‘INTERESTING’ times are upon us. From Turkey to Brexit to the Donald Trump phenomena to the militant Islamic State group, there is much uncertainty about the future of international politics and global stability. State after state has all but collapsed in the Middle East and North Africa region. Syria, Libya, and Yemen survive only in name. Even some stable states like Turkey and Saudi Arabia seem to be setting themselves up for disaster. Closer to home, Bangladesh is in serious trouble.

Amidst this chaos, it is easy to overlook countries like Pakistan that have managed to buck the trend. After constantly threatening to go over the precipice for the better part of a decade, the country has witnessed an impressive recovery in the past three to four years. Depending on how you calculate it, there has been a 30 to 50 per cent decline in major incidents of violence. The poster child of this turnaround is Gen Raheel Sharif. Herein lies the first lesson for other states in trouble: decisive leadership and a clear sense of mission from those calling the shots is crucial.

For five years before Gen Sharif, we were told that taking the steps he did would backfire in spectacular fashion. All sorts of excuses were made, primarily by the army itself, for delaying a serious push against terrorists acting against the Pakistani state. He broke the prevailing inertia.

But he couldn’t have pulled this off without some semblance of a stable equilibrium, however uneasy, between the civilians and the military.

Things are looking up but Pakistan’s not out of the woods yet.

I was never fully convinced of the centre’s insistence on talking to the TTP after the government took office in 2013 but the military’s decision to allow the process to reach its logical conclusion on the one hand and the civilian government’s decision to facilitate the military’s onslaught since have created a mildly cooperative working environment for security. Deeper institutional tensions remain but the prime minister and army chief have forged stable enough ties to allow the counterterrorism (CT) efforts to continue.

Decisive leadership and this institutional equation have combined with the most basic need for any force-heavy CT strategy: a strong, cohesive war-fighting machinery. This is one major difference between Pakistan and the Middle Eastern countries. Our societal fissures are no less than theirs but these haven’t been allowed to permeate the army. The civil-war like situation in Syria, Yemen, Libya etc, demonstrates the problem with armies loyal to ruling regimes rather than the state and therefore susceptible to breaking from within.

Finally, perhaps the most ignored aspect of Pakistan’s security turnaround is psychological. Between 2007-10, a terror-free day was a rarity. Many, including those in positions of power, were questioning whether the country would survive.

Of course, countless problems continue to inflict tremendous misery on average Pakistanis. But this is a qualitatively different time in one respect: the street no longer reflects the mood of a country in existential crisis. The positive spinoffs are beginning to manifest themselves in different ways — from the highest-ever levels of public support for CT actions to the bumper domestic tourism season this year to the return of the hustle and bustle in small towns to donors sensing a positive competitive spirit emerging between Punjab and KP to outdo the other in development outcomes.

Given how things are shaping up elsewhere, Pakistan’s upturn is not one to discount. And yet, I don’t want to create an impression that the country is out of the woods. Sustainability remains a key concern. For one, Pakistan’s entire approach is based on triage. The world’s view is that all of it will come to naught unless a wholesome effort against all militant outfits is made. Comparable experiences tell us they may be right.

Moreover, most global examples suggest that a force-heavy approach where broader development and social interventions are unable to keep pace are more prone to reversals. Same is the case with lingering political instability. While Pakistan has thus far managed to isolate its efforts against terrorism from the political struggles of the PML-N regime, there is no guarantee it will be able to do so if instability continues and governments continue to lack credibility in the eyes of the people.

There is also another problem with far-reaching implications. Every time I bring up the need to use the opportunity provided by the improved security situation to reform our most crippling problems — say by reviewing our neighbourhood policy, prioritising geo-economics over geopolitics, breaking the predatory elite-driven incentives in the economy — no one disagrees. But not one official with serious authority I have spoken to believes this will happen. Elite interests are too entrenched and perverse to allow us to make this leap. If we fail, we will waste a golden opportunity to turn the tactical gains made thus far into a strategic miracle.

The writer is a foreign policy expert based in Washington, DC.

Published in Dawn, August 2nd, 2016