Pakistan’s internal power struggles between civilian governments and the military establishment have long defined its political landscape, but in 2025, these rifts have reached a critical juncture, directly undermining the country’s regional diplomacy and security posture. The civil-military divide, rooted in decades of coups, interventions, and hybrid governance models, has intensified amid recent conflicts and economic pressures, leading to inconsistent foreign policies that alienate neighbors and complicate alliances. As the military consolidates its grip under Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir, who was elevated to field marshal in May 2025 following a brief clash with India, civilian leaders find themselves sidelined in key decisions, resulting in reactive rather than strategic engagements with regional powers. This imbalance not only perpetuates domestic instability but also sabotages Pakistan’s ability to foster stable relations with India, Afghanistan, China, and even the United States, as military priorities often clash with civilian diplomatic efforts.
Historically, Pakistan’s civil-military relations have been characterized by military dominance since the nation’s founding in 1947. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s preservation of the British viceregal system centralized power, dismissing elected provincial governments and setting a precedent for authoritarian control. Subsequent military rulers like Ayub Khan, who self-promoted to field marshal in 1959, Zia-ul-Haq in the 1970s, and Pervez Musharraf in 1999, entrenched the army’s role in politics, media, judiciary, and foreign affairs. Civilian administrations, such as those under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir, operated under constant military oversight, leading to fragile democracies interrupted by coups. This pattern has created a hybrid regime where the military, headquartered in Rawalpindi, holds de facto power, while civilians in Islamabad provide a democratic facade. In recent years, this divide has deepened, with the military engineering elections, suppressing opposition like the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, and influencing economic policies through bodies like the 2023 Special Investment Facilitation Council.
The year 2025 has seen this rift exacerbate amid external conflicts that highlight the military’s unilateral actions. In May, a four-day war with India erupted over disputed border incursions in Kashmir, where Pakistan’s air force claimed victories by downing Indian aircraft, boosting national morale and the military’s popularity to unprecedented levels. A Gallup survey post-conflict revealed 93 percent of respondents viewed the army more favorably, leading to Munir’s promotion and public adulation through billboards and media campaigns. However, this surge has widened the civil-military gap, as the military’s enhanced stature has marginalized civilian input in post-war diplomacy. The conflict accelerated a pragmatic rapprochement with the United States, with Washington viewing the Pakistani military as a reliable partner against regional threats, but it has strained relations with India further, derailing any potential dialogue on trade or water-sharing issues. Civilian leaders, including those from the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), have been forced to align with military narratives, limiting their ability to pursue de-escalation talks that could stabilize the eastern border.
Tensions over Munir’s term extension have further exposed the rift, with the government proposing a two-year extension to 2027, while military sources push for 2030, creating clashes between Islamabad and the General Headquarters (GHQ). This internal discord has spilled into regional affairs, particularly with Afghanistan. In October 2025, Pakistan launched airstrikes on Afghan soil targeting the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in provinces like Kabul, Khost, Jalalabad, and Paktika, escalating a border conflict that began with cross-border skirmishes earlier in the year. The military’s decision to conduct these operations without full civilian consultation has provoked backlash from Kabul, worsening already fragile ties strained by refugee repatriation and trade disputes. Afghanistan’s Taliban government accused Pakistan of sovereignty violations, leading to retaliatory closures of border crossings and threats of broader confrontation. This military-led approach, bypassing diplomatic channels favored by civilians, has isolated Pakistan regionally, as neighbors perceive its foreign policy as erratic and aggression-prone.
The Baloch insurgency’s intensification in 2025 exemplifies how domestic divides fuel regional instability. Separatist groups like the Baloch Liberation Army have ramped up attacks, including the hijacking of the Jaffar Express, exploiting political instability and military crackdowns in Balochistan province. The military’s heavy-handed response, including enforced disappearances and aerial bombings, has drawn international criticism and strained relations with Iran, which shares a porous border and faces similar insurgent threats. Civilian efforts to negotiate with Baloch leaders have been undermined by the army’s insistence on kinetic solutions, leading to accusations of human rights abuses that complicate Pakistan’s image in forums like the United Nations. Moreover, this internal focus diverts resources from addressing economic ties with China under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), where delays in projects due to security concerns have frustrated Beijing, prompting it to demand greater military involvement, further entrenching the rift.
On the broader geopolitical stage, the civil-military divide sabotages Pakistan’s alliances. The military’s prioritization of strategic depth in Afghanistan and rivalry with India often conflicts with civilian pushes for economic diplomacy. For instance, while civilians advocate for normalized trade with India to alleviate economic woes, military hawks view such moves as security risks, stalling progress. Relations with the US have improved post-India clash, with increased military aid, but this comes at the cost of civilian-led reforms demanded by Washington for broader partnerships. The military’s overt religiosity under Munir, invoking Islamic ideology to justify its role, has also alienated secular allies and fueled perceptions of Pakistan as a theocratic state, complicating engagements in the Middle East.
Domestically, the rift has empowered militants, with 2024 marking one of Pakistan’s most violent years due to political instability, a trend continuing into 2025. The PTI’s anti-military campaigns have suffered, with Imran Khan’s party losing ground as public support shifts to the army, allowing the military to reshape the political landscape. This has led to a hybrid governance model where civilian authority grows incrementally, but military influence recedes only by design, as suggested by some analysts. Yet, without addressing the divide, Pakistan risks prolonged isolation. The military’s reiteration of non-intervention in politics, coupled with calls for diplomatic engagement amid tensions, rings hollow given its actions.
In conclusion, Pakistan’s civil-military rift is not merely an internal affair but a saboteur of its regional relations, fostering inconsistency that breeds conflict and mistrust. To mitigate this, a genuine recalibration is needed—empowering civilians in foreign policy while curbing military overreach. Without such reforms, the nation faces escalating threats from neighbors and insurgents, perpetuating a cycle of instability that undermines its strategic interests in South Asia and beyond. As 2025 draws to a close, the deepening divide serves as a stark reminder that internal harmony is prerequisite to external peace.
