as democracy failed in Pakistan? What are its prospects in the country? These and other questions have been heatedly debated on by commentators, researchers, politicians and common people on various forums — from academia to the parliament and the media. These questions are complex and difficult to answer. However, recent developments coupled with a weakening economy, political polarisation, chasms among the higher judiciary and failed service delivery, have triggered debate stemming from concerns on the prospects of democracy in Pakistan.

Before examining its prospects, it is imperative to explore whether democracy has failed in Pakistan. Despite several efforts and recurrent claims, the country is still devoid of democracy. Its democratic journey is marked by a series of highs and lows. Pakistan has struggled to establish a stable democratic state structure consistent with its federal configuration throughout its history. For instance, in the first four decades i.e., between 1947 and 1988, military-bureaucratic oligarchy ruled the country for almost 36 years (1947–1958: bureaucratic regime; and 1958–1971 and 1977–1988: military dictatorship). From 1988 to 2024, the establishment dominated by military leaders kept ruling the country either directly or indirectly. Civilian regimes too conspired with non-democratic forces to evade the birth and development of democracy in Pakistan.

None of the prime ministers have completed their term since the inception of the country. The year 2013 saw the first transfer of power from an elected government to another — a milestone for a country that had direct or indirect military rule throughout its history. There were hopes of a break from the past and a deepening of democracy, marking an end to the army coups that have been a bane since 1958. However, the illusory shift from military to civilian authority between 2008 and 2013 had given way to a well-orchestrated hype about a “hybrid” form of government, in which the soldiers and civilians were supposedly on the “same page.” The history and legacy of democracy in the country signals its prospects to be quite bleak.

The prospects of democracy in Pakistan can be understood through an analysis of some key elements of democracy i.e., empowering citizens, the separation and balance of power, independence of judiciary, freedom of the media and political pluralism and dissent.

The people are the principal actors in a democracy. Citizens are empowered when their rights are protected; they are informed; and fellow citizens and policymakers engage them in the democratic process. Unfortunately, the Pakistani state has failed to empower its citizens. In fact, it has been successful in disempowering them. This is evident from the recent general elections (of 2018 and 2024) which have been allegedly choreographed by the establishment — the former were reportedly rigged to bring the Imran Khan-led Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf into power and the latter were purportedly engineered to keep it out of the power corridors. In between, Khan was ousted from the office through a no-confidence vote, allegedly facilitated by Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa (the then chief of army staff) and his aides. Earlier, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s removal, it has been alleged, was orchestrated by the army’s top brass, some judges and senior bureaucrats. In a nutshell, the making and breaking of governments and the fate of elected prime ministers have been decided by the powerful elite rather than the people.

The terms ‘separation of power’ and ‘balance of power’ mean that the power of the three branches of a democratic government – the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary – should not be concentrated in one branch, but should be distributed such that each branch can independently carry out its respective functions. In Pakistan, these three branches have been vying for dominance. Hence, they have often been crossing their prescribed domains and intervening in the jurisdiction of the others instead of following the constitution.

For instance, one of the former chief justices of the Supreme Court was openly campaigning for constructing a dam, linking the project to the future of the country, even though this was clearly a job for the Executive. Successive chief justices have also been accustomed to issuing suo motu orders, dragging the Judiciary into areas beyond its purview, and hence obstructing and affecting the functioning of the Executive and the Legislature. The Supreme Court has taken a total of 204 suo motu notices in the last two decades. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the former chief justice, tops the list with 79 notices, followed by Saqib Nisar with 47 and Anwar Zaheer Jamali with 25. In response, the parliament has frequently refused to implement the judgments or comply with the directives/ orders of the courts. For instance, in 2023, the parliament brazenly defied the Supreme Court’s order to hold elections in two provinces.

The Executive does not lag far behind in disrupting the balance of power either. For instance, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, ridiculing Supreme Court’s orders, refused to write a letter to the Swiss authorities to re-open graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

Considering the chequered history of the Judiciary, there has always been a question mark on its independence. On the one hand, it has always validated and legalised illegal and unconstitutional martial laws. On the other, it has ousted elected prime ministers (Yousuf Raza Gilani and Nawaz Sharif) and disqualified elected representatives of the public from contesting elections (Imran Khan). It has also struck down legislation by the parliament. In a recent example, the Supreme Court invoked the concern for judicial independence to prevent structuring the chief justice’s discretionary powers through legislation. The Supreme Court (Review of Orders and Judgements) Act, 2023, was struck down, and the operation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, was suspended through an interim order.

Media freedom is vitally important for democracy, creating plural, open societies and accountable, transparent systems of government, as well as safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms. But freedom of expression is increasingly being threatened in the country through a deliberate crackdown on the media. There is a silencing of the media through laws and oversight bodies that critics say enhance powers to censor and punish journalists. New laws potentially extend control to social media such as YouTube and X (former Twitter), snuffing out investigative journalism and critical commentary. State coercion has caused hundreds of journalists to lose their jobs. Others are facing economic hardship as their news organisations have cut salaries and allowances due to financial losses because of government policies.

Lastly, political dissent is the bedrock upon which vibrant democracies are built. In societies that value freedom, the right to question, challenge and criticise is not merely tolerated but celebrated as an essential component of civic life. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan, where dissenting voices have always been suppressed. For this purpose, the state has intensified repressive policies and cruel practices, particularly in the last six years. The Imran Khan-led PTI, while in power, had used various tactics to suppress dissent. The current regime has only carried the legacy forward. Protest marches, processions and gatherings of its critics have faced intense crack downs.

Given these indicators, the prospects of democracy in Pakistan are not promising. They are, in fact, quite bleak.

Mazhar Abbas, the author of The Aftermath of the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971: Enduring Impact (Routledge, 2024), has a PhD in history from Shanghai University. He is a lecturer at GCU, Faisalabad, and a research fellow at PIDE, Islamabad. He can be reached at mazharabbasgondal87@gmail.com. His X handle: @MazharGondal87. 

Hadaiqa Sardar is a PhD candidate in history at GCU, Faisalabad