A simple history of Pakistan reveals that the public likes the constitution and the establishment, it seems, dislikes democracy. Similarly the core issue of Pakistan that the Constitution and establishment can’t go together, reflects the tension between constitutional democracy and the influence of a powerful establishment, often understood as an informal coalition of elites and institutions that exert significant control over political decisions of Pakistan.
Constitutions are basically designed to limit power, distribute authority among government and Parliament, and protect citizens’ rights. They emphasize the rule of law, transparency, accountability, and democratic representation. The goal is to create a government accountable to the people of Pakistan and based on clear, codified laws and Qur’an and Sunnah.
Present scenario of Pakistan reveals that these actions create a power imbalance that can prevent the smooth running of the constitution by undermining the independence and authority of democratic institutions which made the Constitution mechanism fail and made our so called democracy fruitless by our own institutions and particularly those who claim to save Pakistan rather than destroying Pakistan
However, our establishment has some powerful individuals, including parts of the military, bureaucracy, or business elites that wield influence beyond formal political structures. Establishments may act in their own interest, often to preserve the status quo, which can include controlling or manipulating political outcomes or maintaining economic privileges.
The fundamental goals of a constitution and an establishment often diverge. A constitution seeks to represent the will of the people and hold leaders accountable, while an establishment typically seeks stability and control. In some cases, the establishment might interfere with constitutional processes, particularly when it perceives threats to its influence. This can manifest in influencing judicial appointments, election outcomes, or policies that protect the establishment’s interests which are considered supreme, rather than Pakistan.
A constitution is structured to prevent the concentration of power through checks and balances. Whereas our establishment often operates to centralize influence, which undermines these constitutional mechanisms since the beginning of Pakistan.
When the establishment exerts too much influence, public trust in democratic institutions erodes, as people see that real power may lie outside formal governance structures. This eroded trust weakens constitutional democracy as we are seeing and can lead to political apathy, or, conversely, public pushback and calls for reform.
The core problem is that the constitution represents a democratic, law-based framework intended for fair governance, while the establishment may push against this structure to preserve its interests. For constitutional democracy to thrive, it’s essential that establishment influence remains checked and that all power adheres to the constitution’s principles and laws.
Here in Pakistan, there’s been a long-standing tension between civilian constitutional governance and the influence of the establishment in political affairs. This dual influence has often shaped Pakistan’s political landscape in a way that divides power between elected officials, who theoretically represent the public’s will, and the establishment, which has had significant sway over both domestic and foreign policy.
The constitution provides for a parliamentary democracy, with a clear separation of powers and an independent judiciary, but historically, the military has frequently intervened, citing issues of stability, security, or national interest. This has led to military coups and the suspension of democratic processes several times in Pakistan’s history and presently a similar hybrid system is controlling Pakistan.
Today, the relationship between the two remains complex. While the civilian government leads on many fronts, the establishment still wields significant influence, particularly in matters of security, foreign policy, and even political stability. Efforts are ongoing to balance these forces in a way that ensures democratic continuity and respects the rule of law, but achieving that balance has proven challenging.
The establishment can interfere in democratic processes by supporting specific political parties or individuals. By favouring or opposing certain candidates, they can influence election outcomes, disrupting fair representation.
The establishment may attempt to influence judicial decisions, especially in cases involving high-level government officials, politicians, or political activists. This can erode the independence of the judiciary and affect the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Many times our military establishment intervened directly, suspending the constitution and taking over governance under the guise of restoring order or stability. This is a clear disruption of constitutional governance.
After the judiciary the establishment manages to control media narratives to influence public opinion, stifling dissenting voices or pushing a specific agenda. This limits freedom of expression, a fundamental constitutional right, and can shape political outcomes by controlling what information should and should not reach the public.
Pressure on activists, NGOs, and other civil society groups can limit civic engagement and weaken democracy. Civil society often plays a role in holding the government accountable, so stifling this sector can undermine constitutional checks and balances.
Present scenario of Pakistan reveals that these actions create a power imbalance that can prevent the smooth running of the constitution by undermining the independence and authority of democratic institutions which made the Constitution mechanism fail and made our so called democracy fruitless by our own institutions.
