Being a child who did not see her childhood but martial law and as someone with a PhD in Military Ethics, I am often drawn to the delicate balance between power and accountability in governance. In nations grappling with unrest and political chaos, this balance is frequently evaluated to its breaking point, raising critical questions about ethics, authority, and the role of state institutions in preserving order, such as Martial law. The mere phrase evokes images of authoritarianism, repression, and the suspension of democratic norms.

The mere phrase [martial law] evokes images of authoritarianism, repression, and the suspension of democratic norms.

A few hours ago, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-Yeol invoked it for the first time in decades (after 1987), citing threats from “anti-state forces” to eliminate pro-North Korean factions. Ostensibly aimed at protecting the democratic order from opposition lawmakers sympathetic to North Korea, the declaration has sparked uproar, with opposition leaders calling it unconstitutional and protests erupting outside parliament.

Yet, this sweeping measure comes against the scandals that dogged Yoon’s presidency—none more damaging than the revelation that his wife, Kim Keon Hee, had accepted an expensive luxury handbag as a gift in August 2024. Like Bushra Bibi, the wife of Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan, Kim’s alleged improprieties reflect how personal ambitions and unchecked greed can undermine governance and stoke public distrust.

The parallels between Kim and Bushra are striking, not just in their scandals but in the broader chaos surrounding their husbands’ tenures. Bushra Bibi’s political debut last week saw her leading an armed protest in Islamabad under the pretext of securing her husband Imran Khan’s release, where she publicly agitated the protestors not to go back without taking Imran Khan from Jail.

Despite the disagreement of PTI leadership, including Gandapur, she led to mobilize violent supporters —many of them armed with automatic weapons (mainly the US weapons USA left in Afghanistan when evacuated in 2021), sticks, and stones—to lay siege to the heart of Pakistan’s capital. Police and Rangers faced unprecedented violence; officers were attacked with iron nail rods and crushed under vehicles; five were killed, and others were left critically injured.

Yet, in a feat of propaganda mastery, PTI swiftly flipped the narrative, accusing the state of brutality and concocting wildly fluctuating casualty figures. Within hours, the party’s digital brigades flooded social media with claims of “hundreds” killed—a number that dwindled to twelve by the following day, and with no bodies, funerals, or evidence ever materializing. This is the chaos that defines Pakistan under PTI.

Since its rise to prominence, the party has weaponized anarchy, exploiting public discontent and manipulating narratives to maintain its grip on relevance. From the dharnas of 2014 to last week’s violence in Islamabad, PTI has consistently undermined Pakistan’s fragile democratic order. But this time, its campaign of disinformation has influenced global news networks. Using platforms like X (formerly Twitter), PTI has turned its propaganda into a transnational operation, enlisting sympathizers abroad to amplify its claims by engaging international actors along with the bizarre threats by taking the matter to the United Nations.

PTI has consistently undermined Pakistan’s fragile democratic order.

Zac Goldsmith, Imran Khan’s former brother-in-law, recently tweeted in support of Khan, framing him as a victim of state persecution, which is factually incorrect. This prompted a sharp rebuke from Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, who accused “Israeli Zionist forces” of meddling in the country’s internal affairs. Goldsmith dismissed the claim as absurd, but the episode underscored the complexities of foreign interference in Pakistan’s politics.

In private conversations with journalists, government ministers have expressed concerns about the United States and the United Kingdom allegedly attempting to destabilize Pakistan and question why no Muslim country is interested in Imran Khan’s release like the US and the UK. They compare the protection extended to Altaf Hussain, the exiled MQM leader infamous for inciting unrest from abroad.

Ministers fear that similar strategies are now being employed with Imran Khan, portraying him as a tool to foster chaos, challenge Pakistan’s sovereignty, and provoke ethnic clashes to fuel separatist movements. This narrative aligns with PTI’s overseas campaigns on social media, which include calls to boycott military-associated products, such as Fauji cornflakes, and even to sever marital ties with military personnel. If these accusations appear bold, PTI’s conduct on social platforms only seems to validate the government’s claims.

Another bitter fact is that Imran Khan’s rise to power was no less tainted by external influence. Backed by Pakistan’s military establishment as “Project Imran” and buoyed by ISPR’s narrative-building, PTI was a manufactured phenomenon that served the interests of its creators—until it did not. Once the establishment withdrew its support, Khan turned on his former patrons, unleashing a propaganda war that has left the military’s credibility in tatters. Ironically, the same institution that elevated PTI now finds itself the primary target of its ire.

Yet, the state’s response to PTI’s chaos has been inadequately weaker. Daily press conferences from government officials offer little more than rhetorical condemnations, while the judiciary—often accused of bias—appears unwilling or unable to hold PTI accountable by legal means. Even the prospect of banning the party has been dismissed as unconstitutional, leaving the government trapped in a cycle of reactionary measures that do little to address the root causes of unrest.

Despite its political challenges, Pakistan stands out as a nation steadfastly committed to preserving democracy.

Meanwhile, the toll on Pakistan’s democracy is incalculable. PTI’s transformation from a political party into a fascist cult has eroded public trust in democratic institutions, emboldened extremist elements, and deepened societal divisions. Its digital brigades have created an alternate reality where facts are irrelevant and the loudest voices dominate. And yet, the state remains paralyzed, unable to counter PTI’s sophisticated propaganda or dismantle its disinformation networks.

Despite its political challenges, Pakistan stands out as a nation steadfastly committed to preserving democracy, even in the face of relentless provocations from PTI’s chaotic politics and the judiciary’s controversial interventions. Unlike South Korea’s dramatic martial law and then its reversal—a direct and contentious response to political unrest—Pakistan has resisted the temptation of authoritarian measures, highlighting a remarkable restraint in its military leadership. Contrary to PTI’s narrative branding the current government as a hybrid regime, it was, in fact, Imran Khan’s administration that epitomized a hybrid setup, operating under considerable influence from the military establishment.

Today, the military leadership has shifted its focus toward stabilizing Pakistan for foreign stakeholders, such as China and Saudi Arabia, who are concerned about its economic recovery and development because of their investments. By ensuring stability without bypassing democratic institutions, the state is not just countering PTI’s propaganda but also demonstrating its commitment to democratic principles.

Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership face the complex challenge of balancing these pressures while combating digital disinformation and holding PTI accountable for undermining national interests. In doing so, they ensure that Pakistan remains a resilient democracy amidst its turbulent political landscape. However, this is a significant challenge when allies like the PPP are unhappy in the coalition.

Pakistan can still strengthen its democracy by upholding the rule of law and fostering political accountability.

Nonetheless, Pakistan has risen above its current turmoil as we witness the historical development of the Pakistan stock exchange and the decline in inflation after seventy months. Unlike South Korea, which has taken an authoritarian turn, Pakistan can still strengthen its democracy by upholding the rule of law and fostering political accountability. But the clock is ticking. The question is not whether Pakistan can change but whether it has the will. Will its leaders seize this moment to steer the nation toward stability, or will they allow PTI’s chaos to consume them?