Mubashar Nadeem
Pakistan finds itself ensnared in a multifaceted and intensifying democratic crisis that strikes at the heart of its constitutional order, electoral integrity, and institutional legitimacy. Far from resolving long-standing tensions, the 2024 general elections have exacerbated deep-rooted structural flaws within the political system, revealing the fragility of democratic norms in the face of entrenched authoritarian tendencies. At stake is not merely a transfer of power, but the very idea of representative governance and the principles that underpin state legitimacy.
In theory, elections in a democratic polity are the principal instrument through which the people exercise their sovereignty. Through the ballot, citizens grant conditional legitimacy to those who govern on their behalf. Yet in Pakistan’s 2024 electoral cycle, this fundamental democratic act was systematically undermined. Despite Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) emerging with a decisive two-thirds majority, the electoral outcome was swiftly subverted through a carefully choreographed sequence of post-poll interventions.
These included the disqualification or silencing of key candidates, manipulation of independent victors, coercive pressures to join a favored coalition, and administrative maneuvers that diluted the actual mandate delivered by the electorate. The result was not a reflection of democratic will but a manufactured parliamentary landscape — one constructed to fit pre-established political preferences rather than voter intent. Such post-election engineering signifies a paradigm shift from electoral competition to electoral management, where outcomes are less determined by the people than by the institutions designed to serve them.
The consequences of such interference go beyond the realm of electoral credibility; they fundamentally alter the nature and authority of parliament itself. A legislature that lacks authentic representation becomes a hollow institution — incapable of commanding moral or democratic legitimacy. It becomes a tool of validation rather than deliberation, enacting policies without the anchoring force of public consent.
This dynamic is particularly perilous in the context of constitutional amendments, fiscal policymaking, and legislative reforms — processes that require not just legal authority, but a social mandate. When the occupants of parliament are the product of state manipulation rather than public endorsement, every legislative act, however technically legal, becomes normatively questionable. The constitution, instead of being a living document grounded in the consent of the governed, risks becoming a vehicle for elite entrenchment.
What Pakistan currently faces is a form of administrative authoritarianism — a political order that maintains the formal façade of democratic processes (elections, assemblies, courts) while hollowing them out from within. The rule of law is no longer a neutral principle applied universally, but an instrument wielded by powerful actors to discipline dissent and reward conformity. In such a regime, the constitution itself is selectively invoked, interpreted not to uphold the rights of citizens but to legitimize the prerogatives of unelected power centers.
This is a particularly insidious form of governance because it obscures the boundary between legality and legitimacy. When laws are passed by a parliament that does not reflect the will of the people, the legal order may remain intact, but its moral foundation is profoundly compromised. The outcome is a state in which legal structures exist without democratic substance — where form has supplanted function, and appearance has replaced authenticity.
The state’s legitimacy is not simply derived from its ability to maintain order or enforce policy — it rests on its fidelity to constitutional principles and the democratic will of its citizens. In Pakistan’s current context, this legitimacy is eroding rapidly. The systematic sidelining of the electorate, the repurposing of institutions as instruments of control rather than guardians of accountability, and the normalization of political manipulation have all contributed to a breakdown in the social contract.
This is not merely a political crisis; it is a constitutional rupture. The relationship between the citizen and the state, once mediated by democratic norms, is now characterized by distrust, disenfranchisement, and institutional cynicism. The continued erosion of electoral legitimacy risks triggering long-term consequences, including public disengagement, political polarization, and potentially, civil instability.
Superficial reforms — such as procedural tweaks or selective accountability — are insufficient in addressing the depth of this crisis. What Pakistan requires is a comprehensive reimagining of its democratic infrastructure. This includes a new social contract that reaffirms the supremacy of the people’s will in all matters of governance; a truly independent and autonomous electoral commission capable of conducting transparent and credible elections, free from institutional interference; the reassertion of constitutional limits on all state organs, especially the civil and military bureaucracy, ensuring that they remain within their defined roles; and the restoration of judicial integrity, with courts that act as neutral arbiters of the law rather than political actors.
The restoration of democratic legitimacy is not a matter of political preference — it is an existential imperative. If Pakistan fails to reaffirm the sanctity of the vote and the primacy of public consent, it risks not only the collapse of its democratic experiment but the very disintegration of its constitutional identity. The road ahead demands courage, clarity, and a renewed commitment to the principle that no authority can be legitimate unless it flows from the people.
