Pakistan’s political landscape is a complex tapestry woven from historical legacies, institutional power struggles, and strategic maneuvering. Behind the public spectacle of elections, rallies, and parliamentary debates lies a sophisticated web of strategies that shape the nation’s governance. From the military’s enduring influence to the rise of populist movements and the manipulation of electoral processes, political actors in Pakistan operate in a high-stakes environment where power is both contested and choreographed. This article delves into the intricate strategies that define Pakistan’s political arena, exploring the roles of key institutions, the impact of social dynamics, and the external forces that influence the country’s trajectory.
The Military’s Enduring Shadow
No discussion of Pakistan’s political strategy can begin without acknowledging the military’s outsized role. The Pakistan Army has long been a kingmaker, wielding influence that transcends formal governance structures. While the country has experienced periods of civilian rule, the military’s ability to shape political outcomes remains unparalleled. This influence is not always overt; it operates through subtle mechanisms such as backchannel negotiations, pressure on political parties, and strategic interventions in electoral processes.
Historically, the military has justified its involvement by citing political instability or threats to national security. For instance, during the 1999 coup led by General Pervez Musharraf, the military ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, citing governance failures and economic mismanagement. More recently, the military’s role in the 2018 elections, which brought Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to power, was widely debated, with allegations of electoral engineering to favor Khan over traditional parties like the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
The military’s strategy often involves cultivating alliances with political actors who align with its interests while marginalizing those who challenge its authority. Imran Khan, once a beneficiary of this approach, experienced its flip side after his 2022 ouster through a no-confidence vote. His subsequent confrontation with the military, including accusations of orchestrating an assassination attempt against him, marked a rare public challenge to the institution’s authority. The military’s response—crackdowns on PTI, arrests of its leaders, and trials in military courts—underscored its willingness to protect its dominance at all costs.
This dynamic illustrates a core strategy: the military maintains a delicate balance, allowing civilian governments to operate while ensuring they remain subordinate. By fostering divisions among political parties and leveraging its control over key institutions like the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the military ensures its strategic objectives—such as maintaining influence over foreign policy and countering India—remain unchallenged.
The Rise of Populism and Social Media
In recent years, populism has emerged as a potent force in Pakistan’s political strategy, driven largely by Imran Khan and PTI. Khan’s appeal lies in his ability to tap into widespread disillusionment with traditional political elites, whom he portrays as corrupt and disconnected. His narrative of “tabdeeli” (change) resonates with Pakistan’s young, urban, and middle-class voters, who form a significant demographic in a country where nearly two-thirds of the population is under 30.
PTI’s strategic use of social media has been a game-changer. Unlike the PML-N and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which rely on patronage networks and regional strongholds, PTI has harnessed digital platforms to mobilize supporters and shape public narratives. This approach was evident in the 2018 elections, where PTI’s social media campaigns amplified anti-establishment sentiments and galvanized youth participation. Posts on X have highlighted how PTI’s digital strategy exploits the frustrations of young voters, positioning the party as a counterweight to the military and traditional parties.
However, populism is a double-edged sword. While it has empowered PTI to challenge the status quo, it has also deepened political polarization. Khan’s refusal to accept electoral defeats, as seen in his claims of rigging in the 2024 elections, has fueled unrest and eroded trust in democratic institutions. This strategy of mobilizing supporters through grievance-based rhetoric risks destabilizing the political system, as it leaves little room for compromise or consensus-building.
Electoral Engineering and Coalition Politics
Elections in Pakistan are often less about voter choice and more about strategic manipulation. Allegations of pre-poll rigging, voter suppression, and result tampering are common, with the 2018 and 2024 elections drawing particular scrutiny. The military’s alleged role in engineering outcomes, such as supporting PTI in 2018 and PML-N in 2024, points to a broader strategy of controlling the political landscape without direct rule.
Coalition politics is another critical arena for strategic maneuvering. Pakistan’s fragmented party system, where no single party typically secures a majority, necessitates alliances. The formation of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) in 2020, which united opposition parties to oust Khan, exemplified this strategy. By pooling resources and leveraging defections from PTI allies, the PDM successfully orchestrated Khan’s removal in 2022. However, such coalitions are often unstable, as seen in the PDM’s subsequent struggles to govern amid economic crises and internal rivalries.
Defections, or “floor crossing,” are a hallmark of Pakistan’s political strategy. Political parties and the military have long used incentives—financial, legal, or otherwise—to lure lawmakers to switch sides. The 2022 no-confidence motion against Khan succeeded partly because of defections from coalition partners like the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P). This practice undermines democratic norms but remains a potent tool for reshaping political alignments.
The Judiciary and Institutional Tug-of-War
Pakistan’s judiciary has emerged as a battleground for political strategy, with its role oscillating between upholding the rule of law and serving as a tool for political agendas. The Supreme Court’s decisions, such as reinstating Nawaz Sharif in 1993 and disqualifying him in 2017 following the Panama Papers revelations, reflect its influence over political outcomes.
In recent years, the judiciary has faced accusations of bias, particularly in its handling of cases involving Khan and PTI. The coalition government’s 2023 confrontation with the Chief Justice, whom it accused of favoring Khan, highlighted tensions between civilian authorities and the judiciary. Meanwhile, the military’s influence over judicial appointments and decisions ensures that the judiciary often aligns with establishment interests.
This institutional tug-of-war reflects a broader strategy: political actors seek to control or neutralize the judiciary to secure favorable outcomes. For instance, Nawaz Sharif’s swift legal rehabilitation upon returning from exile in 2023, allegedly with military backing, underscores how judicial processes can be manipulated to facilitate political comebacks.
External Influences and Geopolitical Strategy
Pakistan’s political strategies are not confined to domestic actors; external powers play a significant role. The United States, China, and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE exert influence through economic aid, military partnerships, and diplomatic pressure. The U.S. has historically supported Pakistan’s military, viewing it as a key ally in counterterrorism efforts, but relations soured after Khan’s 2022 allegations of U.S. involvement in his ouster. Leaked cables published by The Intercept in 2023 lent credence to these claims, revealing U.S. encouragement of Khan’s removal.
China, through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), has become a major stakeholder in Pakistan’s economy and politics. Beijing’s investments provide leverage, enabling it to influence policy decisions, particularly on issues like Kashmir and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Gulf states offer financial lifelines, such as loans and investments, which the government uses to navigate economic crises. The Sharif government’s 2024 push to privatize state-owned enterprises to Gulf investors reflects this dependency.
Geopolitically, Pakistan’s rivalry with India shapes its political strategies. The military’s focus on Kashmir and countering Indian influence justifies its dominance over foreign policy and domestic security. Political parties, aware of this dynamic, often align their rhetoric with nationalist sentiments to gain public support, further entrenching the military’s role.
Economic Crises and Political Leverage
Pakistan’s chronic economic challenges—high inflation, fiscal deficits, and reliance on IMF bailouts—provide fertile ground for political strategizing. Economic distress amplifies public discontent, which parties like PTI exploit to rally support. Conversely, ruling coalitions use economic reforms, such as those mandated by the IMF, to project competence and secure international backing.
The military and civilian governments also leverage economic crises to consolidate power. The creation of the Special Investment Facilitation Council in 2023, a hybrid civil-military body to attract foreign investment, illustrates how economic policy serves as a tool for political control. By positioning itself as indispensable to economic stability, the military reinforces its grip on governance.
The Cost of Strategic Games
The relentless pursuit of power through these strategies has profound consequences for Pakistan’s democracy. Political polarization, fueled by populist rhetoric and institutional conflicts, undermines social cohesion. The suppression of dissent, as seen in the crackdowns on PTI and restrictions on media, erodes civil liberties. Moreover, the manipulation of electoral and judicial processes erodes public trust in democratic institutions, fostering cynicism and disillusionment.
The 2024 elections, marked by allegations of rigging and delays in result announcements, exemplified these challenges. Despite PTI’s strong performance, the lack of a clear majority and subsequent coalition negotiations highlighted the fragility of Pakistan’s democratic process. As Shuja Nawaz noted, the mobilization of voters through social media offered hope for democratic engagement, but the military’s dominance and institutional weaknesses tempered optimism.
Looking Ahead: A Path to Stability?
Breaking the cycle of strategic maneuvering requires bold reforms. Political parties must prioritize consensus-building and accept electoral outcomes to strengthen democratic norms. The judiciary needs insulation from political and military influence to uphold the rule of law. Most critically, the military’s role in politics must be curtailed through institutional checks and a redefinition of civil-military relations.
Civil society, bolstered by an active youth and digital platforms, can play a pivotal role in demanding accountability. Programs supported by organizations like the United States Institute of Peace, which promote dialogue and peace education, offer a blueprint for fostering tolerance and inclusion. However, without a concerted effort to address economic disparities, ethnic tensions, and external pressures, Pakistan’s political strategies will continue to prioritize power over progress.
Pakistan’s political arena is a chessboard where every move is calculated, and every player seeks to outmaneuver the others. The military’s enduring influence, the rise of populism, electoral engineering, judicial battles, and external pressures create a volatile environment where democracy struggles to take root. While these strategies have sustained power for some, they have come at the cost of institutional integrity and public trust. Unveiling these dynamics is the first step toward imagining a future where Pakistan’s political strategies prioritize the nation’s stability and prosperity over short-term gains.
