Pakistan, Turning Point

International observers are unanimous that Pakistan’s armed forces are the real loser in the recent February 8 elections. The list of former cricket champion and former prime minister Imran Khan, ousted by the military and now in jail, won the most seats. But no party won an absolute majority. Thus, Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) has reached an agreement with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), led by Bilal Zardari, son of Benazir Bhutto, assassinated in 2007, to form a coalition government. The agreement is between two clans, the Bhuttos and the Sharifs, who have been competing in the political arena for decades.

But no one believes it is a stable solution, while the armed forces are increasingly losing credibility, especially among new generations in a country of 240 million people, most of whom are under 30. Nearly 77 years after the partition of British India, Pakistan has become a vivid proof that nations are not born with the stroke of a pen on paper but are created over time. A history’s warning about the idea that divisions and forced alliances are the way out of geopolitical problems. Its borders are unstable and porous, Kashmir was immediately amputated, and distant Bengal was annexed in its place, which was bloodily divided in 1971; separatist forces in tribal areas constitute an irresistible leitmotif, the population is fragmented into different languages and ethnic groups, while the unifying element is Islam, which here has taken a radical and destabilizing drift.

Not surprisingly, in the “land of the pure,” the central institution was the armed forces, and inside it the ISI, the military intelligence agency, a kind of state within a state, headquartered in an anonymous building and fortified in the heart of Islamabad.
There’s not even a sign out front, but everyone knows it’s the Big Brother house. This was the place where in the 1980s General Zia-ul-Haq formed an alliance between the military and Islamists to wage a jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets, funded by the Americans and Saudis. The ISI was then tasked with supporting the Taliban with the enthusiastic backing by Nasirullah Babar, then Interior Minister Benazir Bhutto.

This is where Pervez Musharraf was empowered: he led Pakistan from the 1999 coup d’état to 2008, was in exile in the Emirates since 2016, and died last February, convicted in absentia as an instigator of the assassination of his rival Benazir Bhutto and having a death sentence for suspending the constitution. His story is full of lessons for the country’s civilian and military elite. Why might we be at a turning point in Pakistan, which is also full of unknowns? The army here often played a decisive role in determining the outcome of elections. The military’s constant interference in the country’s politics explains concerns about the correctness of the democratic process, but not only that.

A powerful military ruling class has had a huge impact on Pakistan’s history. Along the Grand Trunk Road, leading to the confluence of the clear waters of the Indus and the murky waters of Kabul, you’ll find barracks of shiny red brick, turrets, forts, cannons, terraces, and walls, everywhere topped with barbed wire: it’s a gray-green world inherited from the British, who dominated Pakistan for decades.

The military took direct control of power through coups led by Generals Ayub Khan (1958-1969), Yahya Khan (1969-1971), Zia-ul-Haq (1978-1988), and Pervez Musharraf (1999-2008). But even when the army does not rule directly, it carries considerable weight on the political landscape, determining the rise of some parties. In November 2022, former Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa openly acknowledged the crucial role played by the military in bringing in the government of Imran Khan, who later fell into disgrace after ousting former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

The armed forces often support maneuverable figures who are careful not to challenge the military’s interests, and these latter also control a significant portion of the country’s economy.

Nawaz Sharif’s attempt to move independently of the army line cost him his mandate. The military has opposed Sharif’s attempts to improve relations with India, as rising tensions with New Delhi allow it to maintain control of the country in a duel between the two nuclear powers. Sharif agreed to attend the inauguration of Narendra Modi, who then reciprocated with a brief visit to Lahore in
2015. However, this thawing did not last long. In 2017, Sharif, after serving three terms in power, was removed from office on corruption charges.

Thus, the army supported Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party in the 2018 elections. This support proved crucial to Khan’s victory: together with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), it carefully shaped Khan’s public image, portraying him as an honest and blameless person, in contrast to his opponents, who were labeled as corrupt politicians. These efforts have given Pakistanis hope for change.

But after coming to power, Khan started to have clashes with the military, partly over disagreements over the choice of the intelligence chief. Tensions gradually escalated until Khan was ousted in a vote of no confidence in parliament in April 2022. After his ouster, Khan openly criticized the army that retaliated only to arrest him last August on corruption charges, which he vehemently denies. Islamabad faces serious security and economic challenges. An alliance with China, its largest trading partner, and the announcement of a new gas pipeline with Iran are not enough, even though Tehran and Islamabad have recently blamed each other for clashes in Balochistan. Inflation has risen to 30 percent, exacerbating difficulties already weighing on the economy, such as frequent power cuts and declines in exports, remittances, and foreign direct investment.

Pakistan is the fifth most populous country in the world and a nuclear power. It is essential to achieve political stability, but that will not happen unless the armed forces limit themselves to their constitutional role and refrain from undue political interference.