IN times like this, we need people who tell hard truths while insisting that the present state of our politics is not permanent. On the one hand, White House aide Stephen Miller says that “we live in a world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”, and on the other, philosopher Hannah Arendt says that “out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience.
What never can grow out of it is power”. In her 1970 book On Violence, Arendt stresses that violence is not a form of power but its opposite. According to her, power is collective, consensual and relational. By contrast, violence is instrumental and coercive; its strength evaporates the moment the threat is evaded or withdrawn. “Violence can always destroy power,” she concludes.
Pakistan’s present rulers seem to follow Thucydides’ thought: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Against this backdrop, they want to reset the collapsed system of governance, according to the minister in charge of internal security and cricket affairs that show clear signs of deterioration.
Instead of taking responsibility, he has blamed others for the system’s rot. During his tenure, the security situation in Balochistan and KP has deteriorated significantly. Moreover, widespread violence was witnessed in AJK before the recent polls there.
The first move to reset the system was to promulgate governor’s rule and proclaim an indefinite emergency in a province where an opposition political party with strong public support had been in power since early 2024. The reasons given are couched in a security narrative. The KP government had failed to control the tide of terrorism since it was at the helm of affairs during the last two to three years. The TTP had unleashed terror in the province, especially in five key border districts on the Afghan border.
Many tribal jirgas and multiparty forums held by the provincial legislature opposed the military operations and the use of drone technology that resulted in civilian casualties and population displacement. The protest march led by the chief minister was a political move to persuade the ruling elite to adhere to the Islamabad High Court and Supreme Court decisions to allow access to the incarcerated founder of their party.
The SC had directed the prisoner to be treated in a private hospital, in the presence of his physicians and family members. Those court orders were flouted. A simple, humane gesture of following the court’s directions would have defused the political tension between the ruling elite and the opposition parties. Two mainstream parties have lost out the most in the KP fiasco: the PML-N and PPP.
The security situation in Balochistan is far more daunting. Why is there no governor’s rule or emergency there?
The security situation in Balochistan is far more daunting. There, the state faces an armed insurgency in Baloch-dominated areas. The number of terrorist incidents over the last two years is higher than in KP, and the level of violence against the state agencies, including the police, civil armed forces, and the military, is far more serious than anywhere else. Why is there no governor’s rule or emergency there? The answer is simple: the governing administration there is aligned with the establishment. A security strategy based on force has alienated the Baloch youth from the state. Even the Pakhtun areas close to the Afghan and KP borders are reeling under the onslaught of terrorist organisations that are exploiting internal fissures in the two provinces.
Here, we must ask a basic question: what kind of governance structure should dominate Pakistan? Should it be the constitutional order envisioned by the country’s founders, where every citizen is equal under the law, due process is respected, and all institutions act within their legal bounds? Or should Pakistan remain an eternal security state, where justice, lawmaking, foreign policy, the economy, and internal affairs are militarised? A state can justify its power in three ways: by promoting shared values rather than imposing a narrative; by ensuring the sanctity of the electoral process and the rule of law; and by establishing performance legitimacy. The present ruling elite struggles to pass this test. The current governance model needs a reset. Here is how to do it.
First, true representation can emerge only through fair and free elections. A state machinery that cannot hold free elections loses credibility and citizens’ trust. Parliament must represent the people’s will. We need a new and independent election commission. Internal stability and cohesion will remain elusive if questions about the legitimacy of the ruling set-up persist. Only a renewed and fair public mandate at this stage can settle these questions.
Second, centralised control must be replaced with genuine provincial autonomy and strong local self-government. We must adhere to the letter and spirit of the original 1973 Constitution, as the promise of provincial autonomy was the cornerstone of the near-consensus social contract between the state and society.
Third, the independence of the judiciary must be restored by genuine representatives in the new parliament elected through fair mid-term polls. The judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and fair administration of justice is crucial to a democratic state.
Fourth, our premier federal intelligence agencies appear to be operating outside the legal framework. This lack of accountability must be addressed through parliamentary oversight and laws that clearly define the role of the agencies in both the internal and external security dimensions.
Fifth, terrorism and violent extremism should be addressed by faithfully adhering to the updated CT NAP in 2021 through a long-term, sustainable strategy that invests in non-kinetic measures to address these challenges. Short-term kinetic military operations must be followed by multi-stakeholder, whole-of-society engagement strategies and action plans.
Finally, a meaningful reset can happen only if the security state does not involve itself in political matters.
The writer is a former police officer.
Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2026
