ver the last 78 years, Pakistan has had four dictators who directly ruled the country for thirty three years; thirty two prime ministers (including eight caretaker prime ministers) collectively ruled for forty two years. Not a single prime minister completed their five-year term. Since its inception, Pakistan has experienced various forms of government, including presidential, parliamentary democracy and dictatorship. Primarily, Pakistan has remained a transitional state between parliamentary democracy and dictatorship. However, now that non-representative forces have chosen to avoid direct intervention, the country has a hybrid regime.

In a recent interview with Arab News, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif praised the hybrid system in Pakistan, stating that over the last two to three years, Pakistan had been functioning under a hybrid governance system that had been beneficial for the country. He added that had this model been adopted in the late 1990s, Pakistan would have been in a different position. This raises some questions: What constitutes a hybrid governance system? How does it operate? What effect does it have on democratic values? Additionally, is this type of system unique to Pakistan? If not, how have other countries done under hybrid governance?

The term “hybrid regime” gained prominence during the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf government (2018-2022). The term related to the alleged establishment support for Imran Khan and the manipulation of the 2018 elections that led to his premiership. Imran Khan frequently referred to being on “the same page” with the establishment. However, a shift occurred when the establishment distanced itself from Khan and established stronger ties with the Pakistan Democratic Movement. This ultimately contributed to the PTI government’s dismissal. Strategic manoeuvres were also reported during the 2024 elections and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan characterised those as some of the most contentious and closely managed in the country’s history. The government that came into power following the elections has often been described as ‘hybrid plus,’ indicating a potential increase in establishment oversight and control.

A hybrid system, or hybrid regime, is characterised by the integration of elements from both democratic and authoritarian governance systems. In such a framework, democratic institutions, including a multi-party system, regular elections and a functioning constitution, are in place. However, these institutions may be influenced or controlled by the establishment, leading to manipulation of elections and restrictions on civil liberties and political freedoms. Thus, a hybrid regime has a significant impact on democratic values.

Larry Diamond believes that hybrid regimes—which combine aspects of democracy and authoritarianism—are not a new phenomenon. Multiparty, electoral, but undemocratic administrations existed in the 1960s and 1970s as well. However, its modern manifestation is different as now non-democratic governments tend to employ various means to control their opponents rather than outlaw them altogether. In a similar vein, Andreas Schedler has noted that while elections and non-democratic rule have had a long history, electoral authoritarianism, which is characterised by the existence of multiparty elections regardless of their level of competition, had become increasingly prevalent in the latter half of the 20th Century.

In the 2024 Democracy Index report, each country is classified into one of four types of regimes: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. According to the report, only 45 percent of the world’s population lives in a democracy; 39 percent live under authoritarian rule; and 15 percent in “hybrid regimes” that combine electoral democracy with authoritarian tendencies. There are 25 countries under full democracy; 46 under flawed democracy; 60 under authoritarian regimes; and 36 under hybrid regimes. Romania, Bhutan, Armenia, Mexico, Bosnia, Kenya, Morocco, Ukraine, Nepal, Bangladesh and Turkey are listed among those. According to this report, Pakistan is an authoritarian regime not a hybrid regime.

According to the Democracy Index 2024, significant anomalies in elections frequently make it impossible for hybrid regimes to be both free and fair. It may be typical for the government to exert pressure on opposition parties and candidates. There are more significant flaws in political culture, governmental operations and political involvement than in ‘flawed democracies.’ The rule of law is generally weak and corruption common. Civil society is not strong. Journalists are frequently harassed and under pressure. The courts are rarely impartial.

For decades, the establishment has played a significant role in defence and foreign affairs. Its influence has recently expanded into economy and agriculture under a hybrid regime. The PDM government introduced and passed several laws and amendments that have implications for governance and civil liberties.

The Army (Amendment) Bill allowed for military’s involvement in national development without civilian consent and grants military courts the authority to try civilians. The Official Secrets (Amendment) Act has enabled civilian imprisonment without due process and confers broad powers on intelligence agencies. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill prohibits criticism of the military. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Bill restricts freedom of speech by outlawing criticism of the government.

The PDM government established a Special Investment Facilitation Council. This has implications for military’s involvement in the management of national economy.

The tenure of services chiefs has also been extended.

Several recent developments in Pakistan indicate the presence of a hybrid regime, characterised by the dominance of the establishment over the civilian government. In this context, it is observed that unpopular policies are often attributed to the civilian government and the establishment is credited with mitigating the impact of those policies and implementing successful initiatives.

For sustainable progress and the effective functioning of democracy in Pakistan, all national institutions need to operate within their constitutional boundaries. Upholding its founding ideology and the constitution is crucial.

Mazhar Abbas, author of The Aftermath of the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971: Enduring Impact (Routledge, 2024), has a PhD in history from Shanghai University. He is a lecturer at GCU, Faisalabad, and a research fellow at PIDE, Islamabad. He can be reached at mazharabbasgondal87@gmail.com. His X handle is @MazharGondal87.

Muhammad Yasin Shafique is an MPhil student in history and a research fellow at GCU, Faisalabad.