A customary imperative in any democracy is a form of government where not only is the military’s involvement in politics non-existent but an elected civilian government has meaningful authority and control over policy making at the national level in all spheres. To the contrary, in Pakistan, it has either been total military control for over 30 years of martial law or civilian rule where control has actually been with the military (1988-99) or a mix of an overt and covert control over selective domains like national security and foreign policy (2008-2017). Since national security in its essence includes multiple facets, this selective control has gradually creeped into governance and politics as well. Military influence in Pakistan has a historical legacy. In India, the constitution was structured within two years of its independence while Pakistan saw dictatorial rule of Governor-General for seven long years not allowing democracy to establish its roots for growth of healthy democratic traditions followed by years of Martial law. First elections in Pakistan were conducted after 25 years of its independence (1970). History is witness to the political and policy making role of military was even formalised by General Ziaul Haq, followed by General Pervez Musharraf through 8th amendment. Such prolonged tenures gradually made the political entity a mere observant or a follower in any decision making process at the policy level while non-democratic tendencies got cemented. The political system as well as political parties remained under nourished, under groomed and political class became subservient, under confident and under skilled. Military as an institution became overly influential, progressively increasing their authority at the cost of institutional political development. As of today, even with completion of nine years of democratic rule at a stretch, the influence of the ‘establishment’ is a reality and power-sharing mechanisms remain subjugated to military influence. Methodology and approach may have changed but many events like the ‘Abbottabad Operation’, ‘Memo Gate’, ‘Dharna’, ‘Dawn Leaks’, ‘Panama leaks’ and recent domestic political make-break provide significant testimony of military interference beyond its constitutional mandate. Even today, various strands of foreign policy like relations with India, policy towards Afghanistan or the nuclear policy remains an exclusive domain of the military with meager civilian input. The influence of the security establishment derives from the popular perception that the political elite of the country is neither competent enough to run a sustainable, functioning democracy nor proficient at handling security and external affairs of the state in the overall interest of the country Of late, we as a country have reached a stage where the establishment is being openly criticised for its unconstitutional conduct in public processions, on media, in the National Assembly, in private gatherings, in restaurants and on the streets. Is the military tentative to do any un-constitutional act which may supplement existing dent in its still-positive, yet increasingly susceptible image? I think neither there is any desire nor intention within the military while there is also less public craving for another overthrow of elected government. We now have an ever more popular and authoritative judiciary over and above a self-regulating and vibrant media beyond the control of either the establishment or a single political party and an aware and conscious middle class. The establishment is aware of all these aspects and has only focused on retaining influence in the selective areas of the decision making process at a national level. The real question is, for how long can democratic values continue to be made hostage by historical legacies, paving way for military ascendancy which weakens the civilian pre-eminence and in turn impacts the value of democracy? How can the political parties and civil institutions break this vicious cycle and make an attempt at establishing strong democratic control? It’s the political elite which needs to play the major role in institutionalising democracy. The country’s political elite has matured somewhat and political parties are relatively well established. However a lot more needs to be done. Armies have historically become politicised when the political elite fails to address major issues facing the state. The fiber of military establishment is influenced principally by the popular opinion that the political elite of the country is neither competent enough to run a sustainable, functioning democracy nor proficient at handling the security and external affairs of the state in the perceived overall interest of the country. This impression shapes and makes up the argument that armed forces are the solitary redeemer of Pakistan and the end product is their intrusion in politics and decisive influence on internal and external policies and issues. The present domestic environment demands an ‘institutional democratic mechanism’ to establish the reasons and formalise strategy as to how the military in Pakistan, while remaining strong, cohesive and responsive to deal with external aggression and internal threats, can be steered and progressively controlled by political leadership? We must also see how decision making process functions in the military and what policy changes and implementation strategy is needed to make necessary institutional reforms. How can we instill the value of civilian supremacy in policy making in the domain of national security and foreign policies thus winning institutional and public support? There is no quick fix solution for subordinating military to democracy in Pakistan. It is only through the strong democratic credentials of political parties supported by procedural reforms that establishment will shed its sick weight to evolving democracy in Pakistan without friction or resentment. Asking an established institution like the military to give away its influence is not doable for an evolving democracy until high standards of sustained good governance are manifested and the personal and collective conduct of political elites is demonstrated concurrently with a comprehensive strategy based on procedural reforms. The writer is a PhD scholar with diverse experience and international exposure. He possesses conscious knowledge about phenomenon of terrorism and extremism coupled with realistic understanding of geo political, social and security environment Published in Daily Times, November 29th 2017.