When the PTI government assumed power in 2018, it promised a “Naya Pakistan.” What the nation received instead was a government consumed almost entirely by political victimisation under the banner of “accountability.” Economic growth, infrastructural development, and governance reforms took a back seat as the administration devoted its energies to arresting rivals and waging political battles.
The hybrid system of that era-an alignment between the PTI government and the establishment-was not built on substance but on egos and self-satisfaction. The civilian leadership weaponised accountability for political gain, while the establishment treated the arrangement as an experiment in control. They were indeed on the same page, but it was a page filled with hollow slogans rather than concrete solutions. It was not about Pakistan’s future but about the personal needs of those who ran the system.
Perhaps for the first time, the “same page” is not about individuals writing their own stories-it is about Pakistan writing its future.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens bore the brunt of this dysfunction. Inflation surged to double digits, making essential commodities unaffordable for the common household. Unemployment worsened as businesses struggled under inconsistent policies and an unstable economic climate. While the government claimed reform, both civilian leaders and military personnel involved in the system quietly enriched themselves through backdoor deals, preferential contracts, and misuse of authority. The hybrid system became less about national progress and more about protecting vested interests-corruption institutionalised under the veneer of accountability.
Fast-forward to today, and another hybrid system is in place. Critics may scoff at the repetition of the model, but its orientation is starkly different. The current consensus revolves around economic stability and development. Instead of settling political scores, the priority is restoring Pakistan’s credibility with global partners and placing the financial system on solid ground. The establishment-once accused of overreach-has repositioned itself as a guarantor of stability, providing the security, consistency, and confidence necessary for recovery.
Accountability, too, has evolved. It is no longer wielded as a blunt political weapon but is evidence-driven and tied to actions that directly undermine the state. This distinction matters: the difference between political score-settling and protecting the country’s sovereignty and order.
The recent war with India has only deepened this trust. In moments of external threat, Pakistanis instinctively place their faith in the uniform. What is different now is that this trust is being coupled with an establishment that also demonstrates a clear commitment to economic revival and governance stability. By default, the government benefits from this renewed faith, creating a rare moment of alignment where the public is more willing to accept the hybrid model-so long as it delivers results.
And yet, a fundamental question persists. Does Pakistan’s fate hinge on the personality of a particular general or prime minister, or on the ability of institutions and political parties to remain aligned on the country’s broader interests? If the PTI era taught us anything, it is that alignment without vision leads nowhere. But today, the alignment carries substance. For perhaps for the first time, the “same page” is not about individuals writing their own stories-it is about Pakistan writing its future.
If this focus continues, then this hybrid system may not be remembered as a compromise at all, but as the very framework that placed Pakistan back on the path of stability, confidence, and development.
The writer is a former State Minister for Education and Professional Training, former Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, Chairperson of the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme and Director at Media Times.