Pakistan’s Military Once Again Labels an Elected Prime Minister a ‘National Security Threat’ — A Historic Pattern of Undermining Democracy
Seven Decades, One Pattern: Civilian Leaders Rise Through Votes, Fall Through Military Decrees.
On Friday the 7th of December 2025, Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Director General ISPR Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, launched a severe public attack on former Prime Minister Imran Khan—currently imprisoned—declaring him a “threat to national security.”
The tone, language, and aggression used in the press conference signaled an escalation.
According to the DG ISPR, “that person’s narrative (Imran Khan’s) has become a danger to national security.”
He went so far as to claim Imran Khan displays “symptoms of a mental patient.”
This framing is extraordinary, but not unprecedented in Pakistan’s political history. The country has seen a long cycle of military rulers and military-aligned bureaucrats designating civilian leaders as “security risks” whenever they challenged the Army’s political dominance.
A Pattern Rooted in Pakistan’s Early State Formation
From the first decade after independence, Pakistan’s political landscape was shaped by power struggles between civilian leaders and the civil-military establishment. Weak political institutions, repeated dismissals of prime ministers, and ultimately the military coup by General Ayub Khan emerged from this environment.
Historical accounts show that even Founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah expressed concern over military officers’ political ambitions. In the case of Ayub Khan, Jinnah reportedly observed that he was more interested in politics than his military duties.
From Fatima Jinnah to Benazir Bhutto — Civilian Leaders as “Security Risks”
This pattern deepened after Ayub Khan seized power. He referred to politicians as “parasites” and enacted the notorious EBDO law, designed to disqualify political leaders and brand them as enemies of the state.
During Ayub Khan’s presidential contest against Fatima Jinnah, the state machinery labeled her a traitor—an astonishing attack on the sister of Pakistan’s founder.
The same script repeated in later decades:
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, architect of the 1973 Constitution, was executed.
Benazir Bhutto was branded a security risk, especially after her diplomatic engagements with Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Bengali leaders were called traitors before the 1971 breakup.
Social activist Ammar Ali Jan notes: “It is a tragedy that from Bengalis to Bhutto to Fatima Jinnah to Benazir, the state repeatedly framed its political leaders as existential threats.”
The military has historically used this narrative as a political weapon, often reversing itself later—calling the same individuals “patriots” when convenient.
Nawaz Sharif: From Confrontation to Alignment — A Consistent Cycle
Nawaz Sharif’s political trajectory fits squarely into this historical cycle.
In October 2020, Nawaz Sharif openly accused the military leadership—General Qamar Javed Bajwa and ISI chief Gen. Faiz Hameed—of breaking the Constitution and manipulating politics.
He was soon charged with sedition and anti-state activity.
In earlier years:
His government was dismissed in the 1990s amid military tension.
In 1999, he was overthrown and jailed under General Musharraf.
In 2018, he was once again disqualified and removed from political competition.
Throughout these periods, he was repeatedly framed as a national security threat, foreign agent, or enemy of the state.
But the same Nawaz Sharif reversed his position after the 2024 elections, where he lost public support and the military issued controversial Form-47 election results.
After failing to secure power electorally, Nawaz Sharif aligned fully with Asim Munir’s establishment, embracing the military narrative and endorsing actions aimed at politically eliminating Imran Khan.
This is an essential insight into Pakistan’s political structure:
Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari are not anti-establishment on principle — they become anti-establishment only when the military denies them power.
Imran Khan: The Latest in a Long Line of Civilian Leaders Declared “Security Risks”
Tensions between Imran Khan and the military began shortly before the fall of his government in 2022.
His criticism of General Qamar Javed Bajwa intensified, and terms like “Mir Jafar,” “Mir Sadiq,” and “neutral” entered political discourse.
After his removal from office:
Confrontations escalated, peaking on 9 May 2023 flase flag.
The 2024 elections — widely disputed — further deepened the divide.
The November 2024 incident and restrictions on his family’s prison visits escalated tensions.
By December 2025, DG ISPR’s press conference confirmed that the rift between Imran Khan, his party, and the establishment had reached an irreversible point.
Historian Ammar Ali Jan observes that when the military labels someone a national security threat, the consequences extend far beyond rhetoric.
It deepens polarization, undermines civilian politics, and destabilizes society.
Weaponizing the Term “National Security Threat”
Across Pakistan’s history, the military has:
Used patriotism as a political filter
Declared elected leaders disloyal
Justified coups and political engineering
Installed “favorable” civilian governments
Later discarded or discredited those same leaders
The most striking pattern:
Every major leader declared a “threat to national security” later returned to politics as a “patriot.”
Past examples include:
Suhrawardy
Maulana Bhashani
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Benazir Bhutto
Nawaz Sharif
Imran Khan is now the newest addition to this historical list.