Pakistan has been grappling with arguably the worst political crisis in its history over the past several years. While many political analysts point to the removal of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022 as the beginning of the current turmoil, the roots of this crisis run far deeper.
In reality, political instability in Pakistan has been festering since the late 1990s. Between 1988 and 1999, four so-called democratic governments—two each led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)—failed to steer the country towards meaningful economic and social development. Rather than strengthening democratic institutions, the governments of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto often indulged in power struggles and sought support from the military establishment to dislodge rivals and secure political dominance.
The era of Gen Pervez Musharraf further exacerbated this dysfunction. Despite hopes for democratic recovery, the subsequent return of PML-N and PPP governments in 2008 and 2013 failed to address the deepening crisis. The arrival of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government in 2018, riding a wave of populist promises to build a “Naya Pakistan,” also fell short. Khan himself admitted, on multiple occasions, that he was unprepared for the responsibilities of governing and perhaps should not have taken charge in 2018.
Since April 2022, two successive coalition governments—comprising the PML-N, PPP, and other smaller parties—have been at the helm. This period has seen a near-collapse of the economy, intensifying political discord, and worsening societal decay. There are critical lessons to be drawn from this sustained instability, lessons that should serve as a wake-up call not only to the public but also to the country’s policymakers.
Perhaps the most vital takeaway is that Pakistan’s political system, instead of providing solutions, has become part of the problem. The parliamentary structure, as it stands, has produced crisis after crisis. Since the restoration of democracy in 1988 following Gen. Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law, only one government—that of Nawaz Sharif from 1997 to 1999—secured a two-thirds majority. All others have struggled with fractured mandates.
This fragmentation has not occurred by accident. Powerful actors behind the scenes have consistently manipulated the system to ensure no single party gains full control. As a result, successive governments have depended on fragile coalitions, forcing them to prioritize appeasing minor allies over meaningful reforms or good governance. Consequently, most governments have failed to deliver on even half of their electoral promises.
This dynamic has been central to the ongoing political crisis in Pakistan. Until these structural issues are addressed, true democratic stability and progress will remain elusive.
From 2018 to April 2022, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government spent much of its time appeasing its fragile coalition partners—Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA), and several independent lawmakers—just to stay in power. After PTI’s ouster, a new coalition of 13 parties, including former opposition forces as well as MQM and BAP, took charge. However, their sole agenda seemed to be the preservation of the government itself—not for governance, but for access to perks, privileges, and a few legislative priorities, such as rolling back electronic voting reforms.
This situation underscores a harsh reality: Pakistan’s parliamentary political system, in its current form, is far from being a solution to the country’s challenges. Instead, it has become part of the problem.
The first key lesson from the ongoing crisis is that political parties in Pakistan are focused almost entirely on power politics. Rather than fulfilling their constitutional roles as ruling and opposition parties committed to the welfare of citizens, they operate solely to protect or seize power—often at the expense of democratic norms and constitutional boundaries. In such a climate, a political system cannot function effectively or deliver basic services, let alone ensure long-term national stability.
A second critical takeaway is the undermining of the principle of the separation of powers. Although this principle is fundamental to Pakistan’s Constitution and essential for any functioning democracy, it is repeatedly violated. Political interference in judicial matters has become a regular feature, diluting the independence of the judiciary and eroding public trust in institutions that are supposed to act as checks and balances.
The media, both mainstream and digital, has also played an irresponsible role in worsening the crisis. Instead of objective reporting and upholding the public interest, many outlets have taken partisan stances, sensationalizing events and contributing to polarization. Media should be a pillar of democracy, not a tool for propaganda or vested interests.
Pakistan’s political crisis is deep, multifaceted, and cannot be resolved through superficial reforms. What the country urgently needs is a new social contract—one that reflects the aspirations of its people and is rooted in broad-based consensus. The current constitutional framework, weakened by years of manipulation and elite capture, no longer serves its intended purpose. Crucially, the new social contract must not be led by the same political elites who have contributed to the crisis.
Instead, the driving force must be the people of Pakistan. Civil society, grassroots organizations, and citizens must organize themselves into active community groups. This is now more feasible than ever, thanks to the widespread availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Citizens must understand that their future is intrinsically tied to the stability or instability of the country—and act accordingly.
Opinion leaders—teachers, lawyers, academics, and professionals—must rise to the occasion. Their leadership at both the local and national levels is vital. They can help mobilize the public, foster informed debate, and ensure the media reflects, rather than distorts, public opinion. Only through such bottom-up engagement can a truly representative and durable political system emerge.