Pakistan’s political landscape is marked by a persistent power struggle among its three major institutions: the executive, judiciary, and military. This article dives into the intricate dynamics of this triangular power struggle, shedding light on the actors involved, their competing interests, and the implications for governance and stability in Pakistan.
Pakistan’s administrative turmoil has always played a role in hollowing out the roots of the democratic political system. Inter-institutional involvement, which began in the 1950s, caused cracks in the political structure. Whether or not there has been any improvement in economic and social development for 75-year-old Pakistan is another topic, yet, the rift and struggle for power remain constant amid the state’s major institutions.
The three pillars of the state have been involved in mutual entanglements through clashing interests and competing agendas. The latest political instability in Pakistan since the motion of no confidence against the Imran Khan government in April 2022 was a solitary political affair, but the subsequent events created chaos in the society. Therefore, all institutions are trying to resolve the situation at hand as per their capacity and power share. These institutions need to understand that a collective effort is required from all, an effort that is in collaboration with each other, not conflicting. Previously, the military-judicial nexus appeared to undermine the parliament, but after 10 April 2022, the military and the judiciary are headed eyeball to eyeball.
After the dissolution of PTI’s Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) governments, elections were required to be held within 90 days, according to the constitution of Pakistan. However, the sitting Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) government remained obstinate, opposing elections in two provinces. The judiciary was forced to interfere, and the Chief Justice of Pakistan took suo moto of the situation by using discretionary power, which was also criticised by numerous sections. In a bizarre display of justice, the Chief Justice of Pakistan ruled that elections be held solely in Punjab on 14 May, even though polls should also be scheduled in KP (as per law). He remarked that if the current government did not hold elections on 14 May and the constitution was breached, the prime minister and cabinet would be removed from office through contempt of court proceedings.
However, when the court order was not followed, the Chief Justice summoned the Attorney General, Defence Secretary, and the top official of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to the court. Every institution was reluctant regarding the convening of elections. The military establishment excused itself from providing election security, mentioning the security situation in the state and along the border, and the SBP claimed that there was insufficient money in the country’s treasury to cover election expenses. Yet, the judiciary stepped back from the issue once the Supreme Court instructions were not followed. The judiciary recanted its position, claiming it was a matter for parliament to settle, not them.
Even though 90 days have lapsed and 14 May has passed, progress towards elections is yet to be made. Throughout this situation, the fictional writ of the state’s institutions became relatively clear. According to the constitution, the parliament had the option of holding elections within 90 days to maintain the smoothness of the democratic system and not allow any other institution to surpass it. But, the parliament stayed timid and gave an opportunity for the judiciary to intervene and execute the affairs of other institutions. Then again, the judiciary did not complete the contempt procedures, allowing a third party to intercede in the democratic process.
The politicians should strengthen parliament through mutual consultation and decision-making so that no other institution can replace them. It is the job of the judiciary to keep the balance of justice within the constitutional limits and not to tilt the weight in any particular direction under the pressure of politicians or any other institution. And it is the job of the military establishment to make Pakistan’s defence impregnable and not to interfere in politics or administrative affairs.
The Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan criticised the current political turmoil of Pakistan for undermining democratic norms. “Not only the politics but society has become deeply divided. We are heading towards an uglier in-fight within and among state institutions.” In any country, partisan institutions indicate a weakening of the democratic system, which would harm the country’s standing and turn it into a global laughingstock, as is the situation with Pakistan.
When institutions pursue a confrontational posture, the weaknesses of the state are exposed to the entire world, as we have seen in the current scenario in Pakistan. As long as incompetent and corrupt politicians control politics, political parties will stay weak, which leads to the weakness of the whole democratic system. The military and judicial organs are politicised and polarised, and no one is stepping up to pull Pakistan out of its current predicament. The Supreme Court’s infighting, which has resulted in an abject failure to settle impartially at this critical juncture, is not only a significant constitutional dilemma but also a symbol of a nation that has reached unprecedented levels of dysfunctionality.
Free and fair elections must take place as soon as possible, which seems to be the only constitutional resolution of this political turmoil. Judicial overreach must be limited, and all must observe the separation of powers between the legislature, administration, and judiciary. All institutional squabbles will be resolved if parliament is considered paramount and all political parties engage in broad-based negotiation with open hearts and minds. Right now, Pakistan is more divided than ever, and its institutions are threatened.
