Pakistan has been a classic victim of a geopolitical tussle gnawing at its vitals since the country’s inception. A geographical curse has defined our inter-state interaction and global engagement. Like the resource curse of the diamond rich African countries Pakistan’s ‘geography curse’ has kept it tethered to a security centred politico-economic model at the cost of a development model successfully followed by the European and East Asian states during post conflict stages of their politico-economic evolution. Threatened by a much larger rival to the East, and a revanchist neighbour in the West, Pakistan tried to weave a web of alliances in order to throw a cordon sanitaire of security around its exposed borders. It was a classic case of external balancing in an anarchic world as per the realist school of international relations, with Pakistan pitching its lot with United States through aid and security pacts like PL 480 and Mutual Aid Pact of 50s. The client-protégé relationship that was predicated primarily on a security premise of using Pakistan as a base for stymieing the communist thrust in South Asia lasted only for short durations, regularly interrupted by frequent divorce proceedings between the two estranged allies. The reason for frequent straying away from a transactional relationship with the US was incongruence in the strategic objectives of the two unequal allies. While Pakistan courted US favour for bolstering its security against India, the US wanted to use Pakistan as a client state providing bases, intelligence, and logistic support to counter the communist threat. Pakistan’s external balancing calculations however never factored in the anti China bias of the US policy makers who would anoint India to the status of a top deity in their pantheon of strategic allies. Like Israel in Middle East India was also assigned the task of a regional surrogate in South Asia by a hyper power that spawned an anarchic political culture in the world, proving yet again the assertion of Kenneth Waltz, who had stated unipolarity as the sure recipe of conflict in the world. Addicted to external balancing due to its security fears right from its early days Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO followed by several bilateral and multilateral security alliances in the elusive quest for peace and security in an anarchic world. The external balancing attempts however foundered on the rocks of the “Collective Action” dilemma. According to Mancur Olson the theory of ‘Collective Action’ militates against the external balancing where all allies share the same objective but not the costs which results in ebbing out of the elan vital of the unequal security alliances. Small countries therefore in a security alliance normally adopt a bandwagon model where instead of looking for multiple allies a single hegemon is chosen as a protector at the cost of own political ideals. Pakistan’s experience shows that for better part of her existence she relied upon a bandwagon balancing by tying itself to the coat tails of United States, even at the cost of her own strategic interests. Internal balancing however, suffers from an inherent flaw of inducing arms races and creating a security dilemma because of other protagonists in the conflict equation. By arming oneself one might be stoking the insecurities of one’s neighbours with revanchist designs as well as irredentist claims on one’s own territory The attraction in this ‘bandwagoning’ was the military and economic aid due to perennial weakness of our economy. In order to break out of the shackles of the external and band wagon balancing the notion of internal balancing is also propagated by some theorists. Internal balancing implies strengthening a country’s military or the economic muscle to a point that the potential aggressors leave the temptation to harm that country. In tangible terms it means rearmament or the economic development with the clear purpose to dissuade an adversary from any aggression. Internal balancing however, suffers from an inherent flaw of inducing arms races and creating a security dilemma because of other protagonists in the conflict equation. By arming oneself one might be stoking the insecurities of one’s neighbours with revanchist designs as well as irredentist claims on one’s own territory. In Pakistan’s case it has manifested itself in the shape of a costly arms race between India and a constant turmoil on the Afghan border. The default reliance on US security umbrella as external balancing strategy during early stages and the present reliance on a nuclear umbrella have all imposed heavy costs on Pakistan’s economy. What is then the way out of this dilemma? Perhaps the notion of ‘Soft Balancing’ proposed by Robert Pape and TV Paul might point the way towards a better and sustained solution to Pakistan’s perpetual security dilemma. ‘Soft Balancing’ means use of non military instruments to neutralize the size and material advantages of a hegemon. These non military means include diplomatic alliances, economic alliances, and international peace and security institutions like United Nations. Immanuel Kant’s essay ‘Perpetual Peace; A Philosophical Sketch’, foreshadowed the democratic peace wherein the democracies were unlikely to fight with each other due to voter accountability, diplomatic preference, and preservation instincts. The question that begs an answer is whether democracy in its present form possesses the requisite soft balancing tools to address Pakistan’s security dilemma vis-à-vis an aggressive India, a recalcitrant Afghanistan and an estranged United States? Pakistan needs a strong economy to attain respect and credibility in the eyes of its detractors. In order to develop a strong economy there is a need for good governance by a leadership uninhibited by political expediencies. Is our present polity and governance structure capable of doing that? The answer is a poignant no. In order to break free of the old familiar patterns of aid dependency and profligate waste of resources Pakistan needs a new governance model. One model of autocratic governance has been tried in frequent past tenures but without success. The reason was our bad luck not to have found a Lee Kwan Yu or Muhatir. We instead were saddled with pale shadows of these luminaries in the shape of tinpot dictators masquerading as messiahs. The second model of Westminster parliamentary democracy has also been tried but found wanting. In this system the governing elite have formed a compact amongst each other to loot and plunder while protecting each other’s corruption in successive regimes. The constant blackmailing of the Prime Minister by members of Parliament who want their share in national loot institutionalized through a system of project grants and other perks is a sad commentary on our democracy. The inability of the provincial governments to devolve power at the local government level and reliance on Police cum District Management Group to win next elections has been the undoing of our democratic project. A third mode of government called ‘Hybrid Democracy’ where Judiciary and Army keep a watch over the governance by the politicians is also available but would require a very bold military leadership and a resolute higher judiciary committed to the ideals of public service to bring it to fruition. One thing is certain that the things can neither be allowed to go on as they are nor can go on and ensure our national survival at this critical juncture. We need a very strong hand on the till to take bold and quick decisions unencumbered by political expediencies to provide good governance and to develop our economy. The endeavour would cost a pretty penny and sour sweat. The nation would have to be disciplined to work hard, follow rules and pay taxes in order to be able to break free from the vicious cycle of debts and penury. Pakistan can counter the threats to its national survival through soft balancing only if the economy improves and the world community takes us seriously. We have everything that it takes to develop i.e a young population, natural resources, industrial base, intellectual flair, and entrepreneurial spirit. All we need is a ‘Leadership Catalyst’ to ignite the spark of our somnolent creativity. A government of the politicians, overseen by the judiciary-military combine, for the people might be the idea whose time has come. The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST; e mail rwjanj@hotmail.com Published in Daily Times, January 15th 2018.