The Historical Roots of Pakistan’s Security-Oriented State

Pakistan’s institutional behavior since independence in 1947 has been greatly shaped by foundational experiences of various insecurity and regional tensions. The people have witnessed a series of domestic events, such as multiple impositions of martial law by the military. The military overthrew the government four different times; first under General Ayub, then General Yahya, followed by General Zia, and more recently, General Musharraf. These military dictators left a lasting impact not only on the political environment but also on the broader social atmosphere of the nation.

Another major historical turning point, similar in gravity to the original partition, was the breakup of East Pakistan, which resulted in the formation of Bangladesh. Additionally, the country has also suffered a lot of internal crises such as the assassinations of major political figures like Liaquat Ali Khan, General Zia, and Benazir Bhutto. On the international front, Pakistan has underlying issues of security as it has been involved in four wars with India in 1948, 1965, 1971, and 1999, further intensifying its security concerns. Moreover, the situation in neighboring Afghanistan has also led and contributed to Pakistan’s instability. The soviet invasion led to the Afghan Jihad, which subjected Pakistan to several years of conflict and strategic realignment.

After the end of that phase, Pakistan experienced the onset of a civil war during the 1990s. Post-2001, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan launched the War on Terror, which lasted until 2021. Pakistan has constantly been impacted by a series of major events both internal and regional that have shaped public consciousness and national policy. These historical dynamics helped establish a state structure that is heavily steered and shaped by security-oriented priorities.

Strategic Capabilities Without Structural Reform

Pakistan has accomplished a number of major milestones, including joining the club of nuclear-armed states, its internal governance structures have remained largely unchanged. The numerous challenges facing the country at the time prompted its leaders to adopt policies centered around a survival mentality. As explained before, threats on both the Eastern Front with India and the Western Front with Afghanistan created a pervasive sense of insecurity. This led to the prioritization of national security above all and everything else.

Gradually, security became the foundation of most state policies, whether related to domestic activities or international dealings economic, diplomatic, or strategic. This is why Pakistan eventually came to be known as a “Security State.”, a turning point came when it became a nuclear armed state. This trend provided the population with a feeling of security and also reassurance, minimizing the fear of foreign aggression.

The governance culture still hovered around the security issues and the state failed to transform to deal with broader developmental concerns. This led to the subsequent rising of a variety of issues gradually and sometimes without people taking note of it

Today, people are beginning to appreciate these underlying issues, though a significant number of people are yet to fully understand their causes or consequences.

April 2022 and the Public’s Political Reawakening

The events of April 2022 signaled a very critical shift in the way people approached questions of power and accountability. That month saw a major regime change in the country as a popular leader, Imran Khan, was ousted from power. This incident brought about a major psychological shift in the nation’s overall collective mindset. For the first time, many citizens began to clearly understand the underlying issues within Pakistan’s democratic system and why it was failing to meet their expectations.

This moment led to a nationwide awakening: the nation had to abandon its deep-seated survivalist mentality, one that prioritised national security for decades. Many citizens began to feel that such a mindset was outdated, particularly after Pakistan had already become a nuclear power. However, it also became evident to the public that the country had not, in fact, moved beyond that thinking. The political and military establishment seemed not ready to quit control, leading to mounting frustration among the population.

This frustration displayed itself in various ways. The citizens started expressing their dissatisfaction using social media campaigns, street protests and rallies, as well as elections. All these attempts constantly expressed a passion towards a new direction, where the betterment of the people takes precedence over the priorities of the state apparatus.

The Political unrests which ensued, worsened economic instability. The confidence in the newly constituted government coalition waned almost instantly. Domestic and foreign investors were hesitant to invest due to the weak nature of the government. This is due to the fact that the coalition was composed of thirteen political parties; the withdrawal of even one would collapse the majority and bring down the government.

The public increasingly viewed free and fair elections as the only ultimate route to stability. Yet the ruling coalition appeared reluctant to hold such elections, fearing an electoral loss to Imran Khan. This hesitation only fueled more further unrest.

Evolving Voter Behavior and the Idea of the Collective

There has been a significant change in Pakistani electorate in that the voting pattern is changing towards broader social good instead of personal or small scale benefit. In the past, elections used to be influenced by tribal, ethnic or individual consideration. The individuals would vote in favor of representatives who favored them or their localities and not necessarily towards what would benefit an entire nation.

However, after the regime change that took place in April 2022, many citizens have started to change their approach.  A growing number of voters started aligning themselves with the idea of national progress and collective transformation. They started supporting candidates that are seen to be very advantageous to the entire nation and not necessarily to their group or region.

This change became particularly evident during the by-elections that followed. For example, the sweeping victories of Imran Khan in the October 2022 by-elections reflected this broader shift. These outcomes signaled that the people were no longer satisfied with superficial or short-term benefits. Rather, they were fighting towards a dream of sustainable change that benefits citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, tribe or classes.

Such transformation in the way people think about elections indicates a more fundamental understanding: that the nation can only make real, sustainable steps forward when views are made in the best interests of the entire nation. Consequently, citizens started campaigning and voting responsibly, not only about their lives, but for the future of the nation as well.

Discomfort with State Narratives of Sacrifice

The regime change also revealed an increasing great public discomfort with long-standing state narratives of equating hardship with patriotic service. For decades, the public People had been led to believe that economic suffering, political uncertainties or the loss of freedoms were to be endured “in the national interest” or “for the greater good”. These justifications are however being questioned by many citizens especially in the wake of April 2022.

People realized that such narratives had often been used not to serve the country, but to protect the interests of a few powerful individuals or institutions. Political turmoil as well as power struggles have frequently been framed as noble or somewhat necessary sacrifices, when in reality, they primarily only served elite agendas. Post-regime change, there was a widespread awakening: the steps taken by those in power were often not in the interest of the people, and had little to do with genuine state-building.

This newly gained consciousness resulted in increased distrust of the state based approach, which had long prevailed as the thinking pattern of Pakistan policies. Citizens began demanding that national decisions be made with the welfare of the people as the central concern. While some individuals may still act in the name of national interest, the public now expects such actions to contribute to the well-being of the common people and not only to the state or its institutions.

A general agreement has now emerged that decision-making at the national level ought to be critiqued, and the interests of the people placed at the forefront. The old pattern of blindly accepting decisions made “for the state” is no longer acceptable. An emerging trend of a more people-focused form of government is underway, driven by repudiation of sacrifice as a mask to preserve the power of elites.

Reassessing the Role of the Military in Civilian Affairs

The events that followed the regime change provided space to openly discuss the military’s historical and present-day role in Pakistan’s politics. For decades, the military had been broadly trusted by the people over decades largely due to the fact that its actions were thought to be in the best interest of national security and moral rectitude. The citizens tend to support the actions of the military without analyzing the reasons behind it, usually due to the fact that political leaders were seen as corrupt or ineffective.

Nonetheless, the removal of Imran Khan in spite of all his popularity and lack of corruption accusations raised serious questions. For the first time, large segments of the population began asking why such a widely supported leader had been removed without a justified or compelling reason that people could understand and support. The reaction of the people was unprecedented: they protested and criticised the Establishment not just in general terms, but in defense of a specific political figure. This marked a very profound shift in the political consciousness of the nation.

The transformation in public perception did not just happen in a vacuum. Historically, Pakistan’s military gained moral and material support from the public because of the persistent security threats particularly those coming from India. The country’s first war with India occurred within a year of independence in 1947, deepening public insecurity and reinforcing the need for a strong military. This fear led to very widespread support for policies centered around national security, and over time, elevated the military to a position of superiority in state affairs.

Another contributing factor was the early demise of major civilian  leaders visionaries such as Allama Iqbal and Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar died before the independence whereas Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan were among those who passed away within the initial four years of acquisition of nationhood. Their absence left a large leadership vacuum that the military quickly began to fill, not just in defense matters but also in political governance.

Geopolitical interests of world superpowers also further cemented the military’s centrality. Pakistan, bordered by socialist countries like India, China, and Afghanistan, has made it a great strategic asset. The U.S. wanted an ally that is on its side on the Soviet border and found out it was easier to deal with a regime with a military at its helm compared to a democratic government answerable to a parliament. This strengthened the access of the military to arms, money and external legitimacy.

This centuries-long interlock of military-civilian relations led to a regime where the military was not only an institution of defense, but also a center of power that operates without the approval of the public and no checks and balances of the parliament.

Regarding Pakistan’s Martial Rule Era and the Two-Year Theory

In examining Pakistan’s martial rule era, a certain kind of pattern that is often referred to as the “Two-Year Theory” has been informally observed. This theory suggests that major  political or geopolitical events are rather likely to happen within two years following the imposition of martial law. While it is not a scientifically validated hypothesis, this pattern is strongly supported by a series of historically significant events which followed every military takeover..

1958 Martial Law: Imposed in October 1958 by President Iskander Mirza, with General Ayub Khan appointed as the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

• Significant Event (1960): In May 1960, a U.S. U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Soviet airspace. It was revealed that the plane had taken off from a U.S. military base in Peshawar, Pakistan. This incident exposed Pakistan’s strategic alignment with the United States during the Cold War.

1977 Martial Law: Imposed in July 1977 by General Zia-ul-Haq, who overthrew Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

• Significant Event (1979): The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 marked a seismic shift in regional geopolitics. Pakistan became a frontline state in the Cold War, receiving extensive military and economic support from the United States as a result

1999 Martial Law: Imposed in October 1999 by General Pervez Musharraf, who overthrew Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

• Significant Event (2001): Following the September 11 attacks, Pakistan became a key ally in the U.S.-led War on Terror. This dramatically altered Pakistan’s geopolitical standing and led to sweeping changes in internal security and foreign policy under Musharraf’s regime.

These historical pairings support the view that martial law in Pakistan is often followed by very significant national or regional developments. The pattern hints that the takeovers may not be an isolated incident, but they are closely connected to other broader global geopolitical strategies or realignments.

This gives credence to the argument that behind every imposition of martial law, there is not just a domestic power struggle, but also a strong connection to larger international agendas, what some might call the influence of the “global regime.”

Social Media, Civic Agency, and Democratic Demands

There has been an increased involvement in the by-elections as people demonstrated much discontent with the government in place. Remarkably, Imran Khan claimed victory in nearly 75% of these elections over the past eight months, indicating that the electorate were ready to take a stand and make their will count.  In spite of systematic attempts to rig the poll, as was reported by PATTAN, an election watchdog that has followed the polls in Pakistan since 1997, people continued to vote in alignment with their true preferences.  PATTAN has identified at least 163 methods of electoral manipulation under the current system, and yet, the will of the people has taken over such barriers and this indicates the determination of the people to exercise electoral agency, even within an unfair system.

Social media has also significantly transformed the manner in which citizens relate and participate in political activities. These platforms become ways through which new users and the longtime users have been able to become active participants in the online social movements. With internet access, individuals began utilizing online space to create awareness and promote the common good. This digital empowerment has allowed citizens to voice out their grievances, critique governance, and also mobilize very strong political support at unprecedented scales not seen before. A very good example was the reaction to the ouster of Prime Minister Imran Khan, which ignited a massive social movement online. When political forces turned against him, Imran Khan was banned from the traditional media, prompting people to turn to social platforms to hear his perspective.

This digital migration birthed viral trends such as 'Imported Hakumat Namanzoor', a Twitter hashtag that has been used over 106 million times, a strong indication of the scale and persistence of public engagement. Imran Khan’s live session on Twitter Space further broke records, drawing over 150,000 listeners, far surpassing the previous global benchmark of 50,000.

Such incidents represent a defining moment in the political communications in Pakistan, with audiences shifting en masse from traditional media to digital forums. This shift did not only decrease traditional media viewership but also damaged its credibility, as many now perceive it to be an organ of state control. In contrast, the openness and independence that is felt on social media has increased its reputation as the best medium to express genuine political opinion.

A new social contract is therefore essential, one that clearly defines the roles, rights, and boundaries of all institutions. This must include a transparent power-sharing agreement between civilian governments and the Establishment, enshrined in constitutional clarity. At its core, this contract should promote genuine democracy not just as a periodic ritual of elections, but as a continuous practice of accountability, representation, and public empowerment. The post-regime-change moment offers a critical opportunity to renegotiate this contract and move towards a truly democratic order in Pakistan.