In the second pattern, the army ousts the ruler and his party and takes full control of state affairs. In this case, the military leader criticises and condemns the past ruling classes as corrupt, inefficient and inept. He terms his assumption of power a 'revolution' and declares that he will change the entire structure of the state to reform it radically. He promises to eradicate all evils and work for the welfare of the people. In the first pattern the policy of continuity is followed, while in the second the new ruler de-links himself from the past in order to inaugurate a new era.

The problem with army rule is that it always needs to first legitimise its rule. In Islamic history we find this crisis of legitimacy for those military adventurers who usurped power with the help of the army. In the 10th century, as the Abbasid dynasty declined, it provided an opportunity to such adventurers to declare independence in provinces where they had power. The caliph was too weak to take any action against these usurpers.

Writing under these circumstances, Abul Hassan-al-Mawardi (d. 1158), a jurist, in his book Al Ahkam al Sultaniya argued that as people were too weak to resist or rebel against these military adventurers, there was no alternative but to recognise them as legitimate rulers and obey them. Thus Mawardi provided a weapon to those who used military power and, after overthrowing a government, declared themselves sovereign.

In Indian history we find that during the Sultanat period (from 1206 to 1526), five dynasties came to power with the help of the army and the people, having no choice, recognised each of them as legitimate.

During the Mughal rule, military powers followed the first pattern by keeping the Mughal emperor on the throne and ruling in his name. The Marhattas and the East India Company adopted this mode successfully.

In India, the concept of martial law was introduced by the colonial government. In Europe it was the tradition that in case of war, rebellion or some serious crisis, martial law was imposed for a certain period. It suspended the working of legal courts and replaced them by martial courts. The British government imposed martial law from time to time in India to crush resistance movement.

In the 1920s, it was imposed in Punjab after the massacre of Jillianwala Bagh; in 1930s it was implemented in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, and in 1940s, in Sindh against the Hur movement. However, these were all carried out under a civilian government and lifted after quelling the resistance.

In Pakistan, the first martial law was imposed in 1953 in Lahore by the order of the civilian government which thus exposed its own weakness and recognised the power of the army. This encouraged the army, in 1958, to overthrow the government and take over political power. This act was repeated in 1969, 1977, and 1999.

To legalise martial law, a 'Doctrine of Necessity' was used. Justice Muneer, in his judgment, argued that a successful revolution or coup d'état is recognised as legal by the international law. Backed by the authority of martial law the military dictator could abrogate the constitution and introduce a new one which would give him the right to rule. The 'Doctrine of Necessity' was repeatedly used by other martial law regimes; in the case of Ziaul Haq, Sharifuddin Pirzada quoted from the Holy Quran in support of the law.

If we compare Mawardi's theory of usurpation and the 'Doctrine of Necessity,' we find some similarities. Both provide legitimacy to military adventurers and the right to overthrow a legal government. Both exclude the people from the process of recognition and impose on them the obligation to obey military rule.

However, there is also a difference; Mawardi's theory was the product of a period when people had no role in electing their rulers. It was a time of absolutism. In the modern democratic era, people have a right to resist illegal government. Though the people of Pakistan have endured three martial laws, in the end they rebelled against the military dictators and ousted them from power.

Now, people have a voice. They do not have to submit passively to military dictators. Both Mawardi's theory and the Doctrine of Necessity have failed to justify military rule.