Pakistan’s political discourse took a bold turn when Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F), made a powerful statement regarding the role of the establishment in national affairs:
> “The establishment is indeed a force, but not a supreme one—it is a subordinate force. Show your excellence in defense, not in politics!”
This statement not only challenges the conventional perception of the establishment’s authority in Pakistan but also revives a critical constitutional and democratic debate: What is the rightful domain of the armed forces and other state institutions in a democratic setup?
The Meaning Behind the Words
Maulana Fazl’s remark directly confronts the narrative that the military establishment holds unchecked power in Pakistan. By recognizing it as a “force,” but emphasizing its subordinate role, he reinforces that the military, as per the Constitution of Pakistan, exists to serve the nation — not to govern it.
According to Articles 243 to 245 of the Constitution, the role of the armed forces is explicitly defined: to defend Pakistan and assist the civilian government when required. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize them to influence, manipulate, or control political outcomes.
Historical Context
Pakistan’s political history is rife with examples of military interference in civilian affairs — from the coups of 1958, 1977, and 1999 to recent behind-the-scenes political maneuvering. Maulana Fazl has long been vocal about such intrusions, and this statement is another sharp reminder of the imbalance between elected power and unelected authority.
Defense vs. Politics
When Maulana asserts, “Show your excellence in defense, not in politics,” he is pointing toward a fundamental issue: when military institutions overstep their domain, it not only disrupts democratic continuity but also damages public trust in an otherwise respected national institution.
The military’s true strength lies in its sacrifices on the battlefield, its role in disaster response, and its strategic defense of national borders — not in deciding election outcomes, managing governments, or influencing legislation.
Public Perception and Mixed Reactions
The Pakistani public holds its armed forces in high regard for their bravery and dedication. However, when the line between defense and politics is blurred, disillusionment follows. Some view Maulana’s statement as courageous and truthful, while others criticize it as provocative or politically motivated.
Nevertheless, it opens up an important national conversation: Should any institution consider itself above the Constitution?
Conclusion: Only Constitutional Supremacy Can Bring Stability
Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s statement leads us back to a foundational truth: the supremacy of the Constitution must remain unquestioned. No matter how powerful or efficient an institution may be, it must operate within its legal limits.
Politics belongs to politicians, and defense belongs to the armed forces. A country thrives only when each institution respects its boundaries. Until that balance is achieved, Pakistan’s democracy will remain vulnerable to manipulation and unrest.