Referring to the Evolution of Political System, Identify the Commonalities among Martial Law Administrators Of Pakistan.

2009 Solved Pakistan Affairs Past Papers | Commonalities among Martial Laws of Pakistan

The following question of CSS Pakistan Affairs 2009 is solved by Miss Iqra Ali, the best Pakistan Affairs Coach, on the guided pattern of Sir Syed Kazim Ali, which he taught to his students, scoring the highest marks in compulsory subjects for years. This solved past paper question is uploaded to help aspirants understand how to crack a topic or question, how to write relevantly, what coherence is, and how to include and connect ideas, opinions, and suggestions to score the maximum.

Question Breakdown

In this question, the examiner has asked you to explain the similarities among different Martial Law Administrators in Pakistan by linking them to the overall evolution of the political system. To solve this, first write the then situation of political instability after independence. Then briefly introduce major Martial Law regimes. After that, identify their common features such as suspension of constitutions, centralization of power, attempts at legitimacy, and military-bureaucratic control. Finally, relate how these patterns affected the evolution and disruption of democratic political development in Pakistan. Keep the flow analytical and comparative.

Outline

1- Introduction

2- Historical Overview of Military Ascendancy since 1947

3- Common Features of Martial Law Regimes in Pakistan’s Political Evolution

3.1- Suspension or Abrogation of the Constitution and Rule by Provisional Orders

• ✓ In his book “Pakistan: A New History,” Ian Talbot notes that every military regime began with either suspension or abrogation of the constitution to consolidate emergency powers.

3.2- Centralization of Power in the Military-Executive with Civilian Bypass

• ✓General Ayub Khan’s introduction of the 1962 Constitution replaced parliamentary democracy with presidential rule, centralizing authority (K.K. Aziz, The Making of Pakistan).

3.3- Use of Controlled Democracy and Attempts at Civilian Legitimacy

• ✓ Zia-ul-Haq’s 1985 party-less elections were a strategic move to create a controlled political structure (Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, The Military and Politics in Pakistan)

3.4- Institutionalization of Military-Bureaucratic Complex and Technocratic Governance

• ✓ General Musharraf’s National Security Council institutionalized military’s policy dominance under the guise of “Enlightened Moderation” (Stephen P. Cohen, The Idea of Pakistan)

3.5- Suppression of Political Opposition and Media Control

• ✓ During Yahya Khan’s regime, media censorship and banning of political parties in 1970 was used to manage dissent (Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan).

4- Critical Analysis

5- Conclusion

Answer to the Question

Introduction

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has grappled with persistent political instability, weak institutional structures, and contested civil-military relations. Within this fragile democratic landscape, martial law has emerged as a recurrent feature, often justified under the pretext of restoring order, correcting political dysfunction, or promoting national progress. Martial law, in the context of Pakistan, refers to the unconstitutional seizure of power by the military, typically accompanied by the suspension or abrogation of constitutional frameworks, sidelining of elected institutions, and consolidation of authority under military leadership. From General Ayub Khan’s coup in 1958 to General Pervez Musharraf’s takeover in 1999, each military regime not only disrupted the democratic process but also left a lasting imprint on Pakistan’s political evolution. What is striking is not merely the frequency of military interventions, but the structural and ideological similarities that underpin these authoritarian episodes. Despite differing historical contexts, each martial law administrator: Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf, followed a broadly similar trajectory marked by constitutional dislocation, executive centralization, attempts at political legitimization, and the embedding of the military-bureaucratic nexus within the state apparatus.

Historical Overview of Military Ascendancy Since 1947

The roots of military dominance in Pakistan can be traced back to the fragile political foundations laid at the time of independence. The death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1948 and the assassination of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 left a leadership vacuum that was never adequately filled by subsequent civilian leaders. The early years of Pakistan were marked by constitutional uncertainty, with the first constitution only promulgated in 1956, nine years after independence. Even then, it was soon abrogated when martial law was imposed in 1958. This era witnessed frequent dismissals of elected governments, chronic infighting among political elites, and a burgeoning bureaucracy and military establishment that grew increasingly assertive. The inability of civilian institutions to provide stable governance created a vacuum into which the military repeatedly inserted itself. As early as the 1950s, the armed forces began to perceive themselves as guardians of national stability rather than subordinates to civilian authority. The military’s administrative capacity, organizational discipline, and strategic centrality during crises, such as the Kashmir conflict and refugee resettlement, further strengthened its political relevance.  In this environment of constitutional ambiguity and executive instability, the stage was set for repeated military takeovers that followed a remarkably uniform pattern of authoritarian consolidation.

Common Features of Martial Law Regimes in Pakistan’s Political Evolution

Despite the differences in era, personality, and context, Pakistan’s martial law regimes share a remarkable degree of structural and procedural similarity. Each military intervention followed a near-identical script: the abrupt dismissal of elected governments, the suspension or abrogation of constitutional law, the centralization of power within the military-executive, and the strategic use of controlled democracy to acquire a veneer of legitimacy.

• Suspension or Abrogation of the Constitution and Rule by Provisional Orders

One of the defining features of every military regime in Pakistan has been the immediate suspension or complete abrogation of the Constitution. This legal disruption provided the foundational justification for the establishment of martial law and the exercise of executive power unencumbered by judicial or legislative checks.

General Ayub Khan, upon seizing power in 1958, abrogated the 1956 Constitution and dissolved the national and provincial assemblies. Similarly, General Yahya Khan, who succeeded Ayub in 1969, not only imposed martial law but also abrogated the short-lived 1962 Constitution introduced by his predecessor. The pattern continued with General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, who suspended the 1973 Constitution while retaining it selectively to enact ordinances and maintain judicial functionality. General Musharraf followed suit in 1999, issuing a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) that suspended constitutional articles and required judges to take fresh oaths of allegiance to the military regime. As Ian Talbot notes in his seminal work, “Pakistan: A Modern History,” very military government in Pakistan has used legal suspension as a tool to consolidate emergency powers and neutralize institutional opposition.

• Centralization of Power in the Military-Executive with Civilian Bypass

Another commonality among martial law administrators is the tendency to concentrate power within the military-executive, effectively sidelining civilian institutions and parliamentary processes. General Ayub Khan’s imposition of the 1962 Constitution, which replaced the parliamentary system with a presidential model, is a prime example of this centralization. By eliminating the office of the Prime Minister and introducing Basic Democracies—a system of indirect elections designed to engineer political compliance, Ayub marginalized representative institutions and established himself as the supreme decision-maker.

This model of governance was later echoed by General Zia-ul-Haq, who operated largely through Presidential Ordinances and avoided holding parliamentary elections until 1985, eight years into his rule. Even then, the elections were held on a party-less basis, a tactic designed to weaken political organization and enhance executive authority. General Musharraf continued this trend by assuming both the offices of Chief Executive and President, later amending the Constitution through the Legal Framework Order (LFO) to consolidate his powers further.

In all cases, the underlying objective was to prevent the emergence of autonomous political centers that could challenge military dominance.

As K.K. Aziz said in his book, The Making of Pakistan,

“The systematic weakening of representative institutions ensured that power remained concentrated within a narrow elite, often composed of military officers, bureaucrats, and technocrats loyal to the regime.”

• Use of Controlled Democracy and Attempts at Civilian Legitimacy

Despite their authoritarian nature, all martial law regimes in Pakistan have attempted, at various points, to acquire a semblance of popular legitimacy. This has typically been done through the orchestration of referendums, party-less elections, and the co-optation of civilian politicians. General Zia-ul-Haq, for instance, held a controversial referendum in 1984 asking whether voters supported the enforcement of Shariah law. The following year, he conducted party-less elections for the National Assembly, presenting them as a step toward democratic restoration while ensuring that real power remained concentrated in his hands.

Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, in The Military and Politics in Pakistan, describes these efforts as “controlled democracy”, a form of political engineering designed to provide a democratic facade without relinquishing substantive authority. General Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracies system similarly enabled him to conduct indirect elections, which he won in 1965 against Fatima Jinnah, despite widespread allegations of manipulation. General Musharraf repeated the pattern in 2002 by holding general elections after legalizing his regime through a controversial referendum, which asked vague and suggestive questions about his suitability to lead.

• Institutionalization of Military-Bureaucratic Complex and Technocratic Governance

Another notable similarity among Pakistan’s martial law administrators is the institutionalization of the military-bureaucratic complex and the use of technocratic governance as a substitute for democratic participation. Each regime sought to embed military personnel and civil bureaucrats in key policy-making and administrative positions, thereby solidifying the military’s role in governance beyond the formal period of martial law. General Ayub Khan, for instance, relied heavily on senior bureaucrats and civil service elites to formulate national policies, particularly in the realm of economic planning and industrial development.

The integration of technocrats became even more formalized under General Musharraf, who established the National Security Council (NSC) as a permanent body to advise on security and governance issues. This institutional innovation not only legitimized the military’s continued presence in civilian affairs but also enabled strategic policy influence long after the formal withdrawal of martial law. According to Stephen P. Cohen in The Idea of Pakistan, Musharraf’s emphasis on “Enlightened Moderation” provided ideological cover for technocratic rule, which often bypassed democratic accountability. This merging of military, bureaucratic, and technocratic elites created a hybrid system where governance was driven by unelected actors.

• Suppression of Political Opposition and Media Control

Martial law regimes in Pakistan have also shared a consistent approach to suppressing political opposition and curtailing media freedom. Control of public discourse and elimination of dissent have been central to the survival strategies of military rulers. General Yahya Khan’s administration, which succeeded Ayub Khan in 1969, provides a particularly stark example. In the lead-up to the 1970 elections, his regime banned several political organizations and imposed stringent censorship on the press, especially in the context of rising Bengali nationalism in East Pakistan. The inability to accommodate legitimate political grievances eventually culminated in the secession of East Pakistan in 1971.

General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, notorious for its repressive measures, institutionalized media censorship through the establishment of strict editorial codes and harsh penalties for dissent. Political activists, journalists, and members of civil society were routinely imprisoned or silenced through coercion. Similarly, General Musharraf initially promised media liberalization but later clamped down on critical outlets during the Lawyers’ Movement in 2007. Television channels were blocked, journalists detained, and civil society protests brutally suppressed.

As Stanley Wolpert said in Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan,

“The sustained suppression of free expression and political participation under martial law regimes contributed to a pervasive culture of fear and compliance.”

Critical Analysis

When viewed collectively, the martial law regimes of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf exhibit a striking pattern of authoritarian governance characterized by legal exceptionalism, centralized executive power, controlled political participation, and suppression of dissent. Despite contextual differences—such as the Cold War alignment under Ayub, the Islamization agenda under Zia, or the post-9/11 realignment under Musharraf—their methods of governance reveal a structural continuity aimed at maintaining military dominance over the civilian sphere.

These regimes disrupted the organic growth of democratic institutions by undermining constitutional continuity and promoting a culture of political dependency on the military. Civilian governments that followed martial law were often weak, fragmented, and vulnerable to intervention, having inherited administrative structures that prioritized authoritarian control over participatory governance. The recurring cycles of military rule not only stunted democratic development but also created a perpetual state of institutional imbalance, where the military remained the ultimate arbiter of national affairs.

Furthermore, each martial law period left behind legal and institutional legacies that continued to influence civilian governance long after the generals had stepped down. These residual effects have made it difficult to establish an uninterrupted democratic trajectory. The result is a deeply entrenched civil-military imbalance that remains a defining feature of Pakistan’s political evolution.

Conclusion

In sum, the history of martial law in Pakistan reflects a recurring pattern of authoritarianism masked by reformist rhetoric and claims of national salvation. From Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf, military rulers have suspended constitutions, centralized authority, manipulated democratic processes, and suppressed dissent. Although each regime emerged under different historical circumstances, their governance strategies converged remarkably, resulting in a cyclical disruption of democratic development. The shared characteristics of these regimesnot only hindered the maturation of democratic institutions but also entrenched the military as a permanent power broker in Pakistan’s polity. Thus, the martial law administrators of Pakistan were not isolated anomalies, but rather sequential actors in a structural pattern that continues to shape the country’s political landscape. Any future efforts to establish genuine democratic governance must reckon with this legacy and seek to restore constitutional supremacy and civilian oversight as the foundational principles of the state.

CSS 2009 Solved Pakistan Affairs

2-	Keeping in View the Diverse Muslim Reformist Movements of the Sub-continent, Delineate the Sequential Unity in Formulation of Ideology of Pakistan.
3-	What Specific Steps were Initiated by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan which later-on became the Agenda Points of the Movement for Pakistan? How did these Steps Orient the Political System in Pakistan?
4-	Illustrate the Role of Quaid-I-Azam For Protecting the Constitutional Rights of Muslims Of The Sub-Continent from 1916 to 1933
5-	Referring to the Evolution of Political System, Identify the Commonalities among Martial Law Administrators Of Pakistan.
6-	Discuss and Debate the Strength of Diplomatic Stance of Pakistan Regarding “War On Terror”. How It Can Be Improvised In Present Geo-Political Scenario?
7-	Compare and Contrast the Dynamics of Recent Civil Society Movement, with Other Movements in the History of Pakistan. What Impact It Would Print on the Future of Pakistan?
8-	Inspite of Strong Research-Base, Rich Lands, Reasonable Water-Resources and Various Land-Reforms, Why Agriculture Sector Remained Less-Developed in Pakistan?

CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays

Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them.

CSS Solved Essays

CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers

Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students.

General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers