IT`S sad driving on Constitution Avenue, Islamabad, even after 26/11. The buildings are intact but x-ray eyes can vividly see the gutted institutions inside.

Global works like Why Nations Fail see inclusive institutions as the key to progress. But at home, one sadly sees deinstitutionalisation at the hands of the unelected masters of our fate.

Strong institutions emerge more easily in homogenous, equal societies. But in divided, unequal ones, they get captured by elites from strong ethnicities for their own interests. Only grassroots democracy helps overcome division and elitism and bolsters institutions in such societies. Topdown institutional efforts by donors fail.

Being a highly divided, elitist society, our institutions were always elite-run. But after 60 years, we saw some change after the 2008 polls.

To explain its high value, I classify national institutions. Among state institutions, the executive governance ones deliver routine services while strategic ones such as the courts, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), interim regimes, and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) deepen democracy via transparency and accountability. Societal institutions like the media and civil society do so, too, albeit informally. Executive institutions did not improve and misrule persisted. Even so, some change in `democracy`institutions excited analysts, as permanent change in them slowly but surely leads to sustainable change in governance institutions.

The key steps were the approval of the 18th and 19th Amendments by a fairly elected parliament with some push by reinstated judges. The role of filling key posts in strategic institutions moved from executive to bipartisan parliamentary and judicial committees, which made the former more independent and neutral.

These moves were proudly our best political innovations and novel global models for weak democracies. Societal institutions, too, had more freedom. Naïve democracy buffs hoped these moves would aid governance, even if slowly, given the huge task and the legacy of the autocratic era.

But risky moves by the `learner driver` alarmed our masters of fate into slamming their remote emergency brakes.

After being in the driving seat for 10 years, they had taken abreatherunder a mild hybridity, leaving the economy and politics mostly to civilians. The 10-year itch hit hard in 2017. Polls were rigged in 2018 after two fair ones. The PTI era nixed some gains. But the PPP and PML-N were punishingly made to moredeeply erase the gains they had achieved earlier. Both being elitist parties, they complied meekly.

Institutions that hold rulers accountable were weakened more structurally while ad hoc ones like the SIFC gained.

Hierarchical ones such as the ECP and NAB were tamed via carrot and stick. This shows the fragility of constitutional processes. Earlier, changes in the ECP and interim regimes had worked well in 2013, and even 2018; the rigging then affected them. Alleged wide-scale rigging in the 2024 polls gave another sham regime.

Lawyer bodies were perceived as being bribed. The media saw huge pressure on journalists, social media gags, and controversial tweaks to the cybercrime laws.

The courts, too, were not immune. Using the shortcomings of some former judges as an excuse, executive sway in the hiring of judges was reintroduced even though the former judges had been hired by the executive before the 19th Amendment passed this role mainly and rightly to thejudges. But we didn`t wait to see its benefits over time.

Our Constitution has a basic structure given in Article 8 that declares void all laws that cut basic rights. One such right is fair trials which only freecourts can hold. Parts of the 26th Amendment cut this freedom and so violate this basic structure. Thus, many say they were void ab initio and never binding on the courts. The Supreme Court should have taken suo motu notice immediately then. It can and must do even now to have the earlier full court review them.

So ended sadly our brief affair with even minor institutionalisation, with one step forward and two backwards. As key institutions stand hugely weakened, many ask grimly if they`ll ever be allowed to flourish.

The reversals are so huge, they may languish for long. But illusion sadly persists among some that we can progress with ad hoc institutions and hybrid rule without strong institutions and the rule of law.

Society can`t wait for the 10-year itch to subside naturally and briefly. It must unite to peacefully end the itch for good or risk being a poster kid for why nations fail. • The wnter is a political economist with a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and has senior-level work experience across 50 countries.

murtazaniaz@yahoo.com X: @NiazMurtaza2