Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Pakistan’s decision-making process is heavily dominated by military leadership, rendering civilian politicians mere figureheads without real authority. Despite holding official positions, they lack the autonomy to implement policies independently, as the final say rests with the military establishment. This power-centric governance model has plunged the country into political and economic chaos, fueling regional alienation and insurgencies, particularly in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Balochistan, in particular, has faced insurgency for decades, and rather than seeing a decline, the conflict has intensified due to the systemic exclusion of genuine Baloch leadership from decision-making processes. This exclusion, coupled with the province’s chronic deprivation, including a lack of education, widespread unemployment, and entrenched poverty, has further alienated its people. As the state weakens, the military’s grip on Balochistan is loosening, while Khyber Pakhtunkhwa faces a similar trajectory, with increasing instability and growing public dissent.
Faced with this deteriorating situation, politicians have repeatedly urged the military leadership to take corrective measures. They have called for steps to address political alienation, growing separatist sentiments, and widespread resentment toward the armed forces. Rather than proactively taking initiatives to integrate disgruntled elements into the mainstream, even the president, prime minister, federal ministers, and parliamentarians have found themselves publicly appealing to military leadership, reflecting their sense of helplessness.
However, the military remains fixated on securing national resources rather than focusing on governance reforms or public welfare. This widening gulf between civilian and military decision-making rendered the political leaders, regardless of their intentions, powerless, and their proposals hold no weight making the governance ineffective, with the democratic process reduced to a mere façade.
Civilian decision-making traditionally follows a structured and institutionalized process designed to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and accountability. Initially, issues affecting multiple provinces are identified clearly and subjected to comprehensive feasibility studies to evaluate economic, social, environmental, and political impacts. Extensive consultations with stakeholders—including provincial governments, subject matter experts, civil society organizations, and representatives from affected communities—then take place. These steps help ensure that diverse perspectives inform policy formulation.
Subsequently, identified issues are deliberated within the Council of Common Interests (CCI), where provincial heads strive to achieve consensus-based solutions. Following CCI deliberations, proposed policies or initiatives are opened to public scrutiny through structured hearings or open forums, allowing for direct feedback and community engagement. Once public input is incorporated, detailed policy frameworks are drafted and undergo formal legislative scrutiny, involving parliamentary debate, amendments, and voting. During implementation, continuous monitoring and periodic evaluations ensure policies remain effective and aligned with national welfare, reinforcing governance in a diverse and complex country like Pakistan.
In stark contrast, military decision-making operates on a rigid and centralized model, shrouded in secrecy and primarily driven by hierarchy and discipline, with the primary objective to identify the enemy and neutralize it, whether civilian or military. Once a decision is finalized by the army chief or top military commanders, it is communicated through clear, concise orders, and swiftly executed without extensive deliberation or civilian engagement or caring for consequences.
This contrast between civilian and military governance underscores why democratic nations flourish. Countries with strong democratic institutions prioritize long-term stability, economic progress, and national development. India serves as a prime example. Since independence, it has upheld civilian supremacy, allowing democratic institutions to mature and drive sustained economic growth. Despite facing numerous internal challenges, India has emerged as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies and is poised to become the third-largest global economy in a year or two. This success highlights the effectiveness of democratic governance, where elected representatives prioritize public welfare over institutional control.
Pakistan’s trajectory, however, has been the opposite. The military’s repeated interventions have crippled democratic institutions, rendering governance ineffective. The constitution is frequently bypassed, parliament remains weak, the judiciary is undermined, and the media is suppressed. The military has turned state institutions against the public, leading to widespread resentment. While it justifies its control by branding civilian leadership as corrupt, incompetent, and disloyal, its own policies have pushed the country toward economic collapse and social unrest.
Balochistan, once considered a region of unrest, has now reached a boiling point. The military’s continued repression and exclusion of local leaders have radicalized large segments of the population. The Baloch insurgency, which once operated on the fringes, now enjoys widespread local support, turning the armed forces into the primary adversary in the eyes of many Baloch citizens. Similar trends are emerging in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where militant groups have gained ground due to the army’s counterproductive policies.
Now, Punjab—historically the military’s stronghold—is also experiencing disillusionment. The army’s policies, particularly corporate land acquisitions, water mismanagement, and suppression of political voices, have alienated large sections of the Punjabi population. The military’s controversial decision to divert water from the Indus River Basin to irrigate corporate farmland in southern Punjab has further fueled deep resentment in the province of Sindh, which had termed it a stealing of their rightful water share. For the first time, a significant portion of Punjab and Sindh’s populations are beginning to view the army as a self-serving institution rather than a national protector.
Internationally, Pakistan’s foreign policy has also suffered due to the military’s dominance. Unlike its neighbors, which maintain stable and mutually beneficial relationships, Pakistan has strained ties with almost all bordering nations except China. Relations with India remain hostile, ties with Afghanistan are marred by conflict, and even Iran has grown wary of Pakistan’s policies. This diplomatic isolation is largely a result of military-driven foreign policy, which prioritizes security concerns over economic and diplomatic engagement.
True progress can only be achieved when governance is based on civilian supremacy, rule of law, and democratic accountability. Pakistan’s future remains bleak unless genuine democratic reforms are implemented. Free and fair elections, restoration of parliamentary authority, and judicial independence are critical to reversing the country’s downward spiral. If the current trajectory persists, Pakistan will continue to suffer economic stagnation, political instability, and social unrest.
The nation stands at a crossroads: either it embraces democratic governance and paves the way for prosperity, or it remains trapped in a cycle of military dominance and perpetual crisis. The choice will determine whether Pakistan reclaims its potential or continues to dig its own grave.