Opinion | Pakistan: A Fragile or Fabricated Democracy?

Described by many geopolitical analysts as either fabricated, fragile, or both, Pakistani democracy exists in a paradoxical state. If democracy is present, it is fragile; if absent, it appears fabricated. Since independence, democracy in Pakistan has bounced from one extreme to another—much like the idiom “from pillar to post”—with fragility being one pillar and fabrication the other.

Pakistan, a country carved out of British India during the traumatic partition of 1947, was founded primarily on religious lines. More than seven decades since its inception, Pakistan has grappled with nearly every conceivable crisis—political, economic, and internal—yet stability remains elusive. The greatest casualty of this turmoil has been Pakistani democracy. Described by many geopolitical analysts as either fabricated, fragile, or both, Pakistani democracy exists in a paradoxical state. If democracy is present, it is fragile; if absent, it appears fabricated. Since independence, democracy in Pakistan has bounced from one extreme to another—much like the idiom “from pillar to post”—with fragility being one pillar and fabrication the other. The forces undermining democracy in Pakistan are numerous: entrenched corruption, weak political and economic institutions, internal strife, religious extremism, rampant human rights abuses, public disorder, and above all, military overreach. An often-overlooked but significant factor is Punjab’s dominant presence in the country’s bureaucracy and politics, which has fostered favouritism, lobbying, and systemic imbalances since 1947.Two of the most potent threats to Pakistan’s democratic framework have been religious extremism and the military—often referred to as a “state within a state.”

From the very beginning, the military has exercised an outsized role in Pakistani politics. The first military coup occurred in 1958, when General Ayub Khan overthrew President Iskander Mirza. The most recent one was in 1999, when General Pervez Musharraf toppled Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. In between were several failed and successful military takeovers. Pakistan has spent over three decades under direct military rule (1958–1971, 1977–1988, and 1999–2008). A revealing trend is that every one of Pakistan’s last five prime ministers has faced legal persecution or imprisonment after leaving office and no PM has ever completed it 5 years term in office. This reflects a deeper reality: the military continues to wield power wherever it chooses, often without consequence. Its grip on Pakistan’s governance is so firm that it has embedded itself in the civil institutions, controlling national assets, foreign policy, and even civilian affairs. It is often said that in Pakistan, the Army chooses the Prime Minister—not the people. Attempts to challenge military dominance, like those by former PM Imran Khan, have been swiftly and decisively crushed, often with support from intelligence agencies like the ISI, this overwhelming military interference has cost Pakistan dearly—economically, politically, and diplomatically. Diplomatic policies have shifted toward militarism, fostering an environment conducive to terrorism, which is allegedly sustained by elements within the army and intelligence services. Religious extremism has also significantly damaged democracy in Pakistan. Radical clerics have routinely undermined democratic rights in the name of religion. From targeted killings to the persecution of minorities such as Hindus and Shias in regions like Parachinar, religious extremism has served as both a political tool and a societal poison. However, the undermining of democracy isn’t limited to the military and religious radicals. Pakistan’s judiciary and media—two essential democratic institutions—have played controversial roles. The judiciary, at times, has shown independence (as seen during the Lawyers’ Movement of 2007), but more often it has served as a legitimizing force for military regimes, invoking doctrines like the “doctrine of necessity” to validate coups and sideline elected leaders. Disqualifications of politicians like Nawaz Sharif and the murky legal proceedings against Imran Khan raise serious questions about judicial impartiality. The fourth pillar of democracy—the media—has also faltered. In theory, a free press ensures accountability. In practice, Pakistan’s media landscape is increasingly repressive. Journalists critical of the military or its favoured politicians face censorship, harassment, or even abduction. News channels have been taken off the air for dissenting views, and social media is tightly monitored. Laws like the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) are used to silence opposition voices and stifle debate, eroding democratic discourse and participation.

Despite these systemic issues, there remains a sliver of hope. The people of Pakistan—particularly its youth, civil society, and legal community—continue to strive for democratic norms. Movements advocating for women’s rights, environmental justice, and civil liberties reflect the nation’s underlying democratic aspirations. So, is Pakistan’s democracy fragile or fabricated? The truth lies somewhere in between. It is undoubtedly fragile—undermined by decades of military dominance, institutional decay, and political fragmentation. Yet, it is also fabricated in the sense that democratic structures exist largely in form rather than function. Elections are held, and opposition voices persist, but these operate within a framework controlled by unelected power centres. Pakistan’s democratic journey is complex and convoluted, but not devoid of potential. While its democracy may be battered, it is not broken—and the fight for a truly representative system continues.

Email: vadiekashmir@gmail.com