Why is it that Pakistan is ungovernable? There are several reasons for this malady because of which all governance efforts have withered on the vine so far. Part of the problem lies in our historical experience. As per Professor TV Paul if a regime is well endowed in the geostrategic arena due to its location or specific attributes’ there is little incentive to prioritise internal economic development. Pakistan due to its policy of privileging geopolitics over geo-economics has become a victim of the ‘geopolitical curse’, pretty much like the African countries beset with the “’resource curse’. The stultifying effect of the geopolitical curse manifests itself in the form of lack of development and a rentier economy propped up through external doles and transactional aid. For a country caught in the vicious trap of a ‘warrior state’; external economic props such as international lending institutions become a necessity. Over a period of time the elitist structures of governance are evolved to cater to the needs of an elite sector, which considers itself the custodian of the national security. According to Barry Buzan and Ole Weaver, both belonging to the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, any political issue can be securitised to take it away from the political arena into the arena of national security where the political remedies are eclipsed by the security cantered remedies. The militarisation of the national policies and the transformation of the country towards a ‘garrison state’ are but a step away. A ‘garrison state’ as per Harold Lasswell is quintessentially a national security state where the practitioners of violence take the centre stage in policy making, having indoctrinated the public into a militarised version of patriotism. All garrison states justify the securitisation of the political and economic issues on the basis of an existential threat to national survival. In case of Pakistan the Indian threat acted as the main catalyst for a transformation of Pakistani state into a garrison state instead of a ‘development state’. A ‘development state’ is defined by T.V Paul as a state where human security is accorded a higher priority over the militarised form of national security. Professor Hasan Askari Rizvi quotes in his book, “Military State and Society in Pakistan” that Pakistan’s defence expenditure remained at an average of 50 percent of its national expenditure from 1958 to 1969. Poor attempts at national integration have resulted in a fractured polity, stunted human development and a culture of tolerating corruption; as the lubricant that moves the wheels of the government Human security, as defined by the UN Commission on Human Security, involves the protection of human lives to enhance liberties and ensure fulfilment. The primary referent in human security is the individual as opposed to the state. It includes personal, economic, political, food, community and environmental security. The notion of human security has upended the traditional paradigm of national security, which considered external as well as internal threats by aggressive armies, insurgents, terrorists and organised crime to be the strands that weaved the leitmotif of security. The focus on health, education, infrastructural development, and education makes a state a true development state; where priority of resource allocation, is towards the developmental needs as opposed to defence needs. Had Pakistan taken the road of a development state its national priorities and the growth trajectory would have taken a different course altogether. Several factors have resulted in lack of human development and socio-economic polarisation in the country. Lack of inclusive polity, centralisation of political power, non-devolution of power to local government level, and poor attempts at national integration have resulted in a fractured polity, stunted human development and a culture of tolerating corruption; as the lubricant that moves the wheels of the government. The civil-military imbalance that has dogged the country for better part of our independent existence has resulted in political instability with concomitant disadvantages of a militarised policy making and stunting of civilian institutions. The PTI government under a reformist Imran Khan would confront its greatest governance challenge from the political elite that considers national resources a fair game after coming to power. After winning the elections the signal aim of these political carpet baggers, euphemistically called electables, is to recoup their investments. The instruments for recouping their investments are lucrative ministries, development grants, business concessions, and political control of police and revenue authorities. Imran Khan has carried three categories of followers on his political bandwagon. The first being the intense ideologues and men of character, the second being the ideological purists but lacking in requisite integrity, and the third being the opportunists sans ideology and integrity. Soon Imran Khan would face the greatest test of governing the ungovernable in the shape of managing expectations of the second and third categories. The clamour for political patronage would thus become more strident in the coming days as the expectations of the corrupt politicians and the corrupted constituents are denied at the altar of good governance and institutionalisation. The next most daunting challenge would be the creation and strengthening of institutions. Institutionalisation is nothing but the rule of law and merit. All attempts at creating independent civilian institutions will be opposed by the entrenched interests and the forces of status quo. The country remained ungovernable because of the lack of functioning institutions like the rest of the world. Fareed Zakaria’s notion of ‘illiberal democracies’ well applies to Pakistan. It has all the trappings of electoral politics yet lacks the substance of democracy in the form of solid institutions and rule of law. We need functioning institutions that keep a check on other institutions besides delivering social, economic, and political goods to the population. The judiciary needs to focus on delivery of justice and reforms at lower level to provide cheap and speedy justice to the people instead of taking over the administrative governance of the country. Chief Justice of Pakistan has a very difficult task of reforming the lower judiciary where over eighty percent of the population interacts with national justice system. The government needs to put its weight behind the Chief Justice to wreak such a revolution in the justice system since injustice in the society is the fount of all evil. For ‘governing the ungovernable’ human security needs to be accorded higher priority than the military threat centric national security. Deft diplomacy and recalibration of civil-military relations need to be done to transform the country into a “Development State” instead of a “Warrior State”. The strengthening of institutions like Cabinet Committee on National Security, National Security Advisor, Ministry of Defence, and revamping of the Higher Defence Organisation to ensure meaningful civilian oversight and control of the military is de rigueur for any meaningful progress. The country needs to reduce its dependence on geopolitics in the interest of geo-economics. CPEC is one such instrument of leveraging our geographic location for economic gains. All that is needed is a vision and sincerity of purpose to ensure that we do not go the way of countries that are forced to mortgage their strategic assets to pay off their debts. The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST;emailrwjanj@hotmail.com Published in Daily Times, September 24th 2018.