Pakistan’s current political system increasingly resembles what political scientists describe as a hybrid regime, in which elected governments formally govern, but decisive authority often resides outside civilian institutions. While such arrangements are sometimes justified as mechanisms for maintaining stability in volatile regions, Pakistan’s experience suggests that hybrid governance carries high political and economic costs. Pakistan has faced high economic and social costs despite the “war economy” illusion imposed by the leaders of the country in attempts to show alleged financial gains.

A deeply rooted problem

Pakistan’s trajectory reflects a broader global pattern in which hybrid regimes struggle to balance security priorities with democratic governance and economic development. Across several regions, political systems where unelected institutions retain substantial influence often deliver short-term stability but generate long-term institutional fragility. Pakistan’s evolving political landscape illustrates many of these tensions.

Since the restoration of civilian rule in 2008, Pakistan’s political order has frequently been characterized by the coexistence of democratic institutions and strong military influence. Elected governments and parliamentary structures formally exercise authority, yet key domains, particularly national security, foreign policy and aspects of economic strategy, remain heavily shaped by the military establishment. This imbalance has created a political environment in which civilian governments operate within constraints that limit their ability to exercise independent authority.

The historical roots of this arrangement run deep. Since the country’s creation in 1947, democratic institutions have repeatedly struggled to consolidate authority in the face of powerful non-elected actors. With the partial exception of the political period under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto following the secession of East Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971, civilian governments have often functioned within a framework shaped by military influence. This enduring imbalance has profoundly shaped Pakistan’s political trajectory.

Debate over Pakistan’s hybrid governance intensified after the political crisis of 2022, when the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan was removed through a vote of no confidence in the National Assembly. Although the transition followed constitutional procedures, many observers argued that it unfolded within a political environment influenced by the military establishment. The episode significantly amplified public debate about the nature of Pakistan’s governance, and there has been an intensifying power struggle between the military establishment and Khan. 

Increased sense of failure

A significant share of Khan’s support base comprises young people, often identified as Generation Z, who are digitally connected, vocal and ambitious. Generation Z has reshaped political dynamics in Pakistan, as digitally mobilized youth increasingly use online platforms for political engagement, activism and scrutiny of power structures, including state institutions. 

International assessments have also reflected these concerns. In comparative politics, Pakistan has frequently been described as a hybrid regime — one in which democratic institutions coexist with substantial influence by unelected actors. Global governance assessments, such as the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, have repeatedly highlighted this imbalance. In its 2023 report, the index downgraded Pakistan from a hybrid regime to an authoritarian regime, underscoring growing concerns about democratic backsliding.

The military as a political actor

These perceptions have been reinforced by the increasingly visible role of the military leadership in diplomatic and strategic affairs. Asim Munir was promoted to the five-star rank of field marshal on May 20, 2025, becoming only the second officer in Pakistan’s history to receive the title after Field Marshal Ayub Khan. A widely circulated image of Munir presenting rare-earth mineral samples to US President Donald Trump during a diplomatic engagement in September sparked criticism and renewed debate about the military’s expanding role in Pakistan’s economic diplomacy. 

These developments, followed by the 2025 restructuring of Article 243 through the 27th Constitutional Amendment, signal a shift toward a more centralized, army-centric command system — enhancing the authority of the army chief while raising critical concerns about civil–military imbalance and democratic oversight.

Supporters of the hybrid model often argue that such arrangements provide stability in a region marked by geopolitical tensions. Yet the promised stability has proven elusive. Instead, the coexistence of civilian and military power centers has frequently generated political uncertainty and blurred lines of accountability. Civilian governments struggle to exercise independent authority, while key policy decisions, particularly those related to national security and foreign policy, remain strongly influenced by military priorities.

Security concerns at the forefront 

One consequence of this arrangement has been the gradual militarization of national policymaking. Security considerations increasingly dominate Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy agenda. Relations with neighboring countries remain tense, reinforcing a climate of regional distrust. Recent tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan illustrate these dynamics, particularly given Pakistan’s long-standing involvement in Afghan political affairs.

At the same time, the enduring rivalry with India continues to shape Pakistan’s strategic outlook, while periodic frictions along the border with Iran further complicate the regional environment. Together, these pressures reinforce the dominance of security considerations in national policymaking.

The consequences are also visible within Pakistan itself. Islamabad has recently witnessed growing concerns about governance capacity and public safety. Rising political tensions and sporadic security incidents reflect deeper institutional challenges that cannot be resolved through coercive measures alone.

Socioeconomic hardship

Economic pressures further complicate the picture. Pakistan’s economy continues to face fiscal stress, declining investor confidence and recurring balance-of-payments crises. Political instability and perceptions of excessive military influence in governance discourage foreign investment and undermine long-term economic planning. Instead of focusing on structural economic reforms, national discourse often remains dominated by security narratives.

For ordinary Pakistanis, these developments are not merely abstract political debates; they are deeply personal realities. Rising fuel prices, persistent inflation and increasing costs of essential commodities have placed severe pressure on households. Economic hardship has intensified public frustration and weakened confidence in national institutions.

Many citizens are also increasingly weary of Pakistan’s persistent entanglement in regional tensions. Escalating confrontations with Afghanistan and periodic crises with India have already affected tourism, investment and economic stability. The Iran War has exacerbated Pakistan’s socioeconomic vulnerabilities, as rising energy and fertilizer costs have driven food inflation, deepened hunger and exposed the fragility of its economic and governance structures. For ordinary people, the costs of geopolitical rivalry are immediate and tangible.

Strength through democratic power

Pakistan’s recent trajectory increasingly resembles global case studies in which hybrid regimes struggle to deliver sustained political stability or economic growth. Military institutions are designed for national defense, not for the complex political and economic management required in modern governance. When security institutions dominate policymaking, institutional imbalance and policy inconsistency often follow.

Ultimately, sustainable governance requires credible political leadership and strong democratic institutions capable of managing both domestic challenges and international relations. Countries that achieve long-term stability typically do so through accountable civilian authority, transparent policymaking and robust democratic oversight.

For Pakistan, the path forward lies in strengthening democratic institutions, restoring civilian primacy in policymaking and prioritizing economic development over geopolitical rivalry. A gradual but decisive transition toward genuine democratic governance, where elected institutions hold primary authority over national decision-making, would help restore policy coherence and public trust.

Pakistan’s future will depend on whether the country can move beyond a security-dominated governance model toward one grounded in democratic accountability, economic reform and constructive regional engagement. Without such a transition, the cycle of political instability and economic vulnerability is likely to persist, with significant consequences not only for Pakistan but also for the broader region.

[Andrew Litz edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.