The open endorsement of Pakistan’s so-called ‘hybrid model’ of governance by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif signals a troubling shift in the country’s political ethos. Traditionally, elected governments in Pakistan would at least maintain the façade of civilian supremacy, bristling at the suggestion of military involvement in governance. However, recent statements suggest that the line between civilian rule and military influence is no longer blurred — it is being openly erased.
Mr Asif’s remarks, particularly in his interview with Arab News, reflect an alarming acceptance of a model where elected representatives publicly share power with the military establishment. While acknowledging that the hybrid system is “not an ideal democratic government,” he nonetheless praised its performance, going so far as to claim it is “doing wonders” and should have been implemented in the 1990s. This unreserved endorsement of hybridity, without acknowledging the democratic compromises it entails, is cause for concern.
Pakistan’s political history is replete with instances where military influence has been exerted behind the scenes. Whether through constitutional tools like Article 58-2(b), judicial activism, or engineered no-confidence votes, the establishment has often destabilised elected governments when civil-military relations soured. The Imran Khan administration, frequently labelled as a hybrid regime by critics, had itself celebrated a close working relationship with the military. But Mr Asif’s recent remarks go a step further by attempting to legitimise and institutionalise such arrangements.
Such statements must not go unchallenged. They point to a deeper erosion of the democratic ideal where parliament and cabinet, the rightful stewards of governance, are willingly relinquishing their powers. While military input on defence and national security is both necessary and expected, extending this role into economic, foreign, and internal affairs undermines the constitutional order. It also raises the question of democratic accountability — if decisions are being influenced or made by unelected actors, who is to be held responsible?
The Constitution of 1973, inspired by Pakistan’s founding vision, envisages a state led by elected civilians, answerable to the people. Any deviation from this principle is not only a distortion of constitutional norms but also a betrayal of the democratic aspirations of the populace. If hybrid governance is indeed the new normal, both the prime minister and military leadership owe the public a clear explanation.
It is high time all state institutions reaffirm their commitment to staying within constitutional boundaries. Pakistan’s progress depends not on hybrid experiments, but on the strengthening of parliamentary democracy, institutional integrity, and the supremacy of civilian rule.