Consciously Apolitical ! (Part-2)

Maintaining civil-military balance is one of the most critical challenges for democratic states. The institutional challenge requires keeping the military strong enough to protect the state, while ensuring it remains obedient to civilian leadership—a dynamic political scientist Samuel Huntington termed the "civilian control paradox." 

A few examples can just be pointed out here as to how ultimately a balanced system of governance comes to consolidate itself ensuring that civil and military institutions function in their respective constitutional orbits. The first case is that of United States President Truman vs. MacArthur (1951). During the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur—a national hero—publicly defied President Harry S. Truman’s strategic policy and The President relieved MacArthur of his command. The second case is from Post-WW-II West Germany, needed to rebuild its military (the Bundeswehr) without resurrecting Prussian militarism or political independence. Reformers introduced Innere Führung (Internal Leadership), framing the soldier as a "Staatsbürger in Uniform" (Citizen in Uniform). The third example comes from Turkey’s Post-2000 Reforms(Dismantling the Guardian Military). For decades, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) operated as self-appointed guardians of secularism, conducting multiple direct and indirect coups (1960, 1971, 1980, 1997) via the powerful National Security Council (MGK). To resolve this issue, structural legislative reforms throughout the 2000s systematically reorganized the MGK.

Above notwithstanding, Modern Hybrid warfare—combining cyber operations, cognitive manipulation, and economic pressure with conventional threats—fundamentally destabilizes traditional civil-military relations. Historically, the boundary was clear: politicians managed domestic governance and political discourse, while the armed forces managed external violence along defined physical borders. In the digital age, State and non-state adversaries deliberately target the cognitive domain (public perception and social cohesion) inside a nation's domestic sphere, blurring these institutional lines. That necessitates identification of Key Friction Points in Contemporary Democracies. First is “The ‘Domestic Battleground’ Dilemma”. Disinformation campaigns weaponize social media to exacerbate domestic political divisions, target electoral integrity, or undermine public trust in democratic institutions. Second is “The Boundary Strain”; when foreign adversaries launch cyber or information attacks against civilian targets (e.g., voting infrastructure, public opinion), civilians often lack the technical capability or speed to respond. If the military's cyber or intelligence arms intervene to counter domestic disinformation, they risk being accused of policing domestic political speech or surveilling their own citizens. The third and most relevant challenge is “ The Politicization of the Armed Forces as an Information Target”; Adversaries deliberately run targeted psychological operations aimed at military personnel and veterans, attempting to erode command discipline or drag the military into partisan debates. To protect institutional readiness, military leadership may feel compelled to issue public communications or enforce strict digital behavior standards. However, if military leaders publicly counter narrative attacks, political factions may accuse the military of taking sides in domestic political controversies. Deepfakes, automated botnets, and rapid cyber offensives operate at microsecond speeds compared to traditional diplomatic escalation. To counter hybrid threats without eroding civilian control, democracies are evolving new governance mechanisms, which need deliberations by Pakistan too. 

Keeping in mind the political history of Pakistan as well as the current messy domestic front, my columns may seem a far cry to the skeptics. Nevertheless, bear in mind that “Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others’; could we just spare a few moments to revisit our national history from 1968-71? Pakistan’s domestic political as well as internal and external security situation is too perilous. Pakistan ranks first on the Global Terrorism Index 2026, published by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), making it the country most impacted by terrorism globally. The economy is in shambles and the public bone-marrow is being sucked by higher energy prices and crippling inflation. As per Index of Economic Freedom: Pakistan is 152nd globally with a score of 48.9 (The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom) and according to Economic Complexity Index Pakistan is at 88th out of 130 economies.

Apropos, instead of repeating old experiments of ‘Governor or imposition of Emergency Rule’ to legitimise and consolidate the controversial incumbent ruling elite, an honest “National Political Reconciliation” is what the ‘Guardians of National Security’ ought to do without further delay. ‘The Acerbic Environment’ must be changed. What could be worse is that after almost every decade or so, Pakistan has to repeat the same vicious political cycle with catastrophic consequences. How long will Pakistan continue to sustain the fallout of interventionism? How long will the tyrant Octopus keep asphyxiating the democratic system? As for the public pulse about the ruling conglomerate, let me quote Winston Churchill, “He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire”. 

Let’s not “Fall into the Trap” again. In 1970/71 it was PPP versus Awami League that resulted in the emergence of Bangladesh; in 2024, it is PPP & PMLN(PDM) vs. PTI (on the anvil) with two other main organs of the state in the same unenviable mode; God forbid any more splintering. The most important component of a country are its people, whose security and well being is to be ensured by the legislature, judiciary and executives as per the unadulterated constitution; that justifies their very existence and not the other way around. Pakistan Zindabad!