Monarchy or Anarchy: Can Pakistan’s Past Inspire a Bold New Future?
The 20th century brought transformative global changes with the end of world wars and the rise of new nations, necessitating states to adapt to remain relevant. Nations, that preserved their cultural heritage thrived, while those adopting mismatched systems faltered, particularly among Muslim-majority countries emerging post-World War I and II. Governance systems vary widely, including absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, parliamentary and presidential democracies, semi-presidential republics, theocratic republics, single-party states, and military regimes. This article analyzes Muslim-majority nations’ governance vis-à-vis economic prosperity, security, and welfare to propose an optimal model for Pakistan, aiming to spark debate on culturally resonant systems for Muslim societies.
Before British colonial rule, the Indian subcontinent was a diverse mosaic of kingdoms, and principalities led by kings, nawabs, mirs, and maharajas, who governed justly, fostering prosperity, cultural splendor, and intellectual growth. Regions like the Mughal Empire (Akbar’s Agra and Delhi), Deccan’s Bahmani and Adil Shahi dynasties, Rajasthan’s Rajput kingdoms, Vijayanagara’s Hampi, Calicut’s trade hub, Assam’s Ahom kingdom, and northwest tribal confederacies thrived with religious, ethnic, and cultural harmony under decentralized systems. Agricultural abundance, trade, and patronage of arts drove innovation. British divide-and-rule policies and centralized control disrupted this harmony, sowing discord and dismantling traditional governance, fracturing the subcontinent’s unity.
As of August 2025, the world’s 195 sovereign nations are governed as: fifty three Presidential Republics (e.g., USA, Brazil) with a powerful, independently elected president; twenty nine Semi-Presidential Republics (e.g., France, Russia) combining an elected president with a prime minister accountable to the legislature; fifty two Parliamentary Republics (e.g., Germany, Pakistan) with a ceremonial president and a prime minister elected by the legislature; twenty eight Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchies (e.g., UK, Japan) featuring a ceremonial monarch and a parliamentary prime minister; ten Semi-Constitutional Monarchies (e.g., Jordan, Morocco) where monarchs hold significant powers alongside a parliament; five Absolute Monarchies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Qatar) with unchecked monarchical rule; six One-Party States (e.g., China, North Korea) dominated by a single party; four Theocracies (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan) guided by religious law; and eight Military Dictatorships/Provisional Governments (e.g., Myanmar, Mali) ruled by military leaders, often post-coup.
This article examines the governance systems of Muslim majority states, focusing on Pakistan. Using metrics like the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), Human Development Index (HDI), and Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), it compares governance, development, law and order, and welfare across Muslim-majority countries. Qatar’s absolute monarchy stands out for its high performance, while Pakistan, grappling with instability, corruption, and low development, could benefit from others, like Malaysia’s, to align with its cultural and historical strengths, addressing persistent challenges and fostering stability.
Among Muslim-majority countries, governance systems are diverse: six absolute monarchies (e.g., Qatar, Saudi Arabia) wield near-total control, often with Islam as the state religion; four constitutional monarchies (e.g., Malaysia, Jordan, Morocco) feature ceremonial monarchs and elected parliaments; about fifteen parliamentary democracies (e.g., Pakistan, Indonesia) have prime ministers accountable to legislatures; nine presidential democracies (e.g., Nigeria, Algeria) center on elected presidents; five semi-presidential republics (e.g., Egypt, Iraq) split executive power; two theocratic republics (Iran, Afghanistan) integrate Sharia; five single-party states (e.g., Eritrea, Turkmenistan) are dominated by one leader or party; and three military regimes (e.g., Sudan, Chad) govern during instability. Metrics like the WGI, HDI, and CPI highlight performance. Absolute monarchies like Qatar (HDI: 0.855, CPI: 63/100, WGI: 0.8 effectiveness, 0.9 stability) and the UAE (HDI: 0.911, CPI: 71/100) excel, driven by centralized control, though political voice is low (-1.3). Constitutional monarchies like Malaysia (HDI: 0.803, CPI: 47/100, WGI: 0.7 effectiveness) and Jordan (HDI: 0.720) balance governance and welfare, despite Jordan’s resource constraints. While Parliamentary democracies like Pakistan struggle (HDI: 0.540, CPI: 29/100, WGI: -0.8 voice, -0.7 effectiveness, -1.1 stability) due to ineffective governance system, corruption, polarization, and terrorism, with underfunded welfare projects amid 25% poverty. Indonesia fares better (HDI: 0.705, CPI: 44/100) with stronger institutions. Presidential democracies like Nigeria (HDI: 0.548, CPI: 25/100, WGI: -1.0 effectiveness) and semi-presidential republics like Egypt (HDI: 0.731, CPI: 35/100) falter under corruption, while theocratic states like Iran (HDI: 0.774, CPI: 24/100) and Afghanistan (HDI: 0.462) suffer from authoritarianism. Single-party states like Eritrea (HDI: 0.492, CPI: 22/100) and military regimes in Sudan and Libya (CPI: 18/100) face collapsing governance and welfare (World Bank, 2024; UNDP, 2023; Transparency International, 2023).
Conversely, democratic experiments in Muslim-majority countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Yemen have often led to authoritarianism or chaos, marked by poor WGI scores and weak welfare systems. Meanwhile, monarchies such as Qatar (absolute) and Malaysia (constitutional) excel in stability, development, and lower corruption, leveraging centralized control and cultural respect for strong leadership. Centralized monarchies have consistently outperformed parliamentary democracies like Pakistan, which struggle with corruption and polarization. Even relatively successful democracies like Indonesia pale compared to monarchies’ robust governance, highlighting systemic democratic weaknesses in the Muslim world. Contrary to the common belief that Arab monarchies’ success stems solely from oil and gas wealth, which sustains law and order and prosperity, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) demonstrates otherwise. Of its seven emirates, only Abu Dhabi and Dubai are notably oil and gas rich, yet all emirates thrive due to effective governance. Their constitutional monarchy fosters stability, economic diversification, and equitable development, proving governance, not just resources, drives success.
Since its independence, Pakistan has navigated a turbulent governance journey, oscillating between governor general, presidential system, fragile parliamentary democracies, military coups, and hybrid regimes. None fully resolving its persistent challenges of instability, corruption, and weak welfare systems. Initially a parliamentary democracy (1947–1958), Pakistan cycled through seven prime ministers in eleven years before General Ayub Khan’s 1958 coup introduced a presidential system (1958–1971). This era saw 6% GDP growth. Parliamentary democracy returned under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1972–1977) with the 1973 Constitution, but economic woes and election-rigging claims led to General Zia-ul-Haq’s 1977 coup. Zia’s regime (1977–1988) integrated Sharia, sustained growth, but deepened societal divides. The 1988–1999 democratic period, led by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, faltered amid corruption and frequent dismissals, culminating in General Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 coup. His regime (1999–2008) achieved economic gains but curbed freedoms.
Pakistan experienced notable development, economic growth, and steady law and order during periods of military rule, suggesting that, in Pakistan’s context, centralized authority is linked with stability and progress. This observation does not endorse military governance but highlights effectiveness of centralized authority, while democratic systems have struggled to deliver.
Since 2008, Pakistan’s 18th Amendment strengthened parliamentary democracy but led to a hybrid regime plagued by corruption, insecurity, instability, and weak welfare systems. Some advocate for a presidential system, but its past failures suggest otherwise. A constitutional monarchy, modeled on Malaysia or Jordan, could align with Pakistan’s cultural reverence for strong leadership, unify ethnic groups (Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun, Baloch), curb military influence, reduce corruption, and improve welfare. Though a tailored governance system may face domestic and international resistance, yet there is consensus that Pakistan’s current system needs replacement with the one rooted in its cultural, historical, and Islamic societal ethos for stability and progress.
“All politics is local”, underscores the need for context-specific solutions. European or American standards cannot be universally applied to regions like Africa or Pakistan, as each society has unique dynamics requiring specific frantic approaches to address its challenges effectively. Pakistan, having experimented with various democratic systems without sustained success, should consider adopting a Monarchy tailored to its cultural heritage, Islamic values, and societal dynamics, drawing inspiration from stable Arab monarchies.
