Pakistan’s New Era: When the Generals Step into the Light
For decades, Pakistani politics has operated under a veil of ambiguity, a system where the military exerted immense influence from behind the scenes while civilian governments bore the public responsibility.This delicate,if undemocratic,balance has been fundamentally disrupted. A new paradigm is emerging, one where the military’s role is no longer subtly implied but openly asserted, fundamentally reshaping Pakistan’s political landscape and presenting both opportunities and meaningful risks. This isn’t a traditional coup; it’s a strategic integration of military power into the very fabric of governance, a shift with profound implications for Pakistan’s future stability, economic trajectory, and international relations.
The catalyst for this change is, undeniably, the sidelining of Imran Khan. While his removal from power and subsequent imprisonment were presented as legal proceedings, the overwhelming perception – and evidence – points to a concerted effort by the military establishment to neutralize a political force they deemed destabilizing. The current arrangement, however, isn’t simply about eliminating a rival. It’s about a fundamental recalibration of power, a conscious decision to operate in the open, a move that carries both calculated benefits and inherent vulnerabilities.
The Munir Model: Transparency and Accountability - A Double-Edged Sword
The approach, increasingly referred to as the “Munir model” after current Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir, represents a stark departure from the past. Previously, the military could operate with a degree of plausible deniability, shielding itself from direct accountability for policy failures. Now, with the army chief visibly involved in everything from economic policy and foreign investment to oil exploration and tariff negotiations, the military owns the outcomes.
This newfound visibility introduces a crucial element of accountability. If economic growth stagnates, if foreign investment falters, or if security deteriorates, the military can no longer deflect blame onto an “incompetent cabinet.” This is a significant shift, forcing the generals to confront the direct consequences of their decisions. The leadership’s proactive engagement with public opinion polling and frequent press briefings underscores a sensitivity to this new reality - a recognition that success will be lauded, but failure will be directly attributed to their stewardship.
However, this transparency comes at a cost.The creation of bodies like the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), while potentially streamlining investment and reassuring foreign partners, risks hollowing out civilian institutions. Ministries are weakened, civilian expertise is sidelined, and the crucial checks and balances provided by parliamentary scrutiny, media criticism, and opposition oversight are diminished. Pakistan’s history is replete with examples of military regimes delivering short-term stability, only to crumble when faced with sustained economic challenges or unforeseen crises. The lack of robust institutional buffers, a hallmark of these regimes, accelerates the risk of breakdown. A state that concentrates competence within a “praetorian core” – a military-dominated center of power – inevitably becomes brittle.
The Khan Factor: A Looming Predicament
The situation surrounding Imran Khan remains a critical vulnerability. The military now faces a difficult choice: legitimize his political future through a fair judicial or electoral process, or continue his indefinite exclusion. Both options are fraught with peril. Rehabilitating Khan could destabilize the carefully constructed new order, potentially unleashing the very forces the military sought to contain. Conversely, prolonged repression erodes the legitimacy of the system, fueling resentment and potentially igniting further unrest. This is a delicate balancing act, and the longer it continues, the more precarious the situation becomes.
Foreign Policy Implications: Securitization and Entanglement
The military’s ascendance also has significant implications for Pakistan’s foreign policy. Dealings with India, already complex, are likely to become increasingly securitized, channeled through military-to-military contacts rather than the more nuanced civilian bureaucratic channels. This shift raises the risk of miscalculation and escalation, making dialog more difficult.
Furthermore, Pakistan’s deepening security ties, exemplified by the recent mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia, will draw the country further into the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East. A military-led Pakistan is more likely to be drawn into the security calculus of other states, potentially leading to policy divergence with Iran and entanglement in regional conflicts that are not in Pakistan’s national interest. While some countries, including the United States and Gulf states, may appear content with a Pakistan led by the military, this arrangement could ultimately constrain Pakistan’s foreign policy adaptability and autonomy.
A Stage fully Lit: Strategic Integration, Not a Coup
The era of the “invisible state” is over. The Munir model represents a fundamental shift: the military has institutionalized its dominance, not by disguising it, but by openly integrating itself into the political and economic structures of the country. This is not a creeping coup, but a strategic integration, a calculated gamble to deliver efficiency and stability through direct military control.
the irony is palpable. Shehbaz Sharif,
