Pakistan’s military has entrenched itself as the central authority across all sectors of governance, economy, and national identity. From Ayub Khan’s economic consolidation to Zia-ul-Haq’s ideological expansion and beyond, civilian institutions have been systematically undermined. Backed by global powers and fortified by vast business interests, the military’s unchecked dominance leaves little space for democratic resurgence.
The Pakistan Army is not merely a military institution; it is the very backbone of the state. Over the decades, the army has embedded itself in every facet of Pakistan’s political, economic, and social life, dictating the trajectory of the country’s development. From the earliest days of independence in 1947, the military’s influence has been profound, extending its reach into government, business, and national identity. This control has not been coincidental; it is the result of strategic decisions made by military leaders to secure their political and economic interests and ensure that no civilian authority can challenge the military’s dominance.
Origins of Military Control: Ayub Khan’s Foundation of a Military-Run State
While Pakistan’s military presence in politics began almost immediately following independence, it was General Ayub Khan’s 1958 coup that marked the real establishment of the military as the de facto ruler of Pakistan. Ayub Khan’s military coup wasn’t just a power grab; it was a calculated effort to consolidate and institutionalize the military’s influence in Pakistan’s political and economic spheres.
Under Ayub, the military’s economic involvement grew significantly with the creation of Fauji Foundation, a military-run conglomerate that quickly expanded into key industries, including agriculture, telecommunications, and manufacturing. By the end of the 1960s, the Fauji Foundation and its subsidiaries controlled nearly 2% of Pakistan’s GDP, a significant stake in a country where civilian industries were nascent at best. The military’s economic empire included companies like Fauji Fertilizer, which continues to dominate the fertilizer market to this day, and the Army Welfare Trust, which managed housing and construction projects across Pakistan.
In terms of governance, Ayub’s policies ensured that the military was at the center of all key decisions. His land reforms, while intended to bolster Pakistan’s agricultural economy, were primarily designed to bring the land-owning elites into alignment with the military’s goals. Furthermore, Ayub’s emphasis on military modernization—alongside major foreign military aid agreements, particularly with the United States—ensured that the army not only secured the country’s borders but also cemented its role as the chief architect of Pakistan’s foreign policy, particularly in relation to India and Afghanistan.
Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamization and Expansion of Military Power
While Ayub’s regime institutionalized military power, General Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1988) expanded it by infusing the military’s control with religious ideology. Zia’s Islamization policies were designed to solidify the military’s ideological and political grip on Pakistan, ensuring that no civilian government could dislodge it.
Under Zia, military-run businesses flourished. The army expanded its control into agriculture, manufacturing, and even the newly emerging telecommunications sector. During Zia’s time, military companies accounted for nearly 5% of Pakistan’s GDP. This created an entrenched military-industrial complex that ensured that the military remained financially independent and politically influential. Zia also used his military’s control over key industries to secure patronage networks that intertwined business elites with military interests, making it virtually impossible for any government to challenge military dominance.
Zia also expanded the military’s control over strategic national assets like the country’s nuclear program. His policies not only made the army the sole guardian of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities but also turned the military into an unchallenged force in foreign policy, particularly regarding Pakistan’s relations with India and Afghanistan. These developments reinforced the army’s power over both Pakistan’s domestic and international agenda, pushing civilian oversight to the periphery.
Yahya Khan’s Crucial Role: The Military’s Power Amidst Crisis
General Yahya Khan’s brief rule (1969–1971) is often overshadowed by the disastrous consequences of the East Pakistan crisis, but it was a crucial chapter in understanding the military’s control. Yahya Khan’s failure to address East Pakistan’s demands for autonomy led directly to the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh. Yahya’s failure to manage the situation exposed the military’s limited understanding of political realities but, paradoxically, also solidified the military’s control after the crisis.
Despite the defeat, Yahya’s handling of the crisis reinforced the military’s belief in its authority to decide the fate of the nation. In the aftermath of the crisis, Yahya’s government reasserted military dominance by sidelining civilian leadership and ensuring that the military remained the primary decision-maker. The military’s narrative of ‘protecting the nation’ post-crisis gave it the leverage to continue asserting control, even as it played down the massive human and political cost of the war.
The Military-Industrial Complex: A System of Control
The military’s influence extends well beyond the battlefield—it controls key sectors of the economy and has created a powerful system of patronage. Over the years, the military’s commercial interests have expanded to include everything from cement production to telecommunications, and its firms dominate major economic sectors. Companies like Fauji Fertilizer and the Army Welfare Trust control massive portions of Pakistan’s economy, with military-run corporations now owning significant stakes in both energy and construction.
The military’s dominance is particularly visible in sectors vital to national infrastructure, such as the energy industry. The military has been involved in major energy projects, including the construction of dams and power plants. Control over Pakistan’s energy infrastructure ensures that the military not only maintains its political power but also keeps a tight hold over the country’s economic development. In 2015, military-run businesses accounted for about 10% of Pakistan’s GDP, making the military a key player in every major economic decision, from industrial projects to international trade agreements.
Civilian Governments and the Military’s Shadow
Despite Pakistan’s occasional civilian governments, the military has maintained an unshakable grip on power. Each civilian attempt to assert control over the military has been met with resistance, whether through direct military intervention or by the military manipulating the political system to maintain its supremacy. The 1999 coup, led by General Pervez Musharraf, demonstrated the military’s ability to reassert itself when civilian leadership appeared too weak to challenge its dominance.
Under civilian governments, the military has retained its power by controlling key state institutions such as intelligence services, the judiciary, and the media. Even during periods of civilian rule, the military’s influence on foreign policy and national security has remained paramount, with Pakistan’s international relations often being dictated by military interests rather than civilian diplomatic strategies.
The Global Enablers: Foreign Powers and the Military’s Strategic Partnerships
The military’s power has not grown in isolation; it has been consistently enabled by foreign partnerships that view Pakistan’s generals as reliable interlocutors. During the Cold War, the United States provided military aid and training in exchange for Pakistan’s cooperation against Soviet-aligned actors. Later, during the War on Terror, Washington again empowered the army with funding and arms, bypassing civilian oversight entirely. In the 21st century, China’s investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) have primarily been coordinated with the military, reinforcing its control over infrastructure and foreign capital. Similarly, Gulf monarchies have invested heavily in Pakistan’s military apparatus—both financially and diplomatically—treating it as a stable partner regardless of the domestic democratic situation. This international complicity has allowed the military to expand its power without accountability to its own people.
The Military’s Continued Dominance: A Future Locked in Military Control?
Pakistan’s military continues to dominate the country’s political and economic spheres, despite periodic attempts at civilian governance. The military’s grip on key institutions has not only hindered democratic development but has also limited the country’s ability to achieve sustained economic growth. With major business interests in nearly every sector of the economy, the military has cultivated a patronage network that keeps civilian political leaders dependent on military support.
This deep entrenchment has resulted in a skewed system where decisions about Pakistan’s future are largely dictated by military interests. The country’s ongoing dependence on foreign aid—particularly from China and the Gulf States—has further solidified the military’s power, as these external actors are often willing to cooperate with the military rather than with civilian administrations.
The Current Landscape: Repression, Resistance, and Stalemate
In the wake of former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s fallout with the army, Pakistan has seen a renewed cycle of repression against dissenting voices, journalists, and activists. Civil liberties have been curtailed under the guise of national security, with military courts and laws invoked to prosecute political opposition. Meanwhile, regional movements—especially in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—continue to demand autonomy or outright secession, highlighting the growing alienation of ethnic minorities. Despite state violence, civil society groups and human rights defenders have attempted to resist this military stranglehold, though they face arrests, censorship, and exile. The current situation represents a hardened status quo, where resistance simmers beneath the surface, but real structural change remains elusive.
Pakistan’s State of Military Rule
Pakistan’s military, rather than serving as a traditional defense force, has established itself as the principal architect of the state. From its control over economic resources to its dominance in shaping national policy, the military has ensured that no civilian authority can effectively challenge its power. The military’s entrenched control over Pakistan’s institutions, both political and economic, means that the future of the country remains largely dependent on the whims of military leaders.
In the absence of effective civilian governance, Pakistan’s military-state nexus will likely persist, continuing to define the country’s internal dynamics and its role on the global stage. Whether this unyielding grip will lead to long-term stability or further fragmentation is yet to be seen. What is certain, however, is that as long as resistance is suppressed and power remains monopolized by military elites, Pakistan’s democratic future will remain hostage to the ambitions of its generals.