Between Two Opposites
Between Two Opposites: A battle often depends on how people frame an issue. After the 26th and 27th Constitutional Amendments, many ideas try to explain the current situation. The real challenge is to identify the core problem. When people miss the main issue, both sides take rigid positions and fail to address what truly matters.
Civil–Military Divide
In Pakistan, a key question remains unresolved. Who should make major policy decisions: the military or elected civilians? Power remains uneven. Civilians hold limited authority and temporary protection. Yet some call this arrangement realistic and label it a hybrid system. They argue that nothing is wrong with it.
Blaming Civilians
Many also claim this system works best. They say civilians are divided and inefficient, while the military is disciplined and effective. Supporters believe a strict, top-down system ensures quick decisions and better results. This belief rests on assumptions, not evidence. When governance fails, these supporters blame civilians instead of questioning military dominance.
Elite Capture
Another major divide exists between the elite and ordinary people. People now frequently use the term “elite capture.” The debate over rule by a few or by the many is old. Pakistan has repeatedly chosen rule by the few. Senior military officers, bureaucrats, and wealthy politicians dominate power. They use outdated and unfair systems to maintain control.
Many accept elite dominance as a fact. This view alone does not explain why the recent amendments matter. Elites have always ruled. The real change lies in how the system now treats ordinary citizens.
Law vs Power
Societies learned over time that no single person should control power. They developed systems to limit authority and protect people. This thinking produced the idea of the rule of law. Law should ensure fairness, equality, and basic rights. People should not depend on personal favors from those in power.
Recent changes weaken this idea. Powerful actors now use laws to strengthen personal control. Law no longer shields the public. Instead, it serves those in authority. Some leaders claim special status and demand obedience through legal means.
Loss of Dignity
This shift damages human dignity. Laws once acted as a shield, even if imperfect. Now they function as a sword. The core issue is clear. The state has turned submission to power into a legal duty. Citizens now have fewer ways to defend their dignity or seek justice.
Published in Dawn, 12th December 2025
