Moiza Batool
Martial law is a system in which the military assumes control over a country’s governance, often justified as a response to political instability or a perceived national emergency. In Pakistan, General Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law in July 1977 after dismissing Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government. The dismissal followed allegations of election rigging and widespread political unrest. Zia presented the takeover as a necessary step to restore order and prevent further chaos. However, the imposition of martial law fundamentally altered Pakistan’s political, social, and legal landscape, leaving long-lasting effects on governance, civil society, and democratic institutions.
During Zia’s rule, political life underwent dramatic changes. Political parties were banned or severely restricted, elections were postponed or manipulated, and prominent leaders faced imprisonment, legal trials, or even execution, as in the case of Bhutto in 1979. Decision-making power shifted from civilian institutions to the military, weakening democratic structures and reducing opportunities for public participation. Ordinary citizens faced restrictions on political expression, press censorship, and limitations on assembly, creating a culture of fear and caution. These changes reshaped Pakistan’s political framework and set a precedent for future military interventions, demonstrating one of martial law’s most significant consequences: “The Undermining of Democratic Processes”.
A defining feature of this era was the Islamization of laws and institutions. The Hudood Ordinances were introduced, aiming to align Pakistan’s criminal laws with Islamic principles. The Zakat and Ushr systems were implemented to formalize religious-based social contributions. Education policies emphasized Islamic studies and moral instruction, while banking, family law, and social governance were modified to reflect religious values. These reforms had widespread social implications, particularly for women, whose legal rights were restricted in cases of testimony and evidence. Public debate around these reforms was intense, revealing tensions between traditional values, governance, and civil rights.
Martial law also had several perceived advantages. Supporters argue that Zia’s regime provided political stability during a turbulent time, preventing immediate chaos following the 1977 crisis. The military government implemented administrative and structural reforms in certain sectors, and major infrastructure and defense projects, such as nuclear development initiatives and road construction, received consistent attention and funding. Rural development and literacy programs continued under centralized governance, benefiting regions previously neglected. In this sense, martial law can temporarily centralize decision-making, implement policies quickly, and bring a measure of order in times of instability.
However, the disadvantages were profound and far-reaching. Democracy was severely weakened, human rights were often violated, and civil institutions lost credibility and autonomy. Political dissent was curtailed, and the suppression of opposition discouraged citizen engagement in governance. Concentration of power in the military not only affected policymaking but also created long-term instability in civil-military relations. Martial law set a dangerous precedent, showing that the military could override civilian authority, which impacted Pakistan’s political culture for decades.
The social and economic effects of martial law were also significant. Centralized decision-making limited public input into economic policies, although some projects were efficiently completed. Islamization and legal reforms influenced societal norms, gender roles, and educational priorities, leaving a lasting imprint on the population. Media and public debate were constrained, reducing transparency and limiting the public’s ability to hold authorities accountable. Martial law also affected long-term trust in government institutions, as citizens became wary of political promises under military rule.
The broader impact of martial law on a country is multifaceted. While it may provide temporary stability, centralization of power often comes at the expense of democratic freedoms, civil rights, and institutional accountability. In Pakistan, Zia’s era illustrates how martial law can enforce control and order but also create long-term challenges for governance, society, and political culture. Economic and social policies may see short-term benefits under centralized control, yet the absence of broad participation and oversight reduces sustainability and equity.
In conclusion, General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law era represents a period of both structural change and political constraint in Pakistan. While some reforms and administrative measures brought stability and development in specific sectors, the long-term consequences for democracy, civil rights, and institutional balance were significant. Martial law altered the political culture, weakened civilian institutions, and limited public freedoms, illustrating both the advantages and disadvantages of military rule. This period underscores that stability without accountability may provide short-term order, but sustainable national progress requires strong, democratic institutions and respect for civil liberties. The legacy of Zia’s era serves as a reminder that while martial law can control chaos, it fundamentally transforms a country’s governance, societal norms, and future political trajectory.
The writer is a BS Software Engineering student at University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila