For anyone seeking a masterclass in political oligarchy (defined as the control of an organisation or a country by a small group or people) Pakistan offers textbook examples and live case studies in the form of its three major political parties. The Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and more recently, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) exemplify Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy, which asserts that organisations (even those founded on democratic principles) inevitably become oligarchic in the absence of internal democracy and merit-based leadership selection.
While, PML-N proudly displays its leadership’s domination by the Sharif family with key positions given to loyalists, ostentatiously flaunting a system of centralised decision-making that limits internal democracy and sidelines dissent, the PPP is controlled by the Bhutto-Zardari family, where leadership is passed down through generations, reinforcing dynastic politics and concentrating power at the top. Even populist movements such as those of the PTI which were initially driven by mass support, have gradually become hierarchical, reinforcing elite rule, and gaining notoriety for spousal diktats. Therefore, we have witnessed that during the past 78 years, Pakistan’s major political parties have evolved, but only to the extent of becoming leader-centric entities where power is consolidated through specialised knowledge of state institutions, electoral strategies, patronage networks, and governance mechanisms. They have indeed evolved, however, in the absence of real competition from other political ideologies.
The afore-mentioned asymmetry in knowledge reinforces hierarchical control because those with privileged access to political and institutional knowledge manipulate party structures, consolidate power, and suppress internal competition. As Michels’ elite theory suggests, such control on information prevents intra-party democratisation, as leaders use their informational advantage to entrench their dominance and neutralise potential challengers. Consequently, dissent is penalised, and political parties remain closed systems where leadership positions are based on personal loyalty and insider access.
Pakistan’s political system remains trapped in a cycle where democracy exists in form but is controlled by an oligarchic elite and a voter base swayed more by personalities than by policies
Once unravelled, the link between information asymmetry and charismatic leadership is also a fascinating one. Rooted in Max Weber's theory of ‘routinisation of charismatic authority’, the interplay of controlled information, expertise, and charisma reinforces hierarchical party structures, sustaining elite dominance and restricting grassroots leadership. The restricted access to objective political information forces voters to rely on emotional appeal and elite-driven narratives. Therefore, over time, charismatic figures use their dominance over narratives to shape internal party structures, sidelining emerging leaders and reinforcing a hierarchy where power is preserved amongst a select few. Even when parties undergo leadership transitions, power typically shifts within a confined circle, whether from father to son/daughter, spouse to spouse, or a trusted insider.
As Cheema, Khan, and Myerson (2013) explain, in developing democracies like Pakistan, low political literacy and weak institutional transparency deepen voter dependence on personal trust rather than policy evaluations, ultimately reinforcing leader-centric politics. Therefore, unfortunately, political discourse is reduced to a binary debate over whether the charismatic leader is a saint or a knave, rather than focusing on substantive policy issues. Election campaigns are driven by personalities rather than policies, with political discussions revolving around the same oligarchical figures.
It is no secret that our political parties have embedded oligarchic tendencies by leveraging state institutions to maintain their dominance. The civil-military establishment, another elite group, acts as a parallel oligarchy that influences political outcomes in an attempt to safeguard its institutional preservation, sometimes overriding democratic mandates altogether, and in the process further reinforces the dominance of political oligarchs who align with its agenda.
Pakistan’s political system remains trapped in a cycle where democracy exists in form but is controlled by an oligarchic elite and a voter base swayed more by personalities than by policies. Dynastic politics and meritless appointments reinforce loyalty over competence. Without internal competition, party elites surround themselves with sycophants, stifling merit-based contributions and leading to ill-informed policies. A healthy democratic process thrives on dissent, as it fosters policy competition, holds the ruling elite accountable, and equips voters with diverse perspectives, enabling informed electoral choices. However, rather than encouraging open political discourse, ruling parties in Pakistan resort to consolidating power, and reinforcing elite dominance. And so, the loop never fails.
For any student of political science seeking to grasp classic theories of oligarchy, a mere glance at Pakistan’s political evolution offers a case study both vivid and instructive. Unless we have a political party which can ensure internal democracy and merit-based appointments with complete aversion to dynastic politics and patronage networks within it, the status quo will ensue. On the part of the voters, they must vote based on issues as opposed to affective voting, defined by emotional attachment and personal admiration. Given that the electoral choices are often driven by personalities over policies and loyalty over issues, the political landscape remains charisma-driven, reducing discourse to rhetoric and symbolism rather than substantive debates on institutional reform and core issues of economic and human development.