"The military destabilised my government on politically motivated charges"

A concise accusation and a diagnosis of a system: a uniformed institution intruded into civilian space, not by tanks alone but by tactics that erode legitimacy. “Destabilised” suggests a repertoire beyond overt coups, leaks, pressure on coalition partners, manipulation of bureaucracies and intelligence, nudging the presidency and judiciary, seeding scandals through media, and orchestrating parliamentary defections. The target is less a single leader than the principle that elected authority should govern without tutelage.

Calling the charges “politically motivated” reframes corruption and security allegations as instruments of lawfare. Accountability becomes selective, not systemic, a weapon to discredit a government while insulating preferred actors. The courtroom and the headline are conscripted into power struggles, turning due process into performance and leaving citizens unsure what is justice and what is engineering. When the referee takes sides, the game loses meaning.

The statement also locates Pakistan’s recurring civil-military imbalance: a security establishment that claims guardianship of the state while reserving vetoes over foreign policy, internal security, and even economic choices. Civilian leaders are tolerated if compliant; if not, narratives of incompetence or impropriety are amplified until dismissal appears inevitable. Presidents empowered to dissolve parliaments, intelligence-led political “realignments,” and judicial doctrines that privilege “stability” have been the usual conduits.

There is a personal dimension. As the first woman to lead a Muslim-majority country, Bhutto embodied a democratic opening that challenged entrenched hierarchies. Her assertion portrays herself as elected but not sovereign, answerable to voters yet constrained by unelected arbiters. It claims a stolen mandate and, by extension, a stolen future, policy paralysis, investor uncertainty, and a public reduced to spectators in elite contests.

The broader implication is sobering: where the line between security and politics blurs, democracy becomes episodic. Elections may change faces, but governance remains contingent on accommodation with power centers that never face the ballot. Stability achieved through destabilisation is a paradox that ultimately corrodes the state it seeks to protect.