An “anocracy” is a hybrid regime, which falls between autocracy and democracy. In its pure liberal form, democracy is a type of governance where rule of law and strong institutions make arbitrary decision-making impossible. Fareed Zakaria in his book “The Future of Freedom” talks about illiberal democracies as countries that lack a democratic culture of accommodation and collegial decision making. Robert Kaplan also mentions such hybrid regimes. According to scholars like Monty G Marshall and Benjamin R Cole, anocracies are regimes where inequality, social polarisation, and weak political institutions give rise to conflicts during and after democratic transitions. These conflicts imperil democratic governance and require the moderating presence of the judiciary and armed forces as guarantors of stability. According to Jack Snyder, poorly managed democracies lead to ethnic nationalism and concomitant violence. In Pakistan, there are institutional weaknesses and governance deficits that have dogged the previous regimes which need to be addressed urgently. Socio-political cleavages and inequality in Pakistan with a Gini Coefficient of 0.60 speak volumes about the polarisation in this country. According to Bossort, the polarised societies are prone to competitive rent seeking instead of delivering public goods. As per Ernest Gellner in “Nations and Nationalism” the national integration and nationalism are interlinked entities dependent on the sociological needs of the modern world. One can conclude from the above discourse so far, that functioning democracies need human security centric governance, supported by strong institutions and rule of law. The improvement in human security indices is a function of economic progress, socio-political egalitarianism, and absence of conflict. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Imran Khan therefore have their work cut out for them. The present government is lucky that an apparent consensus has been worked out between the army, judiciary, and the politicians to steer the ship of state straight and narrow, aimed at accountability and good governance. Pakistan has to break free from the fetters of the National Security State (NSS) to become a Development State. The tendency to securitise subjects in the political realm needs to be avoided. It is time that a benevolent state and people friendly government start securitising subjects that contribute to public welfare and human security. However, judicial overreach and praetorianism must be checked. Governance in Pakistan is a classic exemplar of non-institutionalised decision making. Over a period of time, this personalised and whimsical model has developed into a mind-set that abhors nurturing of institutions. The antidote is good governance through reforms aimed at creating institutions that force institutionalised decision-making. Each state organ must have oversight on its working and checks on power through a watchdog institution overseeing its functioning. Starting with armed forces in the realm of conventional defence, there should be effectively resourced Committees of the Parliament overseeing the framing and conduct of the Defence Policy. Below this tier there should be a National Security Council (NSC) comprising the top political and military leadership of the country. This would help avoiding over securitisation, leaving space for development initiatives. The present government is lucky that an apparent consensus has been worked out between the army, judiciary, and the politicians The power in a federation should be distributed amongst provinces without weakening the central government’s ability to give effective policy direction. The existing four provinces need to be divided into smaller and administratively manageable provinces that remain administratively viable yet blunt the sharp edges of ethnic particularism. This would let sub-nationalist sentiments borne from economic and political deprivation die their natural deaths. To integrate the minority populations bearing the brunt of social, economic, and political deprivation there is a need to reduce the polarisation in society. Special economic packages and infrastructural development by the federal government alongwith increased spending on health and education. Infrastructural development in undeveloped areas of the poorer provinces would certainly integrate these far flung areas into the national mainstream. The rural-urban divide in Sindh needs to be bridged to wean poor people from the hold of feudal oppression. Instead of anodyne solutions like quota systems to keep the inefficient rural educational system on life support, genuine improvement in the educational system should be effected to bring the deprived rural areas on par with the urban areas. While the divisive quota system should be abolished, a network of high quality educational institutions should be created in rural areas to give a level playing field to all. The law of the land should be extended to all parts of the country. Merger of FATA in KP and political integration of the population in Balochistan are commendable, for they would slowly but steadily mainstream economically deprived and politically estranged communities. There is a need to create a common schooling system with one curriculum until high school to reduce socioeconomic divisions. Like social apartheid, educational apartheid is a divisive force that needs to be countered. A common national curriculum promoting nationalism and own cultural values should be introduced in all schools. Judicial reforms are needed to assuage the feeling of deprivation amongst the poor and the disadvantaged segment of population. Governance reforms are absolutely essential for an anocracy to graduate to the next stage of democratic purity. Pakistan also needs to cover this distance through the help of its institutions and all stakeholders therefore should lend their shoulder to this onerous effort, eschewing their institutional interests. The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST; email rwjanj@hotmail.com Published in Daily Times, September 4th 2018.