Skip to content
Question

Q.Show with the help of any two examples the interference of military in the administration of Pakistan.

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2022Subjective· 2mImportance★★★★★
✓ Free question

Pakistan's military has repeatedly intervened in civilian governance, seizing power directly through coups and indirectly shaping policy from behind the scenes, undermining democratic institutions throughout the nation's history.

Pakistan's political landscape has been profoundly shaped by the recurring interference of its armed forces in civilian administration. Unlike many democracies where the military remains subordinate to elected governments, Pakistan's army has positioned itself as a parallel power center, often stepping in to "correct" what it perceives as failures of civilian rule. This pattern began early in the country's history and has left deep scars on its democratic development.

The roots of military dominance lie partly in Pakistan's founding circumstances—born amid partition violence, facing immediate conflict with India over Kashmir, and inheriting a weak political infrastructure. The army quickly became the most organized, disciplined institution in the state, while political parties remained fragmented and civilian leaders struggled to build consensus. This imbalance created openings for military intervention that generals proved willing to exploit.

General Ayub Khan's Coup (1958)

The first major military takeover came in October 1958, when General Ayub Khan, then Commander-in-Chief of the army, imposed martial law and abrogated the constitution. Pakistan had been struggling with political instability—frequent changes of government, squabbling among politicians, and regional tensions between East and West Pakistan. Ayub Khan justified his intervention by claiming that civilian politicians were corrupt and incompetent, unable to provide the strong leadership the nation needed.

Once in power, Ayub Khan didn't simply restore order and step back. He ruled for over a decade, first as Chief Martial Law Administrator and later as President under a new constitution he himself designed. His regime introduced the "Basic Democracies" system, which concentrated power in his hands while giving only a veneer of local participation. Political parties were banned, dissent was suppressed, and the military's grip on key administrative posts tightened. This set a dangerous precedent: the idea that the army could legitimately replace elected governments whenever it deemed them inadequate.

General Zia-ul-Haq's Martial Law (1977)

Nearly two decades later, history repeated itself with even harsher consequences. In July 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew the elected government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto through a military coup. Zia had been appointed army chief by Bhutto himself, yet he turned against his benefactor when political unrest erupted following disputed elections. Promising to hold fresh elections within ninety days, Zia instead entrenched himself in power for eleven years until his death in 1988.

Zia's interference went far beyond Ayub Khan's. He not only suspended the constitution and dissolved parliament but also executed Bhutto after a controversial trial, sending a chilling message about the cost of challenging military authority. Zia imposed strict martial law, curtailed civil liberties, and used religion as a tool to legitimize his rule, introducing controversial Islamization policies that reshaped Pakistani society. The judiciary, media, and educational institutions all came under military influence. His era demonstrated that military interference wasn't just about temporary stabilization—it could mean prolonged authoritarian rule that fundamentally altered the nation's character.

Note

Beyond these direct coups, Pakistan's military has also interfered indirectly through what observers call the "establishment"—a shadowy network of military and intelligence officials who influence foreign policy, especially regarding India and Afghanistan, even when civilians formally hold power.

Important

The pattern of military intervention has created a vicious cycle: each coup weakens democratic institutions further, making future civilian governments more fragile and thus more vulnerable to the next intervention.

✓Final answer

In short, Ayub Khan's 1958 coup and Zia-ul-Haq's 1977 takeover exemplify how Pakistan's military has repeatedly seized direct control of administration, suspending constitutions, dissolving elected bodies, and ruling for extended periods—interventions that have crippled the growth of stable democratic governance in the country.

Unlock everything free for 14 days

  • Full step-by-step solutions
  • Concept-first explanations
  • Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
  • PYQ mapping + timed mock tests

Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.