People generally associate security with physical protection from danger and understand insecurity as exposure to physical harm. This is understandable because the safety of oneself, one’s family and one’s property is a fundamental concern for every individual. However, a deeper examination reveals that an individual’s perception of security is also closely linked to several non-physical and non-military factors. Therefore, ensuring an acceptable level of physical security requires serious attention to these broader dimensions of security, not only by policymakers but also by society at large.
Pakistan is located in one of the world’s most volatile regions, where external security threats have historically remained serious. However, the country is currently confronted with multiple internal security challenges that require urgent attention. Failure to address these dangers could put the very survival of the state at risk. Among the various internal security threats, the most serious is the administrative collapse across the country. This situation has recently been acknowledged by none other than Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, who has called for a deeper institutional reset.
The most visible indication of this administrative collapse is the lack, and sometimes complete absence, of the state’s writ in almost every sphere of public life. In present-day Pakistan, the state appears increasingly incapable of enforcing its laws, whether through persuasion or the use of its lawful authority. Consider, for example, the inability of the authorities to remove encroachments created by traders and land grabbers along almost every major road and thoroughfare in the country, including those in the federal capital, Islamabad. A large majority of people also disregard safety regulations and precautionary measures designed primarily for their own protection.
This widespread disregard for government instructions and laws reflects a serious erosion of public confidence in state institutions. There are several reasons for this lack of trust, but the most important is the state’s failure to convince citizens that its primary purpose is to serve and protect them. The state has been unable to establish this relationship because those who have controlled its affairs at the highest levels, including civilian and military leaderships, have often used public institutions to advance personal interests rather than the welfare of the people.
There is a natural reaction to every action. When the state consistently neglects public welfare, development and security, the consequences are bound to affect society. Large sections of the population remain deprived of quality education and basic opportunities for development. As a result, many citizens have become increasingly indifferent to government advice, regulations and even ordinary laws. This attitude has further weakened the administrative system and created a vicious cycle in which the absence of state authority encourages public lawlessness, while public disregard for the law makes governance even more difficult.
The extent of administrative deterioration can be judged from the fact that it is difficult to identify even a single district in Pakistan whose administrative structure could serve as a model for the rest of the country. None of the provinces has an effective local government system in place, leaving districts largely dependent on civilian administrative officers, particularly deputy commissioners.
These officers are generally capable of managing routine administrative affairs, but the overall manner in which public services and local issues are handled leaves much to be desired. For instance, a district administration may intervene when a road is completely blocked. However, when pushcart operators and street vendors occupy most of the same road, leaving only a narrow passage for traffic and pedestrians, the administration often remains indifferent despite the problem being visible to everyone. Such selective enforcement of the law reflects the weakness of administrative institutions and their inability to maintain order consistently.
Another major internal security challenge is the growing influence of powerful interest groups, commonly known in Western countries as pressure or special-interest groups. In Pakistan, however, many of these groups can more accurately be described as mafias because of the way they dominate different sectors and protect their vested interests. Whether it is education, healthcare, construction, real estate or capital markets, powerful groups have established considerable control over their respective fields, often at the expense of the general public.
Private educational institutions provide a particularly clear example of this phenomenon. Over the years, they have developed into such an influential interest group that they can effectively pressure the state to frame rules and regulations according to their preferences, often without adequate consideration of the financial burden on ordinary families. The private education sector has become so powerful that the government frequently appears helpless in dealing with its excessive commercialisation and exploitative practices.
This situation has emerged largely because the state has failed to fulfil one of its most fundamental responsibilities: providing quality education to all citizens. The mushrooming growth of private educational institutions is therefore not simply the result of market demand but also reflects the absence of sound policymaking and effective governance in the public education sector.
Over time, officials in education departments and other relevant government institutions have, in some cases, found it more advantageous to develop questionable relationships with private school owners rather than strengthen public educational institutions. Consequently, the education system has deteriorated to an alarming level. A large proportion of the population has been denied the quality education necessary to become responsible citizens and contribute meaningfully to national development. Much of the confusion, disorder and social instability visible in contemporary Pakistan can be traced to inadequate education and the failure to develop an informed and responsible society.
The exceptionally low success rate in the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination is another indication of the problems confronting the country’s education system. This year, once again, only 2.74 per cent of candidates who appeared in the examination qualified, raising serious questions about the standard of education and the quality of human resources being produced by the country. The performance and professional standards of even those candidates who pass the examination and enter the civil service also deserve closer scrutiny. Weak educational foundations and inadequate professional preparation have inevitably contributed to the administrative shortcomings that are now affecting the entire country.
A state is fundamentally an institution established to protect and promote the public interest, whereas interest groups generally work to advance private or individual interests. In present-day Pakistan, however, private interests have increasingly overshadowed public welfare because the state has largely failed to protect the latter. This is an extremely dangerous situation that the country’s power centres must recognise and address before it becomes irreversible.
Unfortunately, the political component of the country’s power structure is entangled in so many controversies and competing interests that it appears to have lost the ability to make bold, rational and far-reaching decisions. Political considerations, personal interests and institutional rivalries frequently take precedence over the broader national interest, making meaningful reforms increasingly difficult.
Under these circumstances, those occupying the most influential positions in the country’s power structure must rise to the occasion and demonstrate the political will to take difficult but necessary decisions. Pakistan cannot be rescued from the negative influence of powerful interest groups unless the state re-establishes its authority and ensures that public institutions serve ordinary citizens rather than privileged individuals and organisations. Once the most influential decision-makers demonstrate a genuine commitment to reform, other state institutions are likely to follow. More importantly, the public will also support the government if people become convinced that its actions are genuinely aimed at protecting their interests and improving their lives.
Pakistan’s internal security challenges are therefore far more serious than they may appear. They are gradually hollowing out the foundations of the state and creating conditions that make it easier for external adversaries to exploit internal weaknesses and advance their own objectives. Whether the problem is the collapse of the administrative structure, the growing dominance of mafias in different sectors or other forms of institutional dysfunction, almost every major internal security threat is directly connected to the country’s political and administrative arrangements.
The country’s leading policymakers, influential decision-makers and institutional leadership must recognise the gravity of the situation. The question before them is no longer simply how to maintain the existing political and administrative arrangements. It is whether Pakistan can continue to function effectively as a state if these fundamental weaknesses remain unaddressed. The priority must be the survival, stability and strengthening of the state, not the continuation of a dysfunctional system that has increasingly failed to serve its people.