan — Pakistan always faced existential threats. The military naturally emerged as the “guardian” of the state.
Over time, this positioning transformed the army into more than just a defense institution. It became the de facto crisis manager — stepping in whenever the civilian order seemed shaky, or simply when its own interests dictated intervention.
ISPR: The Army’s Media Machine
If you’ve ever watched a patriotic music video on PTV or scrolled through a viral ISPR song on YouTube, you’ve seen this in action.
The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) is not your run-of-the-mill press office. It is a sophisticated media wing that shapes narratives, boosts morale, and influences public perception of the armed forces.
From dramas like Ehd-e-Wafa to songs such as Bara Dushman Bana Phirta Hai, ISPR carefully curates the military’s image as heroic, selfless, and incorruptible. The result? For decades, Pakistanis have often seen generals as saviors, while civilian leaders are portrayed as corrupt or incompetent.
Civilian Leaders vs. “The Establishment”
Every major political leader in Pakistan has at some point locked horns with the establishment.
- Benazir Bhutto struggled against constant interference, facing dismissals twice during her tenure.
- Nawaz Sharif tried repeatedly to assert civilian supremacy, from clashing with General Waheed Kakar in the 1990s to being ousted by Musharraf in 1999, and again disqualified in 2017 in a judiciary-backed decision many saw as establishment-driven.
- Imran Khan, once seen as the establishment’s favored son, eventually fell out of grace. His fallout with the military after 2022 — particularly the May 9th protests — underscored how quickly alliances can crumble.
The lesson for civilian leaders? Relying on establishment support may provide short-term survival, but in the long run, it erodes democratic legitimacy.
The Judiciary’s Role: Silent Enabler or Constitutional Watchdog?
The judiciary in Pakistan has often been a controversial referee in civil-military tussles.
Historically, courts have used the Doctrine of Necessity to justify coups. This legal loophole essentially said: If breaking the law prevents chaos, it’s acceptable.
- In 1958, the judiciary validated Ayub Khan’s takeover.
- In 1977, Zia’s coup was also legitimized by the courts.
- In 1999, Musharraf’s coup received judicial cover.
While recent Supreme Court rulings, such as those insisting on timely elections in 2023–24, suggest some pushback, the judiciary’s record shows a troubling willingness to side with men in uniform.
What’s Changed Since 2022?
Post-2022, Pakistan entered uncharted territory. The May 9th 2023 protests, triggered by Imran Khan’s arrest, saw unprecedented public anger directed at the military’s installations.
For decades, criticizing the army publicly was unthinkable. But in the age of Twitter, TikTok, and WhatsApp groups, the narrative has changed. Ordinary citizens are now openly questioning the establishment’s role.
A 2024 Gallup Pakistan survey revealed that 53% of respondents believed the military should have no direct role in politics — a significant shift from previous years. Drawing rooms, chai dhabas, and even university campuses are now hotbeds of debate over civil-military relations.
What Needs to Happen for True Democracy?
Fixing Pakistan’s civil-military imbalance is no small task. But it’s not impossible.
- Strengthen Civilian Institutions: Parliament, judiciary, Election Commission, and local governments must have both autonomy and resources to function effectively.
- Draw Clear Boundaries: Constitutional roles of the military and civilians must be respected. Informal “backroom deals” erode trust.
- Free the Press: Journalists must operate without fear of censorship, bans, or mysterious “phone calls.”
- Empower the Youth: With over 64% of Pakistan’s population under 30, political literacy among young people is crucial. Digital platforms — from Digiskills.pk to TikTok — can play a vital role in civic education.
The Road Ahead: Can Civilian Supremacy Ever Win?
Here’s the hard truth: Pakistan’s political system is like an old rickety bicycle — it still runs, but it needs a serious tune-up.
Civilian supremacy won’t arrive overnight. It requires a cultural shift, institutional reforms, and consistent public pressure. The encouraging sign? Pakistanis are more politically aware than ever before. Social media has broken the monopoly on narratives, and citizens are less afraid to hold powerful institutions accountable.
Will the cycle of coups, dismissals, and engineered governments finally end? Only time will tell. But one thing is clear: Pakistan’s democratic journey will remain incomplete until civilians — not generals — set the direction of governance.
Conclusion: A Nation at the Crossroads
Civil-military relations are not just about generals and politicians. They are about ordinary Pakistanis — farmers in Punjab, shopkeepers in Karachi, students in Peshawar — whose futures are directly affected by how power is shared, or not shared, at the top.
As Pakistan looks ahead, the choice is stark: either continue with the old cycle of interventions or take the bold step toward genuine democracy. The voices of citizens, louder than ever before, suggest the appetite for change is real.
The question is: will the institutions rise to the challenge?
