Margalla News | Special research review
Elections take place in Pakistan, assemblies are formed, and political parties form and replace governments. Yet the question repeatedly arises: which institution has the final say over national security, foreign relations and certain major political decisions? In a research paper published in April 2026, political scientist Dr Aqil Shah examined this tension through the idea of military tutelage.
According to Shah, democratic procedures do not disappear entirely in such a system. Voters exercise their rights, political parties compete, and parliamentary debate continues. But military influence over some fundamental matters may be strong enough to restrict elected leaders' ability to change policies freely.
An important feature of the paper is its distinction between temporary interventions and enduring institutional influence. An institution's involvement in a particular political crisis is one thing; making its role permanent through constitutional, administrative and judicial arrangements makes the issue structural rather than merely personal.
Shah views Pakistani politics since 2018, the tension following Imran Khan's removal in April 2022, objections to the 2024 elections and constitutional changes affecting the courts as parts of one historical trajectory. This is his scholarly interpretation. Each electoral or judicial dispute needs to be examined separately through its own documents and legal decisions.
In Shah's view, popular support or political resistance does not always reduce institutional dominance. At times such pressure may encourage powerful institutions to formalise their role further. He uses this point to interpret the political crisis following Imran Khan's departure and the state's response.
Democratic criteria are especially important here. Holding national elections alone is not sufficient; equal opportunities for opposition parties, press freedom, lawful scrutiny of electoral outcomes, independent courts and effective civilian control over military authority also matter.
Pakistani officials and government representatives emphasise that national security institutions contribute to stability within constitutional limits. They argue that terrorism, border disputes and political instability may require extraordinary cooperation. The critical question, however, remains who determines the scope and duration of such cooperation.
Political parties' own responsibility should not be ignored. Parties may weaken democracy when they seek backing from unelected institutions for short-term advantage or fail to apply the same rules to political opponents. Blaming a single individual understates the complexity of a structural problem.
Research of this kind also faces a limitation: the real centre of institutional power is difficult to measure directly. Comparative examination of legal reforms, electoral controversies, official statements, parliamentary authority and actual policy decisions is therefore necessary.
Possible directions for reform include parliamentary scrutiny, democracy within parties, independent election institutions, constitutional supremacy and regular accountability of elected representatives for defence and foreign policy. These steps would clarify the boundaries of authority rather than diminish security institutions' professional capacity.
The best way to read Shah's paper is not to turn it into a verdict for or against any political party. It asks how clearly military and civilian authority are separated and whether the public vote can change a country's fundamental political direction. That question lies at the heart of debates about Pakistan's democratic future.
Sources and acknowledgments: Margalla News thanks Dr Aqil Shah and the original publisher for their research and commentary. This is an original Margalla News analysis, not a copied or complete translation of the English study. Attributed positions are the expert's own and independent conclusions are identified separately.