Who Governs Pakistan? A Case Study of Military EthicsTo identify the driving factors of the Pakistani military's political interventionism in Pakistan's socio-political structure.

This qualitative study investigates intricate dynamics between the Pakistani Military's ethics, professional military conduct, and political engagement, focusing on civil-military relations and the 'Just War Theory' within a constitutional context. The main aim was to identify the political interventionism of the Pakistani Generals, which led to untangling the Gordian knot of governance, investigating rhetorically who governs Pakistan as General Musharraf insisted that "we" have a role to play. Kohn sees the ethos becomes different when they (the generals) talk about 'we' as separated from society because they see themselves as distinct morally. Therefore, the study as a novel contribution expands beyond normative military ethics to the nationalist ethos, reviewing the classic view of Janowitz, which identifies a professional soldier above politics.

The top theme of the study is "absolute control," where the military acts beyond the constitutional domain, enabling generals to govern through martial laws or hybrid and controlled democracies. General Musharraf defended these actions to save Pakistan from failing as a state. Some participants justified these interventions as justa causa and Jihad against corrupt politicians. However, the research rebuts their claims through just war theory and Coleman's ethical dilemma and integrity tests on Musharraf and his peers, triggering the debate for new research on whether Kargil was a just war. However, the findings affirm the 1999 coup as a social reaction acknowledging the Army's enduring influence over civilians, backing or creating political parties for control. Praetorian armies do not aspire to fight or win wars. However, the Pakistani military is in a perpetual war against terrorism, yet they repeatedly shift between Praetorian Guardians and Moderators, which defines Pakistan as a contemporary Praetorian State. Patriotic populism promotes Praetorianism as a pivotal social contract of 'militarisation,' perpetuating political interventionism to counter civilian Kakistocracy. I recommend quantifying militarisation as a comparative study.