PAKISTAN: THE TRIANGULAR POWER INTERPLAY

The survival of Pakistan lies in it becoming a secular state, limiting the power tussle to just two power centres. The ongoing power struggle among the three could lead to its disintegration.

Pakistan presents one of the most complex case studies of institutional power dynamics in modern nation-states. Unlike traditional models where power struggles primarily occur between two dominant forces, Pakistan exhibits a triangular contest between three powerful stakeholders: the military establishment, Islamic institutions, and democratically elected governments. These struggles have defined and distorted the nation since its birth.

The Pakistani military—powerful, cohesive, and self-appointed guardian of national identity—has repeatedly seized control directly or manipulated affairs from behind a thin democratic veil. Democratically elected governments emerge periodically with promises of reform, only to be undermined, corrupted, or overthrown before they can consolidate authority. Meanwhile, Islamic forces ranging from mainstream political parties to militant extremists compete to define Pakistan's soul, alternately courted and suppressed by both military and civilian leaders. This triangular contest has created not a functional balance of powers but a destructive stalemate where each actor possesses sufficient strength to undermine the others while lacking the legitimacy or capacity to govern effectively alone.

Unlike stable nations where institutional boundaries are clearly defined, Pakistan operates as a perpetual negotiation among these competing centres of gravity—a negotiation increasingly conducted against the backdrop of economic crisis, regional insurgencies, and the looming shadow of foreign influence. What makes this power struggle particularly dangerous is that it occurs not merely at the elite level but resonates through Pakistan's fractured society, where citizens must navigate shifting allegiances and contradictory visions of what Pakistan is and ought to be. As these tensions intensify under mounting pressures, the very foundations of the state appear increasingly brittle.

This three-way power dynamic has shaped Pakistan's political landscape since its inception and continues to define its governance challenges today. Let us walk through their history and current capabilities to understand the power each of them wields.

MILITARY: THE DE FACTO RULER

The Pakistan Army has evolved from a traditional security force into what analysts term a "state within a state." Several factors have contributed to its outsized influence in a country that has a democratically elected govt:

• Existential insecurity stemming from the traumatic 1971 war with India and the loss of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) transformed the military's self-perception from mere defender to guarantor of national cohesion.

• Has repeatedly intervened—starting with General Ayub Khan in 1958, followed by Generals Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf—established precedents for direct military rule.

• Developed extensive economic interests through military-owned enterprises, creating a parallel economy that reinforces its autonomy.

• Influence extends far beyond security matters into foreign policy, economic planning, and even domestic politics.

• Powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)- Spy Agency, maintains surveillance capabilities and influence networks that often supersede civilian oversight.

• Maintains effective veto power over key policy domains, particularly regarding India, Afghanistan, and nuclear strategy.

  
  

ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS: EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Islam's role in Pakistan's political framework stems from the country's founding identity as a homeland for South Asia's Muslims. It has a Theocratic Constitution This religious dimension manifests in several ways:

• Religious political parties, though rarely winning electoral majorities exercise influence disproportionate to their numbers through street power, alliance politics, and moral authority.

• Islamic scholars and institutions claim legitimacy in determining the Islamic compliance of legislation, creating a parallel authority to parliament.

• Religious sensitivities around issues like blasphemy laws create "red lines" that even secular politicians dare not cross.

• The Islamization programs under General Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s embedded religious considerations into the legal framework, creating lasting institutional structures like the Federal Shariat Court.

• Religious movements can mobilize public demonstrations that frequently force government concessions, as seen in the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan protests that have repeatedly paralyzed major cities.

  
  

ELECTED GOVERNMENT: CONSTRAINED. STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE

High democratic aspirations keeping the democracy alive:

• Civilian political parties maintain significant popular support and have repeatedly returned to power following military interventions.

• The judiciary has occasionally asserted independence, notably in the lawyers' movement against Musharraf's rule.

• Civil society organizations and independent media, though operating under constraints, provide platforms for democratic discourse.

• However, democratic institutions face structural weaknesses.

• Political parties often revolve around family dynasties rather than ideological platforms. Corruption scandals have undermined public trust in elected officials.

• Regional and ethnic polarization complicates national consensus-building. Moreover, civilian governments have struggled to establish authority over the military or resist religious pressure groups.

  
  

THE DYNAMIC INTERPLAY

What makes Pakistan's case fascinating is how these three power centres interact:

• Sometimes two align against the third, as when the military has used religious legitimacy to overthrow elected governments.

• Religious groups have occasionally allied with democratic forces against military dictatorships, while at other times supporting military intervention against "corrupt" civilian rule.

• Democratic governments have attempted to use religious credentials to counter military influence.

• This triangular contest creates a system where no single entity can establish complete dominance.

• The military possesses coercive power but requires legitimacy.

• Religious authorities claim moral authority but lack administrative capacity.

• Elected governments have constitutional legitimacy but are constrained by both military and religious pressures.

  
  

IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE

This complex power arrangement produces several governance consequences:

• Policy inconsistency, as different power centres assert influence in different domains or at different times.

• Accountability gaps, with each institution blaming others for governance failures. Difficulty implementing reforms that might threaten any powerful stakeholder's interests.

• Strategic hedging by international partners uncertain about where ultimate authority resides. The system prevents any single actor from establishing absolute control, creating a form of decentralized power-sharing—albeit an unstable and inefficient one.

  
  

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

• Pakistan's fundamental instability stems from an unresolved and increasingly destructive triangular power struggle that has prevented the consolidation of legitimate governance since its founding.

• The military, despite its institutional coherence, has undermined democratic development through repeated interventions while failing to deliver security or prosperity.

• Civilian governments, perpetually looking over their shoulders, govern tentatively and corruptly during their brief tenures, unable to implement necessary reforms or build public trust.

• Meanwhile, Islamic forces—ranging from mainstream political parties to militant extremists—exploit governance vacuums and public disillusionment to advance parallel power structures and competing visions of national identity.

• This perpetual contestation has created a governance paradox:

• Each power centre is strong enough to disrupt and undermine the others, yet none is capable of establishing stable, legitimate rule across the entire territory.

• The military can overthrow governments but cannot solve economic crises; elected officials can claim democratic legitimacy but cannot control security policy; religious authorities can mobilize the masses but cannot modernize the economy.

• As economic pressures intensify under Chinese debt obligations and climate challenges multiply, this dysfunctional equilibrium appears increasingly unsustainable. The likely outcome is not a dramatic collapse but rather an accelerating fragmentation of authority, with different power centres controlling different regions and aspects of governance, effectively hollowing out the Pakistani state from within until it exists more as a geographical expression than a functioning nation.

  
  

WAY FORWARD

Pakistan's survival hinges on its transition to a secular state, reducing the power struggle to just two forces. If the ongoing three-way tussle persists, it risks pushing the country toward instability and potential disintegration.