Political turmoil in Pakistan is not particularly rare in the history of democracy, but the recent relationship between the government and the military appears increasingly problematic. Imran Khan, the populist prime minister who won power in the 2018 general election on a platform of reform, had to relinquish the premiership following a vote of no confidence in April 2022. Officially, this event is described as a constitutional process. However, allegations of military interference and US government involvement have sparked debate domestically and internationally.

Since Khan’s abrupt ouster, Pakistan has faced intense scrutiny and criticism at home and abroad over the nature of its political system and whether it upholds democratic norms and principles. The political landscape continues to shift, yet serious questions remain. How has politics unfolded since Khan’s fall? What do these developments mean for Pakistan’s political future? Furthermore, to fully understand Pakistan’s political system, one must acknowledge the influence the military has wielded.

Pakistan’s military has historically played a central role in shaping the country’s political landscape. It is often viewed as a politically functioning institution, though its moves are not always conspicuous. Imran Khan, elected prime minister in 2018, was no exception; the military’s backing is widely seen as a key factor in his success. The persistence of this long-standing influence has raised doubts about the future of democratic politics in Pakistan. Revisiting civil-military relations is therefore necessary to gauge the extent of military involvement in politics. This article explores Pakistan’s democratic institutions and its powerful military establishment, the shifting alliances that continue to define the country’s fragile political trajectory, and the ongoing struggles between them.

Prime Minister’s Secretariat, Islamabad (Photo: Usman.pg / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 3.0])

Overview of Civil-Military Relations (1947–2024)

Since independence in 1947, Pakistan has experienced turbulent periods between civilian governments and the military. The military’s involvement has often been dominant, influencing the country’s political direction through coups, direct rule, and behind-the-scenes interference. The military has directly taken control of the government four times, with four military leaders ruling the country for a total of 33 years, during which three civilian governments were ousted.

The first decade after independence was marked by political instability, weak civilian administrations, and frequent leadership changes. The assassination of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 and the dissolution of multiple governments weakened democratic institutions. During this period, the military under General Ayub Khan gradually gained influence and, after dissolving the Feroz Khan government in 1958, launched Pakistan’s first military coup.

General Ayub Khan imposed martial law and established Pakistan’s first military regime. He introduced centralized governance and economic reforms, but opposition grew. Amid mass protests, Ayub Khan handed power to General Yahya Khan in 1969. Elections were held in 1970, and the Awami League, the party of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), won the most seats. Resistance to this outcome in West Pakistan led to conflict between West and East Pakistan, resulting in Bangladesh’s independence in 1971. The military’s failure in this conflict triggered a mutiny by officers, and Yahya Khan was forced from power the same year. Civilian rule was restored under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

The government of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sought to strengthen civilian rule, but friction with the military remained intense. After allegations of electoral manipulation in 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq carried out the third coup, reestablishing military rule. Zia imposed martial law, suspended the constitution, and governed autocratically. In the 1980s, his regime introduced Islamic law and, through Pakistan’s active involvement in the Soviet–Afghan War, further entrenched the military’s domestic influence and marked a major turning point. In 1988, Zia’s sudden death in a mysterious plane crash paved the way for the restoration of civilian rule.

From 1988 to 1999, Pakistan saw political upheaval as power alternated between the PPP under Benazir Bhutto (daughter of the late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Both leaders faced major obstacles to completing their terms, including military intervention, corruption allegations, and instability. Frequent clashes between the government and the military weakened democratic institutions, underscoring military predominance. Ultimately, in 1999, General Pervez Musharraf accused Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of misgovernance, staged the country’s fourth coup, and returned Pakistan to military rule.

From 1999 to 2008, General Musharraf ruled Pakistan as a military dictator, working closely with the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan. While Musharraf oversaw economic growth and infrastructure development, he intensified political repression and curtailed civil liberties. By 2007, a growing opposition—particularly the Lawyers’ Movement—and judicial activism pressured him to resign as army chief. Facing mounting challenges, Musharraf ultimately resigned in 2008, opening the path to a return to civilian rule.

From 2008 to 2018, Pakistan was under civilian governance, but the military’s influence remained strong. Between 2008 and 2013, the PPP government led by Asif Ali Zardari (widower of the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto) completed its presidential term, yet key decisions on national security and foreign policy remained under the military’s watch. In 2013, Nawaz Sharif returned as prime minister, but relations with the military gradually deteriorated. Tensions peaked when, following the Panama Papers scandal in 2017, the Supreme Court disqualified him—a move widely perceived as backed by the military. This highlighted the long-standing pattern of civilian leaders attempting to assert authority within a system where the military continues to play a decisive role.

Coups have been plotted repeatedly in Pakistan’s history, four of which succeeded. Moreover, even under civilian rule, the military has consistently influenced governance by permeating the civilian bureaucracy and key social organizations. On the civilian side, Pakistan has seen a revolving door of 22 so-called democratically elected prime ministers, including the last, Imran Khan, yet none completed a full five-year term. Prominent figures such as Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto each served multiple times but were unable to see out their mandates. Some prime ministers managed four years, others at least three, and seven interim prime ministers were appointed. Five prime ministers also served under military presidents.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (2014) (Photo: MEAphotogallery / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0])

Issues surrounding the appointment of military leaders

Under Pakistan’s constitution, the prime minister has the authority to appoint key military leaders, such as the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and the Director General (DG) of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). However, because the military wields significant political influence and pressure from other political stakeholders often shapes decision-making, such appointments frequently become contentious. Historically, the military has dominated the country’s political landscape, often operating from behind the civilian government. As a result, the selection of the COAS and the DG-ISI is seen as a crucial decision that affects the balance of power between military and civilian leadership.

Prime ministers often feel compelled to appoint military leaders acceptable to both the military establishment and political stakeholders, which can trigger political tensions, maneuvering, and instability. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (1947–1951) struggled with civil-military relations and appointed General Ayub Khan as Pakistan’s first commander-in-chief after independence. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1973–1977) appointed General Zia-ul-Haq as COAS over other senior officers, a decision that backfired when Zia ousted him in the 1977 coup. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1988–1990, 1993–1996) faced military interference during both terms, including clashes over the dismissal of an ISI director general.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (1990–1993, 1997–1999, 2013–2017) clashed with COAS General Waheed Kakar in 1993 and appointed General Musharraf in 1998, who later ousted Sharif in the 1999 coup. There was also a clash over the COAS appointment in 2016. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani (2008–2012) clashed with the COAS and the ISI chief over the 2011 “Memogate” scandal, which stemmed from a request to the United States for help in preventing a military takeover after the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Prime Minister Imran Khan (2018–2022) saw an appointment dispute over the ISI chief in 2021 escalate into a public row; the COAS opposed his choice, and Khan was ultimately ousted in 2022.

These recurring tensions lay bare the fragility of the balance of power between civilian leaders and the military in Pakistan.

Pervez Musharraf, who staged the 1999 military coup (2005) (Photo: US Navy / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

Many prime ministers have faced backlash for making decisions based on political motives rather than merit, or for controversial military appointments. As seen with Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif, delays or sudden changes in decisions have fueled suspicions of favoritism or military interference, underscoring the contentious nature of these choices. Appointments of military leaders are closely scrutinized by the public and media, often sparking debates about the prime minister’s independence and the military’s influence. Such controversies strain civil-military relations, stoke doubts about transparency, undermine political stability, and further unsettle the fragile balance of power between civilian and military institutions.

Transparent selection processes invite speculation. At the same time, one wrong move can destabilize a government, underscoring the relationship shaped by the military’s historic political role. Such appointments are increasingly politicized, alongside calls for greater transparency and accountability. While the military claims meritocracy and denies interference, in practice personnel decisions reflect a tug-of-war between civilians and the military, and political horse-trading continues. Despite the prime minister’s constitutional authority, the military’s entrenched influence complicates the process, fueling tensions and public skepticism.

The economic importance of Pakistan’s military

Pakistan’s economy remains in crisis, with multibillion-dollar deals with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ostensibly undertaken to stabilize it. This crisis reflects decades of decay under a rapacious elite backed by the military. Meanwhile, the military controls multibillion-dollar enterprises spanning diverse sectors. The military’s economic dominance began soon after independence, exemplified by projects such as the Karakoram Highway and the establishment of the Frontier Works Organization (FWO).

Today, military-run conglomerates such as the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust are dominant players in key sectors like real estate, manufacturing, and housing. These entities enjoy tax exemptions and a significant advantage over private firms. For example, the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), originally established to provide housing for service members, has grown into a multibillion-dollar real estate giant. Beyond these organizations, the military operates a vast network of companies including banks, transport firms, cement, fertilizer, and grain mills.

Residential area in Karachi under DHA administration (Photo: King Eliot / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

In addition to commercial ventures, the military runs schools, hospitals, and industrial enterprises, with total investments estimated at US$20 billion. Military-owned companies control 7% of Pakistan’s gross domestic product (GDP), one-third of manufacturing, and 7% of private-sector assets. The military is also the country’s largest landowner, holding 13% of state land, and is a leading housing developer.

Benefits for senior military officials after retirement

Senior military officers receive extensive benefits after retirement, often referred to as “cradle-to-grave” care. The Fauji Foundation provides resettlement and reemployment opportunities for millions of veterans. Benefits include free healthcare, pensions, educational subsidies, and residential and commercial plots at discounted prices. Senior officers enjoy additional perks, such as salaried government posts and access to facilities in military cantonments. While these benefits are not determined by ethnic or religious background, they are highly concentrated, with 75% of service members hailing from Punjab province.

These advantages extend to post-service employment. Retired senior officers are often appointed to high-profile civilian posts due to their influence over governance and administration. While legal, such employment raises concerns about conflicts of interest when influence is used to advance employers’ interests, particularly in housing and related businesses. Retired military leaders also frequently occupy prominent roles in universities, think tanks, and government, reinforcing the military’s image as the “savior of the nation.” Despite having retired, many senior officers continue to wield significant political influence, blurring the line between civilian and military spheres and indicating the normalization of the military’s influence over Pakistan’s political and economic landscape.

They also serve as provincial governors overseeing administration in provinces such as Sindh, Punjab, and Balochistan. Retired officers are frequently appointed as ambassadors to strategically important countries, including the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia. They are also appointed to lead state-owned enterprises, including Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), and other key bodies. Some retired officers are appointed as National Security Adviser (NSA) or federal ministers, with their expertise particularly valued in defense-related ministries.

Pervez Musharraf’s official vehicle (2006) (Photo: D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

The appointment of retired military personnel to civilian roles in Pakistan has highlighted the extent of their influence across politics, the economy, and education, fueling debate about excessive military encroachment into civilian domains. Critics argue that this undermines democratic institutions, weakens civilian supremacy, and blurs civil-military boundaries. Supporters, however, contend that retired officers can bring discipline, experience, and efficiency to leadership.

There are no explicit legal restrictions that forbid such appointments, but concerns over transparency and civilian control persist. Recent years have seen some pushback, and such appointments have slightly declined compared with past decades. Nevertheless, the practice remains a significant feature of Pakistan’s civil-military relations, reflecting the military’s enduring influence over governance and shaping the country’s political and administrative structures.

The rise of Imran Khan

Imran Khan, an unconventional politician and legendary cricketer, founded Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 and entered politics advocating justice, accountability, and the eradication of corruption. However, PTI failed to win a single seat in the 1997 general election. In the 2002 election, he won one seat in Mianwali, but the party remained politically weak and even boycotted the 2008 election in protest against the Musharraf regime. PTI gained momentum with mass rallies in 2011, and Khan’s anti-corruption message resonated with youth and the middle class. In the 2013 election, while falling short at the national level, PTI became the second-largest party by votes and formed a provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

After the 2013 election, Khan led sustained protests over alleged electoral rigging, including a 126-day sit-in in Islamabad in 2014. While the movement did not immediately yield electoral gains, it established PTI as Pakistan’s main opposition. Rising public support and backlash against the ruling PML-N propelled PTI to victory in the 2018 election, making Khan prime minister. Many analysts believe that the military’s support played a significant role in his win.

Imran Khan and PTI supporters (political rally in 2016) (Photo: King Eliot / Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0])

At first, Khan’s government drew support for its anti-corruption stance and promises of economic reform to build a “New Pakistan.” However, his administration was plagued by challenges, including economic slowdown and inflation, and was criticized for mismanaging Pakistan’s finances.

The fall of Imran Khan

Khan’s administration faced serious governance contradictions due to a lack of experience and planning. For example, the government’s handling of the economy dealt significant damage. Amid the economic slowdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, Khan shuffled four finance ministers across six changes, but none managed to revive the economy. Khan also severely hurt his support by elevating the widely criticized Usman Buzdar to chief minister of Punjab, the most populous and pivotal province. Buzdar’s performance adversely affected provincial administration and dealt a major blow to the Khan government.

Tensions became particularly pronounced over key policy decisions in foreign relations—especially with the United States and Afghanistan—and when Khan balked at approving candidates favored by the military for important posts. Over time, the rift between Khan and the military deepened, notably on US–military security issues. In a June 2021 interview with an American journalist, when asked whether his government would allow the United States to station the CIA (air bases) in Pakistan to conduct cross-border counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban, Khan rejected the idea, saying, “Absolutely not.” His unequivocal stance was seen as a direct challenge to the military establishment. The moment proved decisive during his tenure, underscoring the rupture with the military.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (left) and Prime Minister Imran Khan (center) (2018) (Photo: US Department of State / Wikimedia Commons [Public domain])

In March 2022, Khan claimed he had evidence that foreign powers were trying to oust him. The alleged evidence turned out to be a diplomatic cable (a cipher) purportedly showing US pressure on his government. A US official named in the cable later denied the claim as “false.” A month after this political storm erupted, in April 2022, Khan was removed through a vote of no confidence.

After leaving office, Khan was arrested on corruption charges, and his political momentum waned significantly. This sparked nationwide protests in Pakistan, leading to clashes between his supporters and law enforcement. In August 2023, he was convicted of illegally selling state gifts and sentenced to three years in prison and disqualified from public office for five years. He was also charged over the mishandling of a classified diplomatic cable. In a separate corruption case, he received a 14-year prison sentence in January 2025. Khan also faces numerous other charges, including terrorism, incitement, and contempt of court, related to his political activities and protests.

Despite being imprisoned and barred from holding office, Khan remains a potent figure in Pakistan’s political landscape. His populist appeal and anti-establishment rhetoric have energized public sentiment—especially among the youth—reinforcing the importance of political participation and accountability. After a two-year delay, general elections were finally held in March 2024. Although Khan’s party was officially barred from using the “PTI” name and its iconic cricket bat election symbol, candidates endorsed by Khan won the most seats, underscoring his enduring influence. However, while his indictments sparked widespread protests among supporters, authorities cracked down heavily on the demonstrations. Thousands were arrested and many injured in clashes with police, exposing the ongoing political turmoil and polarization in the country.

Women voting in the 2018 general election (Photo: Commonwealth Secretariat / Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])

The future of Pakistan’s democracy

From direct coups to backstage maneuvering, Pakistan’s military remains a key player in politics. While civilian governments try to assert control, the military continues to wield influence over national security, foreign policy, and governance, making the consolidation of genuine democracy an enduring challenge. The military has typically played a powerful role behind the scenes. It is regrettable that Pakistan’s political instability has been allowed to persist, in part because of the military’s continued involvement in governance. Yet civilian governments have also often been mired in corruption and mismanagement, failing to deliver effectively. This twin failure—military interference and civilian incapacity—has created a cycle of dysfunction, undermining the country’s democratic progress and governance.

Imran Khan’s downfall has reignited debate about democracy in Pakistan. Critics argue that the military’s influence—evident in the no-confidence vote and political machinations against Khan—has weakened and destabilized democratic institutions. Khan has remained defiant, rejecting what he says were offers from the military to drop cases against him in exchange for endorsing the status quo. Whether his removal was the result of military interference or a democratic corrective remains contested. What is clear is that this episode has deepened polarization in Pakistani politics and raises serious questions about the future of democracy in a country where the military still plays a central role.

As Pakistan moves forward amid this turbulent political landscape, questions about the future of its democracy remain central. Can it break the cycle of instability, or can the next elections restore order and accountability? The current government presents a historically ironic arrangement in which two major political rivals—Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (brother of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif) and PPP President Asif Ali Zardari—govern in coalition with four other parties. This underscores the country’s fragile political architecture and the military’s entrenched backstage interference. Yet hopes for genuine democratic reform persist. Public demand for change and a fair distribution of power will shape Pakistan’s path toward democratization in the years ahead.

Writer: Sajjad Ahmed

Translation: Kyoka Wada

Graphics: Mayuko Hanafusa

Follow @GNV_tweets