By | Kamran Ashraf Bhat
The latest events in Islamabad are not just another political controversy—they are yet another glaring reminder of the iron grip that Pakistan’s military establishment continues to exert over the country’s political affairs. The opposition alliance, led by figures such as Omar Ayub and Mehmood Khan Achakzai, has exposed what many Pakistanis have long suspected: the democratic facade is just that—a facade. The real power lies not in the elected representatives but in the shadowy corridors where unelected forces dictate the course of the nation.
The disruption of the opposition’s conference this week is not an isolated incident; it is part of a well-established pattern of interference. The hotel administration’s sudden withdrawal, reportedly under “external pressure,” points directly to the powerful quarters that have historically controlled Pakistan’s political process from behind the scenes. Ayub’s sardonic response—suggesting that the interference could be from “Gog and Magog, angels, or intelligence officials”—was a thinly veiled reference to the deep state that has long manipulated the country’s governance.
The opposition’s strong response, warning of legal action against the “installed authoritarian regime and its handlers,” lays bare the reality of Pakistan’s democracy: it exists only within the limits set by the military establishment. Mehmood Khan Achakzai’s call to resist “unconstitutional forces” echoes the frustrations of countless political leaders who have seen their movements crushed, their voices silenced, and their mandates stolen by an entity that operates beyond any democratic accountability.
Pakistan’s history is littered with examples of military-backed interventions in civilian politics, from outright coups to more insidious forms of control—pressure on the judiciary, coercion of the media, and the engineering of election results. The alleged tactics used to disrupt the opposition’s conference fit squarely into this decades-old playbook. When elected governments are repeatedly undermined, and political opposition is stifled through invisible hands, the entire democratic process becomes meaningless.
The implications of these events are dire. When the military establishment pulls the strings from behind the curtain, the idea of democratic governance becomes a cruel joke. The freedom of assembly and expression—cornerstones of any functional democracy—are reduced to privileges granted at the discretion of those in uniform. The opposition’s pledge to fight this battle through democratic means is commendable, but history suggests that legal and constitutional channels often lead to dead ends when the real powerbrokers remain unaccountable.
Pakistan stands at a dangerous crossroads. The continued meddling of the military in civilian affairs has eroded public trust in the political system, deepening an already festering crisis of legitimacy. The international community, often content with Pakistan’s military-led stability for geopolitical reasons, must wake up to the reality that true stability cannot be achieved by suppressing democratic forces.
The world is watching, but more importantly, so are the people of Pakistan. The question now is whether the country will finally break free from the shackles of military dominance or continue its descent into a permanent state of controlled democracy—a democracy in name only, where the real decisions are made not by the elected, but by the entrenched powers that refuse to relinquish control.
Kamran Ashraf Bhat is the CEO and Director of News at The Spotlight. As a Journalist, his work delves into socio-political and socio-religious issues, history, and film theory. A graduate of Bahçeşehir University in Istanbul, Türkiye, he specialized in comparative analyses of film and media, drawing on the theories of Stuart Hall, the British Marxist sociologist and cultural theorist, as well as Noam Chomsky, the renowned American linguist and political thinker. His research explores the intersection of media, ideology, and societal structures, offering a critical lens on contemporary discourse.
