Why Pakistan Struggles with Relations with Its Neighbours: A Reflection on Governance and Military Influence
Introduction:
Pakistan’s relationship with its neighboring countries has been historically strained. While many factors contribute to these tensions, the country’s internal political and governance structure plays a significant role in shaping its foreign relations. Issues like lack of democracy, military dominance in both political and economic spheres, and human rights violations not only affect domestic peace but also weaken Pakistan’s position on the international stage. This blog explores these internal factors and how they contribute to the country's challenges with neighbouring nations.
1. Lack of Democracy:
Democracy is often seen as the foundation of a nation's ability to establish stable and peaceful relations with its neighbors. In Pakistan, the lack of a robust, fully functional democratic system has led to instability and distrust both domestically and internationally.
For much of its history, Pakistan has been ruled by military regimes or political leaders with limited mandates, resulting in a system where decisions are often made by a small, elite group with little to no accountability to the people. This creates an environment where policies, especially foreign policies, are driven by the interests of the ruling military elite rather than the needs and desires of the people.
This governance structure leads to erratic decisions, where relations with neighboring countries like India, Afghanistan, and China fluctuate dramatically depending on who is in power. A truly democratic system, where the voice of the people matters, could lead to a more stable and coherent foreign policy, enhancing Pakistan's ability to build stronger ties with its neighbours.
2. Military Control and Influence:
One of the most critical issues in Pakistan is the overwhelming influence of the military on both politics and the economy. The military in Pakistan is not only a political force but also a powerful business empire. The army controls a vast network of industries, from milk production and cement manufacturing to banks and building materials. This economic empire often takes precedence over the military’s primary role of safeguarding the country’s security.
This dual role of the military—acting as both a political power and a major business player—creates a conflict of interest. Instead of focusing on the professional duties of defense and national security, the military’s involvement in business often drives decisions that prioritize financial gain over the welfare of the nation. This has led to a lack of trust between the military and political leaders, as demonstrated by the case of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Khan was arrested and imprisoned for questioning the role of the military in national governance, highlighting the tension between civilian leadership and military authority.
This internal discord weakens Pakistan’s ability to maintain a consistent and effective foreign policy, which in turn harms its relations with neighboring countries. Countries like India, with a more stable democratic process, find it difficult to engage with Pakistan in a meaningful way, as they are uncertain about the country’s true political direction.
3. Human Rights Violations and Civil Unrest:
Another significant factor affecting Pakistan's international relations is its internal human rights situation. The government’s approach to dealing with protests and dissent is often violent, as seen in the tragic events of November 2024, when military forces opened fire on protesters, killing several civilians. This heavy-handed approach to internal conflict sends a negative message to the international community and undermines Pakistan’s image as a responsible nation.
Human rights violations like this not only lead to domestic instability but also erode trust among neighboring countries. When neighboring nations observe such acts of repression, they are likely to distance themselves from Pakistan, seeing it as a nation that is struggling with internal problems and unable to govern peacefully. Moreover, such actions provide ammunition for international critics who argue that Pakistan’s governance model is incompatible with peaceful, cooperative relationships in the region.
4. Comparing Pakistan’s Governance with India:
When compared to Pakistan, India offers a stark contrast in terms of its political system. India, as the world’s largest democracy, has long had a more stable and inclusive democratic framework. While India is not without its own internal issues, the country’s political process—designed to serve the people—is far more transparent and accountable than Pakistan’s.
This democratic strength allows India to engage more effectively with its neighbors. India’s stable government has been able to build a relatively consistent foreign policy that promotes economic growth, security cooperation, and regional peace. On the other hand, Pakistan’s political instability, primarily due to military interference, makes it difficult for neighboring countries to trust Pakistan as a reliable partner in regional cooperation.
Conclusion:
The future of Pakistan looks uncertain if the country continues to operate under its current governance structure. The military’s involvement in both politics and business, coupled with the lack of a fully functional democratic system, weakens the nation’s ability to build strong, stable relations with its neighbors. Additionally, human rights violations and civil unrest only serve to exacerbate Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation.
To secure a better future, Pakistan must focus on establishing a more democratic and transparent political system that is accountable to the people. This shift would not only improve domestic governance but would also send a positive signal to neighboring countries, allowing for the possibility of more stable and peaceful relations in the future.
If Pakistan is to change its trajectory, both domestically and in terms of foreign relations, a comprehensive reevaluation of its current political and military structure is essential. The current pattern of governance, if left unchanged, may indeed put the future of the country in serious danger.
