Some people may find the title offensive, while others may perceive it as an agenda-driven initiative by the agencies. However, those who have read my articles know that I write about what I strongly believe in, and hence, there is no hidden agenda in proposing the framework for Hybrid Governance in Pakistan.
There are nearly 200 states in the world that have adopted different governance systems. From democracy to dictatorship, and kingship to authoritarianism, each state has its own governance system, which is acceptable to the people of the state. Within a democracy, some states have a presidential system, while others have a parliamentary system. Among the OIC member states, some have Kings and some have Emirs, while others have parliamentary democracies with Constitutional monarchies, and some have presidential systems. Some have retired military officers as presidents who later get themselves elected.
There are nearly 200 states in the world that have adopted different governance systems.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand that no two states need to follow a similar governance system, as they may have different demographics, cultures, religions, languages, ethnicities, and strategic structures. The colonial masters have tried to enforce their systems in the colonised states, but failed miserably, and those states are slowly crafting the form of governance that suits them the best.
Returning to Pakistan, in a relatively short span of its history (78 years), it has experienced numerous governance models. From democracy to martial law, from presidency to parliamentary system, and from chief executive to an ongoing hybrid manner, however, none seems to have worked for Pakistan. Not because the successive governments under each system did not do their best, but because the lives of the people have not improved, and the economy continues to decline.
Regular interventions by the military, which people of Pakistan do not mind due to inept political leadership and their style of governance, have left people wondering as to which system suits Pakistan the best.
I propose a system that can be studied at an appropriate level before being rejected. This proposal is founded on three basic assumptions. One, the military will stop its regular interventions in governance because it will have a constitutional role in it. Second, the civilian leaders will gradually develop to a point where they will no longer require the support of the military leadership to gain control of the parliament. Three, Pakistan will hold regular, free, fair, and transparent elections every five years.
With these three founding assumptions, I am proposing a governing structure where an army chief who has served as head of the military for five years will become the president for five years ( out of uniform). His total tenure at the helm of affairs will be 10 years, after which he will retire from active public life. What powers he will have, a little later.
The people of Pakistan will elect the parliament (Federal and Provincial) every five years, which will govern the country and its provinces in accordance with the constitution. The military will not intervene or support a particular party because the elections must be free, fair, and transparent. The president will be the supreme commander of the armed forces and will ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state without any direct or indirect intervention in the governance of the state. He will let the people determine whether a particular party in power is doing well or otherwise.
For this purpose, a constitutional amendment can be made or a referendum can be organised. A consensus can be developed at an all-party conference regarding the timeframe for implementing the process. For example, if the plan is to proceed, select January 1, 2026, or 2027, or 2028, or the date which is acceptable to all. The sitting army chief retires from the army and takes the oath as the president of Pakistan. A new army chief takes over for the next five years. New elections are held, in which all parties and their leaders participate, to elect their parliament and the prime minister.
Let this cycle continue for at least 30 years and see if civil-military relations are improved over those of the past, and if civilian leadership is elected by the people rather than imposed by the military. Suppose the process continues for five to six consecutive elections. In that case, this will give confidence to the political system, bring new civilian leadership from the ordinary people rather than the typical political families, and the military will also not feel the urge to intervene because they will have their own man in the presidency.
As mentioned in the beginning, we have had many experiments, so let my proposal be tested, debated, and implemented to see if this kind of system works for Pakistan’s development and people’s well-being, because that is the aim of proposing it, and that must be the aim of each Pakistani until this unique model of governance accomplishes it. In my opinion, it is doable; however, I am open to debate and making changes if necessary.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”