Mao Zedong said, “Let a hundred flowers blossom.” And it was Mao Zedong himself who plucked and crushed all of 99 flowers and forced others to nurture the remaining one, his flower.
A myth is like that. It is a truth about something that repudiates all other truths about that thing.
It is a theory that ensures no other theory takes root regarding the same thing.
That is, it poses itself as a “self-evident” statement that disregards all other statements at revealing the truth.
In essence, a myth is a camouflage not only to hide the real truth but also to lay traps for those who try to unravel it.
Obviously, I am not here to define myth as a word or a term and its implications for various disciplines.
My focus is on a political myth, and it is in this sense that I hinted at some of its implications.
The myth is that Pakistan is being ruled by a hybrid regime and not in the manner that the constitution envisages.
By that the upholders of this myth mean specifically the incumbent government. That is, the coalition government of PML-N, PPP-P, and other smaller entities in the center. Largely, they do not mind the nature of the provincial governments.
And what they mean is that it is especially PML-N, which, in close complicity with the army and especially the present CDF Asim Munir, has usurped the political mandate and is running the government.
I am not going into the issue of usurpation. That is another myth that has many a Goebbels at its back.
No doubt, it is a concocted narrative that has been Goebbelsized in Pakistan. Repeat the lie and keep on repeating the lie until it is perceived as true.
That is the myth that I plan to analyze here.
In this regard, the straightest question is, “Is there any evidence to the effect?” Constitutional, legal, political, something in black-and-white, or any other.
Other than the falsehood that is being brokered as truth, is there any concrete proof?
No, in fact, there is no evidence or proof at all. What they have got instead is the hearsay and nothing else.
Let me try on my own to find anything to the effect.
There is one piece of legal evidence. It is the SIFC (Special Investment Facilitation Council).
‘It was created by an executive decision of the PDM government on 20 June 2023, notified through a cabinet decision. Actually, the government amended the Board of Investment Ordinance 2001 and gave SIFC legal cover. That is, it operates under an existing law.
Through it, the role of the army was formalized. The chief of army staff and other generals are official members via the SIFC notification. The government says it is lawful under the “aid of civil power” provisions.
It may also be noted here that civil-military economic bodies aren’t new in Pakistan, though SIFC has formalized it more than past setups.’
No doubt, the SIFC is not a constitutional body; but, no qualms, at the same time, it is verily a legal one.
So how one sees things depends on his political angles and not on merit or demerit.
In short, the myth of a hybrid regime is but a political perception/belief and, at best, a lie and nothing else.
Consider another argument. A uses B, and in the process, B itself stands used by A. Theoretically that may be so, but practically it is different in the sense of who gets what.
In case the army uses the politicians, then to what purpose? What do they gain by doing that? Obviously, they do get all that without using the politicians. Any doubt that the existing politicians would resist any demands! Whereas they are always at their disposal and doorstep, too, to serve, instead.
So, in effect, the army gets nothing by using politicians but hate and this or that allegation (true or false), such as their involvement and interference in the civilian and political affairs.
Remember, so far as martial laws are concerned, the army men are always forced to create a civilian façade by resorting to some type of elections and obtain some sort of a certificate of legitimacy, and political parties are ever ready to comply.
Anyways, a good many numbers of myths are there to cloud and cover the truths. And in a blindfolded political environment, they are an absolute success.
It is in this context that another myth comes to dominate the political scene. It states that the army uses the politicians. Everyone finds himself in total agreement with it. This myth too has never been questioned.
Let us examine it and ask why the politicians allow themselves to be used by the army and violate the dictates of political morality and the constitution.
There lie underneath it many a layer of paradoxes. Constitutionally speaking, it is politicians who are there to make the army accountable; it is politicians who are required to submit to the dictates of the constitution; it is politicians who are bound to not share the mandate given to them by the people with any other, be it the army, the courts, etc.
Hence, instead of following the constitution, playing a constitutionally valid political role, and making the army accountable in case of any constitutional and legal violations, such as martial laws or any interference, which are among the bigger ones, the politicians ditch that role and involve the army in politics and governmental affairs.
Who is the culprit, then? The politicians alone.
Let me formulate a proposition/theory to rebut this myth that the army uses the politicians. In fact, indeed, it is politicians who use the army to gain power, and thus, in this game, it is actually the army that gets used by them. Therefore, it is for them to consider what role they should or should not play.
One may ask what the politicians gain out of that. Obviously, other than the political power, when they are in the government, they enjoy a feeling of security and no fears of breaches and raids/onslaughts on the part of the opposition (the party/parties that are out of the government) to topple their government, and when they have no share in the political power and they are out of the government, they appeal to and coalesce with the army to overthrow the incumbent government and seize the political power themselves.
No doubt, it is the politicians who abide by no rules whatsoever, constitutional or legal or moral. It is they themselves who have created, nurtured, and strengthened a political environment in which no government is secure, stable, and long-standing. They are precarious and fragile and thus look towards the army for protection from an opposition that believes in no-holds-barred. This changes the turns only. While in opposition, they again look towards the army to help them throw the government overboard and put them into the government instead.
It is all a no-holds-barred political power game. The myths analyzed above serve it and do a disservice to the people of Pakistan.
The myth of a hybrid regime, among other things, targets the 27th Amendment with a penchant. They have crafted a narrative aiming at the army, especially CDF Asim Munir. It is held that the same amendment has been forced by the army. Again, for the sake of argument, let it be so. Fine, they did so. But who did process and pass the amendment? No other body, not a corps commander conference! But the parliament. On whose shoulders lie the burden of responsibility? The parliament alone. The myth and narrative of a hybrid regime do not refute this.
That busts this myth of a hybrid regime irreparably.
Another issue requires a bit of attention here. It is the issue of fixing responsibility, and for a long time I have been writing and speaking about it. It is of utmost importance, but it has been thrown out into the political wilderness. It has been trashed by the blindfold politics.
It is not essentially political. Notwithstanding, it has unfathomable implications for any and every constitutional, legal, and political setup in Pakistan.
When we accept the myth of a hybrid regime, in the same breath we do accept that whatever acts have been performed by a government, the responsibility for the same does not lie with the government, because somehow it is considered innocent and its partner the real culprit.
Clearly that purports to say that the responsibility lies with both the civil and military regimes, that is, the hybrid regime. Or any other partners, if any.
For the sake of argument, let us allow it to sustain a bit.
Now let us face the uphill task. Other than the civil government, how can the military be made answerable for the acts supposedly performed by a government alleged to be a hybrid government under the circumstances when the constitution was still in force?
Wasn’t it the politicians’ job to bring to task any violator of the dictates of the constitution? The myth of a hybrid regime, in fact, absolves both, as they say in Urdu باعزت بری (acquitted honorably).
However, and indeed, as is the case in Pakistan, the constitution stands enforced, and the government is working under the umbrella of the same constitution, and thus for all that this government does, it is responsible, and no other has a shred of burden of this responsibility. How could someone or something else be made responsible?
That blurs the lines drawn by the constitution and, for political gains, misleads the people and creates false myths and narratives.
That is how in Pakistan, politics trumps everything, be it the constitution or moral principles or common sense. It is blindfold politics, pure and simple.
[16 April 2026]