Pakistan’s political conversation often returns to a familiar charge, that institutional coordination, particularly where the military is involved, automatically signals dominance. While this argument is frequently repeated, it rarely engages with the deeper causes of governance breakdown or with the realities of how states function under pressure.
In any system burdened by layered bureaucracy and weak decision making, delays and ambiguity are inevitable. When authority is fragmented and responsibility is unclear, outcomes suffer. In such conditions, coordination is not a luxury. It becomes a necessity. The problem is not that institutions act, but that the system often fails to define who is responsible for acting in the first place.
At times, periods of political uncertainty or weak coordination create a vacuum that other institutions move to fill. This is often described as interference in political affairs. Yet this interpretation avoids a more difficult question. Why did the vacuum exist at all. States do not drift into imbalance because institutions are functional. They drift when political leadership lacks coherence, continuity, or the capacity to govern effectively.
This does not mean institutional intervention should be normalised or celebrated. Pakistan’s challenge is balance. Political institutions must be able to function without institutional intrusion, just as state institutions must operate without political manipulation. Order in governance is achieved not through rivalry or dominance, but when institutions respect defined boundaries and individuals are held accountable within their roles.
A professional military managing its strategic responsibilities without constant political turbulence is not, by itself, a democratic failure. Nor does civilian authority weaken when institutions perform their designated functions. Civilian leadership is strengthened when it provides direction, exercises oversight, and ensures stability, rather than relying on blame or narrative conflict to mask governance shortcomings.
Too often, efficiency is mistaken for overreach and coordination is framed as control. This mindset distracts from the real indicators of state health, timely decisions, clarity of policy, and continuity of state business. Mature systems do not fear functioning institutions. They ensure that each institution owns its mandate while remaining accountable within a constitutional framework.
Moving beyond the dominance narrative requires intellectual honesty. It demands recognition that political weakness places strain on institutions, just as institutional excess undermines political legitimacy. Neither condition serves the state. What Pakistan requires is not permanent confrontation among institutions, but a working equilibrium in which governance flows without obstruction.
Ultimately, progress lies not in debating who dominates whom, but in ensuring that all institutions, civilian and otherwise, operate in order, within limits, and with responsibility. When roles are clear and interference is minimised on all sides, the state functions as it should, predictably, effectively, and in the public interest.
