Introduction
Since its birth in 1947, Pakistan has alternated between military and political governments. Both systems claim to serve the national interest, yet their performance, legitimacy, and societal impact differ significantly. Military governments often come to power through coups, promising stability, discipline, and reforms, while political governments are elected through the will of the people, claiming democratic legitimacy. The debate over which system is better has remained central in Pakistan’s history. To understand this better, we must examine the nature, achievements, failures, and consequences of both forms of government.
Historical Background
Pakistan’s political journey began with a parliamentary system, but weak institutions and political instability soon paved the way for military intervention. In 1958, General Ayub Khan staged the first coup, marking the beginning of direct military rule. Since then, Pakistan has experienced three more long military regimes under General Yahya Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq, and General Pervez Musharraf. In total, military governments have ruled Pakistan for more than 30 years.
On the other hand, political governments, led by different civilian parties such as Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (PML), have governed during democratic intervals. However, political leaders often faced accusations of corruption, inefficiency, and inability to complete their terms. This cycle of mistrust between the civilian and military elite has shaped Pakistan’s destiny.
Characteristics of Military Governments
-
Authoritarian Rule
Military governments usually suspend or abrogate the constitution. Power is centralized in the hands of a single leader or a small group of generals. -
Administrative Discipline
Military regimes often present themselves as disciplined, with strict law and order policies. -
Technocratic Involvement
They rely on technocrats, bureaucrats, and non-political figures for policymaking rather than elected representatives. -
Lack of Political Representation
Since they are not elected by the people, military rulers face a legitimacy crisis both nationally and internationally. -
Economic Reforms and Stability
Historically, some military governments in Pakistan have introduced economic reforms and development projects that initially showed results.
Characteristics of Political Governments
-
Democratic Legitimacy
Political governments are elected through the ballot box, reflecting the will of the people. -
Representation and Participation
Citizens have the right to choose their leaders, voice their concerns, and influence policies. -
Freedom of Press and Speech
Civilian governments usually allow more freedom to the press and opposition parties compared to military regimes. -
Political Instability
Due to corruption, infighting, and weak institutions, political governments often struggle to complete their terms. -
Policy Continuity Issues
Political leadership frequently changes, leading to inconsistent policies.
Achievements of Military Governments
-
Ayub Khan (1958–1969):
Introduced industrial reforms, the “Green Revolution” in agriculture, and initiated development projects like the Tarbela and Mangla dams. However, his system of Basic Democracies limited genuine democracy. -
Yahya Khan (1969–1971):
Oversaw the first general elections in Pakistan (1970). Unfortunately, his failure to manage political differences led to the breakup of East Pakistan in 1971. -
Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1988):
Promoted Islamization, strengthened ties with the West during the Afghan War, and oversaw a period of economic growth due to foreign aid. However, his era also promoted extremism and weakened democratic institutions. -
Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008):
Introduced local government reforms, improved media freedom, and economic growth during early years. Later, his popularity declined due to political repression, judicial crisis, and involvement in the “War on Terror.”
Achievements of Political Governments
-
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1971–1977):
Introduced the 1973 Constitution, nationalized industries, and promoted Islamic solidarity. -
Benazir Bhutto (1988–1990, 1993–1996):
Strengthened women’s rights, improved press freedom, and tried to balance Pakistan’s foreign relations. -
Nawaz Sharif (multiple terms):
Initiated infrastructure projects such as motorways, privatization policies, and conducted Pakistan’s nuclear tests in 1998. -
Recent Democratic Era (2008 onwards):
The 18th Amendment strengthened parliamentary democracy, provinces gained autonomy, and the peaceful transfer of power between governments became possible.
Failures of Military Governments
-
Lack of Legitimacy – Military rulers never gained complete public trust.
-
Political Engineering – They created artificial political parties to support their rule.
-
Judicial Manipulation – Courts often validated coups under the “doctrine of necessity.”
-
Promotion of Extremism – Particularly during Zia’s rule, militancy and sectarianism grew.
-
Suppression of Civil Liberties – Limited press freedom and political opposition.
Failures of Political Governments
-
Corruption and Nepotism – Rampant misuse of resources weakened public trust.
-
Inability to Deliver Services – Education, healthcare, and poverty reduction remained poor.
-
Political Instability – Frequent clashes between opposition and ruling parties.
-
Dependence on the Military – Even in a democracy, the military remained powerful behind the scenes.
-
Weak Institutions – Institutions like the police, judiciary, and bureaucracy were politicized.
Impact on Society
-
Military Governments:
They brought temporary stability, but weakened democratic institutions and promoted authoritarian culture. Long-term, they harmed political development. -
Political Governments:
They empowered people through elections but failed to deliver good governance. The gap between elite rulers and common citizens widened.
Economic Comparison
-
Military Eras:
Economic growth rates were higher during Ayub Khan, Zia, and Musharraf, largely due to foreign aid, international alliances, and centralized decision-making. However, these gains were not sustainable. -
Political Eras:
Economic progress remained slow and inconsistent, partly due to corruption, mismanagement, and political instability. Yet, political governments laid the foundation for constitutional development, which is vital for long-term progress.
International Relations
-
Military rulers often aligned Pakistan with powerful nations for strategic reasons. For example, Ayub Khan with the U.S., Zia with the West during the Afghan jihad, and Musharraf during the War on Terror.
-
Political governments tried to balance diplomacy with domestic priorities. Bhutto promoted ties with Muslim countries, while Nawaz Sharif and Benazir sought peace initiatives with India.
Public Perception
Many Pakistanis initially welcome military rulers, hoping for stability and discipline. However, over time, disillusionment grows due to a lack of freedom and accountability. Political governments are criticized for corruption, yet people generally prefer them because they offer representation, freedom, and the hope of reform.
The Role of the Judiciary and the Media
-
Judiciary:
Often legitimized military takeovers in the past, but have become more assertive in recent years. -
Media:
Media flourished under Musharraf but faced restrictions in other military eras. Political governments usually allow more press freedom, though sometimes they also curb it under pressure.
Which System is Better?
Military governments may bring temporary order and economic growth, but they cannot replace the legitimacy of democracy. Political governments may be weak and corrupt, yet they provide a platform for reform, accountability, and people’s participation. Long-term development depends on strengthening democratic institutions rather than relying on unelected rulers.
Conclusion
The comparison of military and political systems in Pakistan reveals that neither has been perfect. Military rulers provided short-term stability and economic progress, but at the cost of democracy and civil liberties. Political governments empowered people through elections but often failed in governance and accountability.
For Pakistan to progress, democracy must be strengthened, corruption reduced, and institutions made independent. Military intervention may offer quick fixes, but sustainable growth and social justice can only come through a functioning democratic system. Pakistan’s future lies not in repeating cycles of coups and unstable governments, but in building a culture of accountability, participation, and rule of law.