 |
By Muhammad Munaeem Jamal | Karachi | Updated August 19, 2026
A few days ago, I read a comment on Pakistan’s political situation that made me stop. Raja Saad Khan argued that disturbing the present hybrid system could send the economy downhill and push Pakistan towards default. Sitting in Karachi, I found the implication more troubling than the prediction itself.
What if Pakistan has built a political arrangement that has become too expensive to change?
The question matters as debate grows around another constitutional amendment and the future shape of Pakistan’s federation. No published constitutional text currently proves that a 28th Amendment will permanently embed the existing hybrid order. I am examining something different: whether the direction of the political debate, combined with Pakistan’s economic dependence on continuity, could gradually turn an informal distribution of power into a harder constitutional structure.
Pakistan escaped the immediate default fears that haunted the country only a few years ago. The IMF programme continues, reserves have recovered from crisis levels, and international confidence has improved. Political calm now carries measurable financial value.
I do not dismiss that achievement.
I worry about its price.
Pakistan has seen political stability fail before
Nawaz Sharif knows the cycle better than most Pakistani politicians. His first government ended in 1993 after a confrontation with President Ghulam Ishaq Khan. General Pervez Musharraf removed his second government in October 1999.
His third premiership ended differently. The Supreme Court disqualified Nawaz Sharif in July 2017, but the institutional conflict surrounding his government had already exposed the old tension between electoral authority and Pakistan’s permanent centres of power.
I do not reduce those episodes to a simple conspiracy against PML-N. Nawaz Sharif made political choices, picked institutional fights and accumulated powerful opponents. History becomes propaganda when every mistake belongs to the other side.
A deeper pattern survives.
Pakistan repeatedly asks elected governments to absorb the political cost of economic adjustment while institutions outside electoral politics retain enough distance from unpopular decisions. When recovery begins, the argument over who actually controls the state returns.
The current period has added another element. Economic continuity itself has become politically valuable.
The government took the pain
Shehbaz Sharif’s government accepted decisions that few elected governments enjoy making. Taxes rose. Electricity prices hurt households, while IMF discipline narrowed the government’s room for political spending.
The IMF completed Pakistan’s third review under the Extended Fund Facility in May 2026 and released about $1.1 billion under the programme. It also released roughly $220 million under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. The Fund reported gross reserves of $16 billion at the end of December 2025, compared with $14.5 billion at the end of June.
S&P Global Ratings supplied another important signal in July when it raised Pakistan’s sovereign rating from B- to B. Its reasoning matters more than the letter itself. S&P pointed to fiscal consolidation, continued reforms and stronger institutional capacity, while warning that weaker fiscal discipline could damage external support and put renewed pressure on foreign exchange reserves.
Numbers like these calm markets.
They also reveal the machinery underneath the calm.
Pakistan still depends heavily on continued access to external financing and confidence among official creditors. An IMF review does more than release dollars. It tells other creditors that Islamabad remains inside an internationally monitored economic programme.
Political disruption therefore carries a financial price.
I see that connection from another angle because I work in cross-border payments in Karachi. Political uncertainty sounds abstract on television, but international finance eventually turns uncertainty into operational questions about liquidity, settlement, foreign currency and counterparty confidence. A constitutional crisis in Islamabad does not remain constitutional for very long.
Money notices.
Pakistan’s hybrid system now has an economic argument
Pakistan’s hybrid order did not begin with the present government. Civilian institutions formally govern the country, but anyone who studies Pakistan seriously knows that the constitutional diagram does not describe the complete distribution of political authority.
Military governments once solved that contradiction openly. General Zia-ul-Haq’s constitutional arrangements strengthened presidential authority, including the power associated with Article 58(2)(b) to dissolve the National Assembly. General Musharraf later restored presidential dissolution powers through the constitutional order surrounding the Seventeenth Amendment.
The 18th Amendment moved Pakistan in another direction in 2010. It strengthened parliamentary government and transferred substantial authority to the provinces.
Institutional memory survived.
The hybrid model offers a different method of control. Parliament continues to sit. Elections still matter, but important political authority can operate outside the formal parliamentary chain without requiring a general to occupy the presidency.
Such an arrangement has one persistent weakness. Informal power depends on understandings between people and institutions, and elections can disturb those understandings.
A prime minister can resist.
Political arithmetic can change after an election, while a popular movement can attack arrangements that no constitutional clause explicitly protects. Informal authority therefore remains powerful but exposed.
Constitutional architecture can reduce that exposure.
The wars increased Pakistan’s strategic value
Pakistan’s external environment then changed with remarkable speed. Regional military conflict increased Islamabad’s strategic importance at the same time that economic stabilisation improved its financial position.
The United States, Israel and Iran conflict placed Pakistan in an uncomfortable position. Iran shares a long border with Pakistan, while Islamabad maintains deep strategic and economic relationships with Gulf states. Pakistan also retained diplomatic channels that gave it value during a period when communication across rival blocs became difficult.
Military relevance followed.
Pakistan’s growing defence coordination with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye has pushed Islamabad further into Middle Eastern security calculations. A country that foreign capitals had recently discussed mainly in the vocabulary of IMF programmes and default risk began to look strategically useful again.
I noticed the change because the tone around Pakistan changed. Strategic geography had returned to the conversation.
Economic vulnerability did not disappear. IMF modelling of the Middle East conflict warned that higher energy costs could reduce Pakistan’s growth and increase inflation, while also putting pressure on the current account. A country that imports energy cannot convert geopolitical importance into cheap oil.
Yet the political consequence deserves attention. Pakistan’s military establishment gained greater external relevance while the civilian government could point to economic stabilisation.
Those developments reinforced each other.
Why the 28th Amendment debate matters
The discussion around a possible 28th Constitutional Amendment now enters this picture.
I need to draw a firm distinction here. Public debate does not equal enacted constitutional text. Reports and statements concerning new provinces, provincial authority and possible constitutional changes remain part of a developing political process, and claims about the final contents of a 28th Amendment should not outrun the evidence.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said in May that constitutional changes could not proceed without coalition consensus and that no concrete 28th Amendment package then stood before the government. Political discussion continued.
Concerns over provincial autonomy soon became harder to ignore. PPP Secretary General Nayyar Bokhari publicly defended provincial powers amid debate about the future of authority devolved under the 18th Amendment. By August, Minister of State for Law and Justice Barrister Aqeel had confirmed government interest in creating new provinces, although the exact formula remained unsettled.
Creating new provinces does not automatically weaken federalism. Pakistan can make a legitimate administrative case for reconsidering provincial boundaries, especially where population size and governance capacity have produced serious strains.
Karachi itself makes the discussion unavoidable. Anyone living here knows the frustration of watching local problems pass between city, provincial and federal institutions while responsibility becomes harder to locate.
The constitutional question begins when provincial restructuring accompanies a wider movement of authority towards the centre.
If future amendments weaken powers transferred under the 18th Amendment, strengthen central executive control or insulate key state arrangements from electoral change, Pakistan will face something much larger than administrative reform. The country will be altering the constitutional relationship between elected politics and permanent state power.
I would call that entrenchment.
The real issue is an economic veto
The most important part of the argument sits outside the constitutional text.
Pakistan’s economic fragility may now protect the existing political arrangement.
The mechanism is straightforward. The present power structure provides policy continuity. Continuity helps keep the IMF programme on course, while successful IMF reviews strengthen creditor confidence and access to external financing.
Break the political arrangement abruptly and the sequence can run backwards.
A major constitutional confrontation could weaken the government’s ability to implement IMF commitments. External lenders would watch the resulting uncertainty closely, and pressure on reserves could return if financing became harder.
Default would not follow automatically. Raja Saad Khan goes too far when he treats default as certain.
The underlying danger remains real.
Pakistan may have reached a stage where the immediate economic cost of political disruption helps protect the political order itself. The hybrid system then gains something stronger than institutional influence.
It acquires an economic veto.
Stability can become captivity
I find that possibility more disturbing than the conventional argument over civilian and military power. Economic vulnerability can become political insurance.
Pakistanis already hear the logic in ordinary political debate. Protests hurt the economy. Political confrontation frightens investors.
Both propositions can be true.
Repeated often enough, however, the argument moves somewhere darker. Electoral uncertainty itself begins to look economically irresponsible, and political competition starts to resemble a threat to sovereign solvency.
A functioning institutional system should produce the opposite result. Pakistan should be able to replace a prime minister without frightening creditors.
An election should not put debt servicing in doubt.
I remember the atmosphere in Karachi during the worst period of the recent foreign exchange crisis. Businessmen discussed letters of credit outside their normal professional circles, families watched the dollar rate on their phones, and people who had never cared about sovereign reserves suddenly knew how many weeks of imports Pakistan could finance.
Default stopped sounding foreign.
Fear like that leaves a political memory. A government can invoke it, and institutions can invoke it too.
Do not disturb the arrangement. The country cannot afford it.
A cautious commentator might treat that argument as a defence of stability. I see something more dangerous.
If Pakistan cannot change its political arrangement without threatening IMF continuity and external financing, economic stability has stopped being merely an achievement. It has become a constraint on political change.
Is informal power becoming permanent?
I do not know what the final text of any 28th Amendment will contain. Nobody should turn political discussion into constitutional fact before Parliament receives and debates an actual bill.
My concern starts earlier.
Pakistan may be moving towards a political structure in which informal power no longer needs to justify itself mainly through security. Economic continuity now supplies another source of legitimacy.
The arrangement keeps the IMF programme moving. Markets prefer predictability, and creditors dislike political rupture.
A dangerous circle can form.
Political control creates financial predictability. Financial predictability then becomes the argument for preserving political control.
The Constitution sits inside that circle.
One evening in Karachi, the rupee can look calm on my phone while another argument over provinces and constitutional amendments plays on television. Traffic still crawls outside, petrol stations remain bright, and the numbers on the screen give no sign that anything fundamental has changed.
The market may open calmly the next morning.
I am no longer certain that calm would reassure me.
Source and analysis note
This article distinguishes enacted constitutional provisions from proposals and political discussions reported as of August 19, 2026. References to a possible 28th Constitutional Amendment describe an evolving political debate unless a provision has entered a formally published bill.
Economic figures cited in the article draw primarily on IMF and S&P reporting. Constitutional and political developments rely on official statements and established news reporting. Interpretations concerning a “stability trap,” “entrenchment” and an “economic veto” are my analysis, not claims that these outcomes have already occurred.
About the author
Muhammad Munaeem Jamal is a Karachi-based writer on political economy, foreign policy and international finance. He studied political science and international relations at the University of Karachi and works in banking with professional experience in SWIFT messaging and cross-border payments. His views are personal and do not represent his employer.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please keep discussions respectful and on-topic