Pakistan’s Defense Minister recently made a striking admission: while the hybrid system is not an ideal form of democratic governance, it is still “doing wonders” for the country. This candid statement acknowledges what many have long understood but few in power have openly admitted that Pakistan’s governance has for years been guided by a carefully managed partnership between civilian leadership and the military establishment. But this acknowledgment also raises a critical question: if the hybrid system is working so well, as claimed, why have a Parliament at all? Why not formalize what has been informally practiced and adopt a technocratic model more efficient, less noisy, and closer to the hybrid arrangement in spirit and execution and cost effective? This line of thinking may sound provocative, but it reflects a growing public disillusionment with traditional democratic processes in Pakistan running over 75 years marred as they are by corruption, incompetence, and political infighting. The question, however, is not whether hybrid governance is working in the short term, but whether it is sustainable and desirable in the long term. Pakistan’s history is riddled with civilian governments that have failed to deliver on basic governance. From economic mismanagement to institutional decay, the list of shortcomings is fairly long and familiar. Each failure has provided a convenient justification for the military to step in sometimes overtly, often covertly. The hybrid model has emerged as a compromise: civilians serve as the face of democracy, while unelected power centers retain control over national security, foreign policy, and increasingly, economic direction and leaders are quite happy. This arrangement offers the illusion of civilian supremacy while keeping the real levers of power elsewhere. For a public weary of democratic chaos, this model may appear stable. But make no mistake: it is a democratic illusion, not democratic evolution. Neither Pakistan’s Constitution nor its founding father envisaged a hybrid system. The Constitution clearly outlines a parliamentary form of democracy, based on civilian supremacy and checks and balances. But constitutional ideals require capable custodians and successive civilian leaders have struggled to uphold those ideals. Instead, political parties have often become dependent on the same forces they claim to resist. Coalition building, horse-trading, and backdoor contacts with the establishment have become the norm rather than the exception. Few political leaders have shown the courage or capacity to lead without crutches. When political leadership repeatedly falters, the temptation to turn to technocrats grows stronger. At various points, Pakistan has flirted with technocratic rule from Men Qureshi to Shaukat Aziz and each time, it ended in temporary relief followed by a return to business as usual. Technocrats may offer short-term efficiency, but they lack public legitimacy and political accountability. Moreover, a purely technocratic or hybrid system cannot function in a society deeply rooted in political and ideological diversity. Governance is not just about numbers and policy it is about public trust, moral authority, and representation. There are several reasons the hybrid model continues to gain ground:
Weak political institutions that are unable to function independently or assertively. Public disillusionment with politics and politician’s assertive establishment that sees itself as the guardian of national interest. Complicit institutions, including sections of the media and judiciary, that often shy away from confronting unconstitutional overreach. This has created a cycle where failure of democracy becomes the justification for its dilution a cycle that is increasingly being normalized. If the hybrid system is allowed to cement itself as a permanent feature, Pakistan risks drifting further from the democratic ideals that inspired its creation. But reversing this trend is not just the responsibility of the military it is primarily a test for the civilian leadership. If politicians want to reclaim their constitutional space, they must demonstrate competence, unity, and courage. They must show that they can govern without backchannel support, that they can disagree without paralyzing the system, and that they can prioritize national interest over personal gain. Until then, the hybrid model flawed yet functional may continue to serve as Pakistan’s default operating system. Extraordinary issues require extraordinary measures to stop the collapse of governments and that gap can only be filled by the establishment, so make a decision time is running short
