Mubashar Nadeem
The debate over Pakistan’s political system has once again intensified after Supreme Court Justice Athar Minallah’s candid observations in Karachi. Speaking with unusual frankness, Justice Minallah described Pakistan’s “hybrid” system — where unelected powers interfere in civilian affairs — as nothing more than a refined term for dictatorship. His remarks cut deep into Pakistan’s political fabric, reminding us that seventy-seven years after independence, the state continues to oscillate between incomplete democracy and outright authoritarianism.
Justice Minallah’s reflections were not limited to present-day realities; he drew attention to the judiciary’s own chequered role in shaping this distorted order. With remarkable honesty, he confessed that Pakistan’s judicial history offers little pride. From the infamous Maulvi Tamizuddin case that legitimized the first unconstitutional dismissal of the Constituent Assembly, to the politically charged trial of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and the repeated validation of Gen Musharraf’s authoritarian interventions, the higher judiciary has too often acted as a willing collaborator of strongmen. This judicial compliance, often dressed in the garb of the “doctrine of necessity,” institutionalized the hybrid model and weakened democratic foundations.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicPolicy
The consequence of these repeated experiments with hybrid governance has been devastating for Pakistan’s institutions. Parliament has suffered erosion of authority, the judiciary has faced crises of credibility, and the executive has remained vulnerable to manipulation. Civilian leaders are frequently scapegoated, while the unelected forces that engineer failures manage to distance themselves from responsibility. In contrast, mature democracies demand accountability from elected leaders directly before the electorate, thereby strengthening representative institutions. Pakistan’s hybrid model, by diffusing accountability, protects the powerful while exposing the weak.
Justice Minallah’s critique is particularly significant because it is rooted in history as well as present realities. Time and again, moments of crisis provided the judiciary with opportunities to uphold the Constitution, yet it chose instead to sanctify authoritarianism. The Maulvi Tamizuddin case undermined parliamentary sovereignty; the Bhutto trial is still remembered as “judicial murder”; and Musharraf’s coup received validation when it should have been declared unconstitutional. These were not just legal decisions; they were turning points that disfigured Pakistan’s democratic journey. Even today, the perception lingers that courts sometimes bend to accommodate the “real powers,” blessing questionable laws and constitutional amendments that consolidate hybrid rule.
https://facebook.com/RepublicPolicy
The larger question is whether Pakistan can ever escape this cycle of judicial compromise and institutional imbalance. Justice Minallah’s answer was deceptively simple: all institutions must remain within the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution. This principle, though straightforward, requires both courage and political will to enforce. The military must limit itself to its constitutional mandate of defending the territorial integrity of Pakistan. The judiciary must serve as the guardian of fundamental rights, not as the facilitator of usurpation. And parliament must assert itself as the supreme legislative authority, representing the will of the people. Without such adherence to constitutional clarity, Pakistan will remain mired in cycles of political instability.
https://tiktok.com/@republic_policy
The urgency of this constitutional discipline becomes clearer when one considers the grave security challenges Pakistan faces today. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, militant insurgencies continue to claim lives and destabilize communities. To the east lies an aggressive India, while to the west, Afghanistan’s uncertain and often hostile posture undermines border stability. In such a fragile environment, if the military establishment diverts energy to political management, national security itself becomes compromised. Defence responsibilities require full focus, and political engineering dilutes that focus dangerously.
https://instagram.com/republicpolicy
It is also worth recognizing that hybrid systems not only harm democratic norms but also damage the military institution itself. By engaging in political affairs, the military risks losing professionalism, credibility, and public trust. Citizens begin to hold generals accountable for political and economic failures, blurring the line between soldier and politician. This reputational erosion is as harmful for the armed forces as it is for democracy. Therefore, returning to constitutional boundaries is in the interest of both civilian and military leaderships.
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaYMzpX5Ui2WAdHrSg1G
History offers painful lessons. Each time a hybrid arrangement was tested, it ended with weakened institutions, eroded legitimacy, and political chaos. Direct martial law left long shadows; “soft coups” and manipulated parliaments fared no better. The political elite’s complicity — whether through opportunism or coercion — compounded the problem. Yet, accountability was rarely sought from those who designed these experiments. Civilian leaders faced trials, jails, and disqualification, but the architects of hybridity largely walked away unscathed. This asymmetry in accountability continues to perpetuate imbalance.
The way forward requires a national consensus on three fronts. First, the judiciary must reclaim its role as the genuine guardian of the Constitution, refusing to endorse unconstitutional adventures under any guise. Second, the military must confine itself to defence and security, resisting temptations of political management. Third, parliament must reassert its supremacy, enacting laws that strengthen institutions rather than weaken them. Civil society and media too must play their role in demanding transparency, accountability, and fidelity to the Constitution.
In conclusion, Justice Athar Minallah’s remarks should not be dismissed as rhetorical flourish; they represent the voice of institutional introspection. The judiciary’s seventy-seven-year record, marred by compromises, must serve as a reminder that only strict constitutionalism can heal Pakistan’s democratic wounds. The hybrid system has repeatedly failed — damaging democracy, undermining accountability, and even weakening the state’s security posture. Pakistan’s survival and progress demand a clear departure from hybridity and an uncompromising return to constitutional supremacy. Anything less would be a betrayal of the democratic dream that inspired Pakistan’s creation.
