Pakistan’s political landscape is a tapestry woven with threads of military interventions, dynastic rule, judicial complicity in undemocratic governance, and a persistent struggle—particularly for democratic consolidation and the protection of people’s rights.
But why has Pakistan even after 75 years failed to establish a truly democratic system? Why do the same patterns of governance continue to undermine the aspirations of its people?
A colonial legacy and the trichotomy of power
Pakistan inherited a political structure dominated by colonial bureaucracy, with political parties that were either non-existent or lacked strong leadership at the time of independence.
This void allowed the military and civil bureaucracy (judiciary included), trained in colonial traditions and governance, to assert themselves from 1951 onwards as the dominant force in national decision-making. Why did this colonial mindset persist, and why were political institutions unable to reclaim their rightful space?
The answer lies in the nature of power consolidation—where generals, bureaucrats/judges, and a select selection of political elite formed a trichotomy that systematically excluded the people from governance.
Are Pakistan’s political parties genuine representatives of people?
On the surface, Pakistan appears to have a multi-party system with prominent players like the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). However, a deeper analysis reveals that these entities function more like family-run enterprises or personality cults rather than democratic institutions.
Why is it the case? The Bhutto and now Zardari family’s dominance in PPP, the Sharif dynasty in PML-N, and Imran Khan’s undisputed control over PTI exemplify a system where leadership is inherited or individually controlled rather than merit-based. Such a structure prioritizes loyalty over competence, fostering patronage networks that weaken institutional governance.
Many of their supporters argue that the establishment (comprising the military, intelligence agencies, and status-quo-driven forces and groups) does not allow these political parties to function independently. While there may be some truth to this claim, a more pressing question emerges: are these so-called political parties truly representative of the people’s aspirations, or do they merely safeguard the interests of their leaders and affiliated elites? Why is it so easy for the establishment to destabilize their governments? Why can the establishment manipulate their top leadership so effortlessly?
The reason is clear: these parties lack genuine connections with the people. They have no internal democracy, no grassroots organizational structures, and no real commitment to a people-centric manifesto.
Even when such promises exist on paper, there is neither intent nor will to implement them. Is there a single party in Pakistan that operates with genuine democratic accountability within its own ranks, where leadership is chosen based on merit and competence rather than personal loyalty?
The opposition’s role: genuine checks or political stunts?
When in power, these political parties disregard media criticism, ignore opposition protests, and dismiss public concerns. The only time they react is when social media mobilization threatens their chances of returning to power.
The opposition, rather than acting as a shadow government with well-researched policies and alternative governance models, often resorts to mere spectacle—noise, slogans, and superficial demands that serve their leadership’s interests rather than the people’s.
With such an ineffective, self-serving political landscape and with rampant corruption while in power, it is no surprise that the establishment finds it easy to intervene and manipulate national affairs. If the political parties were truly accountable to their people, had transparent decision-making processes, and pursued substantive policy reforms, would the establishment still be able to dictate terms? The answer is likely no.
Why has digital governance not been implemented?
One of the greatest failures of these political parties—both in government and in opposition—is their inability or unwillingness to modernize governance through digitization.
Why has Pakistan not digitized its demographic data to ensure accurate population statistics? Why has economic and financial data not been systematically recorded and made accessible for taxation, trade, and budget planning?
Why has health data not been compiled into a centralized system to facilitate better public health policies? Education, crime prevention, environmental sustainability, and infrastructure planning all require data-driven decision-making, yet digitization in these sectors remains woefully absent.
The technology to achieve this has existed since late 1990s. Why, then, have successive governments failed to act? The answer is simple: a lack of vision and political will. Genuine transparency and efficiency would threaten the patronage-based corruption that benefits the political elite.
Digital governance would expose inefficiencies, eliminate bureaucratic hurdles, and restrict avenues for misappropriation—threats that the current ruling class is unwilling to entertain.
Why has Pakistan not prioritized health and basic infrastructure?
Why has no government established digitally connected primary healthcare clinics in every town block or sizable rural village? Instead, they focus on building a handful of hospitals specializing in specific diseases like cardiac, liver, or kidney conditions.
But why treat diseases rather than eliminate their causes? Why do governments not launch mass awareness campaigns—leveraging social media and community outreach—to educate people about preventive healthcare?
Similarly, why has Pakistan not ensured universal access to solar energy and natural gas for cooking? Villages in Balochistan, for example, still lack basic electricity and gas connections.
Why has there been no serious effort to digitally link remote villages with urban centers and essential services? Infrastructure development has remained stagnant, with rural communities left in isolation and abject poverty.
Why has education been left to decay?
Why has Pakistan not digitized its entire education system? Instead of continuously appointing teachers trained in pre-internet-era methods, why has no effort been made to introduce technology-driven education models? Article 25A of the Constitution guarantees the right to education, yet why does a parallel private education system exist, limiting quality education to the privileged few?
Why has Pakistan failed to integrate AI and transformative technologies into education? In an era where Gen AI can provide free and personalized learning, why have policymakers not introduced initiatives that equip students with digital skills?
Why has Pakistan ignored sustainable development?
Why has rain and floodwater not been harvested systematically to replenish underground water reserves? Even in mountainous regions where water collection is feasible, why is it allowed to be wasted?
Why has the agricultural sector not been provided with unadulterated seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to ensure food security? Why does the country remain vulnerable to recurring food crises despite possessing vast agricultural potential?
Why has Pakistan not embraced transformative technologies?
The world is on the brink of an AI-driven revolution, with technology advancing at an exponential rate. By 2030, AI, automation, and digital ecosystems will transform economies, reduce poverty, and expand human capabilities. But has Pakistan positioned itself to benefit from these advancements?
Why have successive governments not laid the groundwork for AI-driven governance, skill development, and industry transformation? Even basic crime prevention remains inefficient—why can rural dacoits not be tracked using satellite and drone technology? The tools exist, yet the will to implement them is absent.
What must be done?
Pakistan needs a political transformation—a movement that not only addresses the failures of existing parties but also integrates governance with modern technological and scientific advancements. The creation of one or more political entities that prioritize digital governance, accountability, and public welfare is imperative.
These new political forces must also ensure that unconstitutional interventions in governance are permanently curtailed, limiting the establishment to its defined role.
A call for political renewal
The world is moving toward an era where governance, economic planning, and public services will be shaped by AI, automation, and data-driven policies. Pakistan cannot afford to be left behind.
The people must demand not just better political parties but an entirely new paradigm of governance that aligns with the realities of the 21st century. If such change does not come from within the existing political structures, then the people must create new movements that can drive genuine reform.
The time for ‘hullabaloo/hangama’ and political theatrics is over. The time for substantive, technology-driven, and people-centric governance is now.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The writer is advocate High Court, a Techno-economist and an educationist