The Failed Republic: Military Rule, Religious Extremism, and the Crisis of Democracy in Pakistan

Analysis

By Arun Anand

After a prolonged and challenging struggle to establish a separate nation from the former Indian subcontinent, based on the controversial ‘two-nation theory’, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his supporters succeeded in founding Pakistan a day before India’s independence in 1947. The aim behind this movement, which mobilised millions, was to create a state primarily for the Muslims of the subcontinent, grounded in the belief that they could not coexist peacefully with Hindus, despite having lived together for centuries. Since the creation of these two nations, despite shared historical, political, cultural, and linguistic legacies, their paths have diverged significantly. Pakistan, in particular, was further fragmented with the secession of Bangladesh in 1971. Over nearly eight decades since Indian independence, while India has evolved into a stable, prosperous, secular, diverse, and robust democracy, Pakistan's post-independence history has been characterised by ongoing political instability, military rule (both direct and indirect), violent religious extremism, the sponsorship of terrorism, and the suppression of dissent. The political situation in Pakistan is starkly reflected in the fact that since its inception, the country has witnessed 29 terms of Prime Ministers, none of which have completed a full five-year tenure.

From the outset, Pakistan has struggled with a crisis of leadership and vision. In contrast to India, which benefited from politically astute leaders with the experience of guiding a mass movement and a clear sense of the direction they wished the country to take, Pakistan, especially following the death of its founder, Jinnah, just a year after its creation, descended into turmoil. Various factions vied for political and ideological dominance. It took Pakistan nine years to adopt a constitution, shortly after which General Ayub Khan orchestrated a successful military coup in 1958, establishing a precedent for military involvement in the country’s political affairs—an issue that has persisted over time. General Ayub Khan’s rule continued until 1969. Since then, Pakistan has experienced military governance under General Zia ul-Haq (1978-1988) and General Pervez Musharraf (1999-2008). Even in periods without direct military rule, there is widespread speculation that the military covertly influences political developments, a notion supported by various politicians and civil society, and often seen as something of an open secret. The 2018 rise of Prime Minister Imran Khan is widely thought to have occurred with military support, described by prominent Pakistani academic Ayesha Jalal as ‘an autocratic coalition between the soldiers and a populist politician’. However, this alliance soon fractured, leading to a no-confidence vote against Khan and his subsequent imprisonment on corruption charges. Khan’s incarceration provoked such anger among his supporters that, in the months that followed, they launched unprecedented attacks on military installations in Rawalpindi, Radio Pakistan studios in Peshawar, martyrs’ memorials, and other sites. Furthermore, the 2022 election results, which saw Shehbaz Sharif return to the Prime Minister’s office, were met with widespread protests accusing the government of rigging the outcome.

The military’s deep-rooted involvement in Pakistan’s domestic and foreign affairs has not only undermined democratic principles and freedoms but has also played a pivotal role in fostering religious extremism within the country. Two primary factors can be identified when examining the origins of Islamist fundamentalism's rise in Pakistan. The first is Pakistan's entanglement in the United States' strategy in response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, a conflict that lasted from 1979 and saw the training and harbouring of Mujahideen fighters, who later evolved into networks such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This coincided with the rule of General Zia ul-Haq, notorious for enacting Wahhabi-inspired fundamentalist laws, which marked the onset of the so-called military-madrasa-mullah complex. The religious extremism that emerged from this period is evident in the rise and empowerment of groups like Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, which frequently promote hate speech, target minorities, exploit the draconian blasphemy laws, and employ violence to pressure the government to meet their demands. Another consequence of Pakistan’s use of Islamist jihad for geopolitical aims has been its detrimental effects on the country’s own population. Pakistan’s support for terror groups, particularly aimed at undermining India, is well-documented. Yet, the country exemplifies the danger of igniting the flames of terrorism, which inevitably consume the homeland as well. The Global Terrorism Index 2025 report highlighted this, moving Pakistan from fourth to second place, with a shocking 45% rise in terrorism-related fatalities and more than double the number of attacks compared to the previous year. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) currently represents the most significant threat, accounting for 52% of all terrorism-related deaths. The persistent atmosphere of insecurity, coupled with the unchecked spread of radical propaganda throughout the nation’s socio-cultural fabric, has severely hindered efforts to cultivate democratic values in the country.

In addition to the aforementioned factors, the ethnic and socio-economic inequalities that characterise Pakistani society also play a significant role in weakening the public sphere, as conceptualised by Habermas. When the populace has sought to draw state attention to the neglect, discrimination, and exploitation they experience due to their ethnicity, the state's typical response has been violent suppression. This was most dramatically illustrated in the case of the ethnic Bengalis, who were ultimately left with no option but to secede from Pakistan. Rather than learning from this painful episode, Pakistan has continued to repeat the same patterns, as seen in its handling of the peaceful Baloch resistance movement and the Pashtoon Tahafuz Movement. In both instances, the state's reaction has indirectly provoked armed insurgency, perpetuating an ongoing cycle of militant violence and state repression.

The military's involvement also imparts an inherently authoritarian nature to the Pakistani state, which is consistently marked by weakened institutions of checks and balances, including both the judiciary and the media. Civil society has limited opportunities to operate, frequently facing the risks of misrepresentation, vilification, and subsequent repression. These challenges are further exacerbated by the ongoing economic and ecological crises, which severely restrict the capacity of the population to advocate for democratic reforms when their basic survival is under imminent threat.

The issues outlined above are by no means recent. Yet, for many decades, despite losing territorial integrity, countless lives, and its international standing, Pakistan appears to be descending further into its democratic crisis. Following the recent tragedy in India’s Pahalgam, where terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan killed 26 civilians, the country has begun to face diplomatic repercussions, including the suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, with further consequences anticipated. It is to be hoped that, rather than continuing to target its neighbour India, which is respected for its democratic ethos, Pakistan will take lessons from both India and its own numerous setbacks, and take immediate steps to change course.

Disclaimer: This paper is the author's individual scholastic contribution and does not necessarily reflect the organization's viewpoint.

(The writer is a distinguished fellow with Usanas Foundation and a writing fellow with Middle East Forum)