t is often said that all Pakistan’s problems can be traced back to the flawed policies and self-serving nature of its politicians. There is a popular belief that the downfall of the country is primarily the result of corrupt elected leaders interested only in personal gain rather than the nation’s well-being.

“Politicians come and go, but the problems remain,” many argue, invoking a sense of a never-ending cycle of failure and disappointment. This has become the default narrative, one that has been repeated so often that it has morphed into a widely accepted truth. However, a closer look reveals another story that challenges the conventional wisdom and calls for a rethinking of how responsibility should be assigned.

A careful examination of Pakistan’s history reveals that while elected leaders have their shortcomings, the trajectory of the country’s policy decisions, both foreign and domestic, was largely shaped by an unelected civil-military oligarchy. “The state is not the government, it is the deep state,” as some analysts would put it, suggesting that power has frequently rested outside the hands of those who win elections. This claim becomes particularly pertinent once one scrutinises key decisions that defined the direction of Pakistan’s growth and challenges.

Consider some key decisions made by the politically elected governments. There have been three major initiatives that had a lasting impact on the country. Each of these was initiated, debated and carried through by popular political leaders.

The first and most significant of these was the adoption of the 1973 constitution that set the foundational legal framework for Pakistan’s democracy. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as leader of the Peoples Party, drove this........

© The News on Sunday