In an article titled ‘Who really runs Pakistan now?’, the writer raised several points for establishing his narrative that there is a ‘long-desired hybrid system’ now fully matured in Pakistan, and it is not a secret anymore. The most crucial question that Pakistan is facing today is “Who should run Pakistan now?”
This debate of constitutional provision of power sharing has been at the center stage in Pakistan for over two decades without touching the core issue of Governance. Every modern state needs an operational Governing System, whether it is Parliamentarian, Presidential, Civil, or Military, or any mix of it. There is no doubt that the 1973 Constitution ensures a Civilian Parliamentarian system to run the country, but it has miserably failed, and the Constitution needs a general overhaul to ensure a system that can run the country indeed.
In an article titled ‘Time to throw rotten eggs out of the basket ‘the writer stated that ‘Ignorant minds can call it a hybrid system’ that is a part of western world, particularly Europe and Eastern Europe for decades and infusion of Military and Civil organs for running the state is known as a “multi-domain-all-inclusive” system in which knowledgeable and literate politicians, administration experts, technocrats, diplomats, security experts, and academicians sit together with military and civil leadership, deliberate and design what is needed to run the country smoothly while civil bureaucrats have only the role of executing policies designed by a “multi-domain-all-inclusive” system. In Pakistan, for decades, only bureaucrats decided what was needed and how to run the country, while the parliamentarians had the role of only approving whatever civil bureaucrats put in front of them to sign and stamp. Even during Military rule, the power to rule the country had never been taken away from the civil bureaucracy, and that had been a reason for earning a bad reputation for all civil as well as military rulers in Pakistan.
In an article titled ‘Who really runs Pakistan now?’, the writer further said that parliamentarians such as Defence Minister Khawaja Asif are openly praising this system, which is writer calls ‘hybrid’. It is pertinent to mention that Defence Minister Khawaja Asif wrote on his X that the revival of the economy, India’s defeat, and improvement in ties with the US, all these revolutionary changes were made possible by the cooperation between PM Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir. Is it not true?
The writer stated in his article that these administrative arrangements, which the writer called ‘hybrid’, are now being presented as a practical solution to Pakistan’s political and economic instability. Previous experiences have confirmed that civil bureaucracy has no competency to rule the country, nor do most illiterate politicians have such capability, so what could be the way out? Should we leave this country to the whims of a civil bureaucracy that prioritizes its perks and privileges over providing salaries to its staff, who have been without pay for months?
Pakistan is going through a phase in which employees of public corporations working under civil bureaucrats are not even receiving their salaries for months, and Secretaries who belong to Civil Administration cadres and are “Principal Accounting Officers” of these corporations are shy to share reasons with employees for the delays in their salaries. Can a country run for long in such a way that the state has to take more loans to pay salaries of civil servants and to pay off already taken loans?
The writer claims that “Civilians remain in office, but power increasingly lies elsewhere,”. However, the writer does not comment on the Governance model of these civilians that has already collapsed due to incompetence and an indifferent style of civilian governance. Is there not a need for a system in which only those would survive who can serve the country, whether they are in uniform or a double-piece formal outfit?
Should we not analyze critical questions about Pakistan’s administrative and political system, particularly in terms of efficiency, competence, and crisis management?
Let’s break down the key arguments and explore potential solutions:
Failure of the Civilian Administrative System:
Pakistan’s civilian bureaucracy and political leadership struggle with governance, disaster response, and national crises, relying repeatedly on the military (via Article 245) for rescue, rehabilitation, and even media-diplomatic battles (as seen during Indo-Pak standoffs). This reliance suggests a systemic failure of civilian institutions to develop expertise, resources, and proactive policy frameworks and demands replacing the Generalist system with a “Performance-Based System” because Pakistan’s bloated bureaucracy and oversized cabinets often lack specialization, leading to inefficiency. Countries like Singapore and South Korea transformed their governance by prioritizing meritocracy, reducing redundant administrative layers, and empowering technocrats in key roles.
What can be done immediately by the Civilian structure to perform adequately?
- Smaller, specialized cabinets (e.g., ministers with domain expertise like finance, defense, foreign policy).
- Reforming the civil service (moving from generalist CSS officers to sector-specific professionals).
- Decentralization (empowering local governments for better disaster management and service delivery).
- Merit-Based Appointments – Replace political favoritism with competitive hiring for key roles.
- Technocratic Governance – Ministries should be led by experts (as in China’s model).
- Strong Local Governments – Devolve power to districts for better crisis response.
- Civil-Military Balance – Strengthen civilian institutions to reduce the military’s default role in governance.
- Media & Narrative Strategy – Train political leaders in public diplomacy rather than relying on state media teams of a handful of bureaucrats
Painful Realities
Pakistan does need a qualitative administrative revolution, not just cosmetic changes. The choice is between continuing with a failing system or adopting a Singapore-style competence-driven governance model. The latter requires political will—something Pakistan’s ruling elite must demonstrate, or risk perpetual crises.
Institutional Glitches
Professional diplomacy & media strategy (Pakistan’s military-media team outperformed civilians in narrative wars). If political parties were truly competent, they could assert constitutional authority, but they often fail due to infighting, lack of vision, and reliance on patronage over policy.
Should we not advocate for constitutional amendments to enforce these reforms, or can change come from within existing structures?
Editor’s Note: The name of the writer is withheld on request
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.
