The Grundnorm of Voting and the Reality of Power: Pakistan’s Electoral Contradiction

The Pakistani electoral experience, when examined through the lens of political theory, appears less as a malfunctioning democracy and more as a predictable outcome of long-standing philosophical anxieties about mass rule. The concerns articulated by classical and modern theorists alike find unsettling resonance in Pakistan’s contemporary political reality. What unfolds is not merely bad governance, but the practical manifestation of theoretical warnings long ignored.

Plato’s hostility toward democracy was rooted precisely in the fear that political power, when entrusted indiscriminately, would be captured by appetite rather than reason. In The Republic, he warned that democracy degenerates when citizens mistake freedom for competence and equality for wisdom. The democratic man, driven by desire rather than knowledge, becomes susceptible to persuasion, flattery, and spectacle. What Plato anticipated was not tyranny arriving abruptly, but disorder arriving politely, through elections themselves. Pakistan’s electoral culture, particularly in rural constituencies, mirrors this anxiety with unsettling accuracy. Where voters lack political literacy and institutional understanding, electoral choice becomes vulnerable to manipulation by those who control resources, narratives, and social coercion. The result is not popular self-government, but popular endorsement of elite domination.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, though more sympathetic to popular sovereignty, was no less cautious. His conception of the general will, presupposed a citizenry capable of transcending private interests in favor of collective rationality. For Rousseau, the legitimacy of law rested not on numerical majorities alone, but on the moral and civic capacity of citizens to will the common good. Where citizens vote not as autonomous political agents but as members of clans, tribes, or patronage networks, the general will collapses into a sum of private compulsions. In Pakistan’s context, voting driven by biradari, feudal allegiance, or fear does not aggregate into a general will at all. It produces, instead, a fragmented political will that is easily commandeered by intermediaries of power.

John Stuart Mill, writing in defense of representative democracy, anticipated this dilemma with striking clarity. While Mill remained committed to universal participation as a moral principle, he openly acknowledged that political equality did not imply intellectual equality. His concern was not elitist exclusion but democratic degradation. Mill feared that when votes are cast without understanding, democracy risks becoming a tool through which ignorance legitimizes incompetence. His controversial proposal of plural voting, giving additional weight to the educated, was an attempt to reconcile political equality with epistemic responsibility. Though such proposals are rightly rejected today as incompatible with constitutional equality, the anxiety that produced them remains deeply relevant. Pakistan’s electoral crisis is not that the masses vote, but that the system neither equips them with political knowledge nor incentivizes informed choice.

This tension between formal equality and substantive competence is further illuminated by elite theory, particularly in the works of Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca. Both rejected the romantic notion of mass rule, arguing instead that all political systems, regardless of form, are governed by elites. Democracy, in their view, merely determines how elites circulate, not whether they exist. Pakistan’s electoral history appears to vindicate this bleak realism. Elections have not dismantled elite dominance; they have simply provided it with periodic renewal. Feudal landlords, industrial magnates, dynastic politicians, and increasingly media-manufactured figures rotate through office, while the underlying social structure remains intact. The electorate participates, but it does not rule.

What distinguishes Pakistan is not the presence of elites, which is universal, but the absence of meaningful elite accountability. In functional democracies, elite circulation is constrained by institutions, transparency, and informed voters. In Pakistan, elite continuity is preserved by political illiteracy, weak parties, and a culture that prizes personal access over institutional performance. The voter does not replace elites based on policy failure, because policy itself is not the metric of evaluation. Instead, elites are rewarded for their ability to navigate patronage networks and deliver immediate benefits, regardless of long-term governance costs.

At this juncture, the role of law becomes particularly ironic. Constitutionally, Pakistan embodies democratic ideals of representation, equality, and parliamentary sovereignty. Yet, much like Kelsen’s pure theory of law, the validity of these norms in practice depends upon their acceptance by the political community. Where the electorate does not internalize the purpose of representative institutions, constitutional norms remain formally valid but socially hollow. The Grundnorm exists, but it is not believed in. Democracy persists as a procedural shell, emptied of its ethical and participatory substance.

This philosophical dissonance explains why reform proposals in Pakistan often oscillate between authoritarian nostalgia and technocratic fantasy. Calls for restricting suffrage or imposing educational qualifications for voters emerge not from malice, but from despair with a system that appears incapable of self correction. Yet such solutions misunderstand the nature of the problem. The crisis is not that democracy gives too much power to the people, but that it gives too little power to informed citizenship. Exclusion would not cure Pakistan’s democratic malaise; it would merely replace a defective democracy with an openly illegitimate one.

The real challenge, therefore, is not to abandon democratic equality but to cultivate democratic capacity. Political theory does not demand the disenfranchisement of the uneducated; it demands their education. Plato’s philosopher kings are neither feasible nor desirable, but his insistence on knowledge as a prerequisite for just rule cannot be dismissed. Rousseau’s general will cannot emerge where citizens are structurally prevented from understanding their collective interests. Mill’s fear of the tyranny of ignorance remains unresolved in societies that celebrate the act of voting while neglecting the conditions that make voting meaningful.

Pakistan’s electoral crisis, then, is best understood as a failure of democratic maturation rather than democratic principle. Elections are held, votes are counted, governments are formed, yet representation remains elusive. The people participate, but they do not govern. Until the electorate is transformed from a passive mass into an informed political community, elections will continue to harvest loyalty instead of consent, obedience instead of deliberation, and power instead of representation.

Several interlocking and mutually reinforcing factors explain the persistence of this electoral dysfunction. The first, and perhaps most structurally entrenched, is the continued domination of Pakistan’s political class by feudal and landowning elites. Political power in Pakistan has never been meaningfully disentangled from land ownership. Large families possessing vast estates continue to command disproportionate influence over electoral outcomes, particularly in rural and semi rural constituencies. Empirical data underscores the scale of this phenomenon. As late as 2007, more than two thirds of the National Assembly was composed of individuals belonging to feudal or landowning backgrounds. This is not a historical residue gradually fading away, but a living structure of power reproducing itself through elections.

In many rural regions, landlords exercise de facto authority over the basic conditions of life. Control over water access, agricultural credit, local police influence, and even informal dispute resolution mechanisms grants these elites coercive leverage far beyond the ballot box. Loyalty is rewarded through patronage, protection, and access to resources, while dissent is often punished through social ostracization, economic deprivation, or implicit threats. Under such conditions, political independence becomes a luxury few peasants can afford. Education, political awareness, and independent civic judgment are actively discouraged because they threaten the stability of this hierarchical order. The ballot, therefore, becomes less an expression of individual political will and more an instrument of collective obedience.

It is no accident, then, that rural voters habitually follow the electoral cues of local sardars and waderas. Voting behavior in these areas is rarely an individualized act. Academic surveys conducted in tribal districts of Balochistan demonstrate that ethnic identity and allegiance to tribal leadership remain the most decisive factors in determining electoral outcomes. Party affiliation is often secondary, if not irrelevant. Loyalty to the local chief dominates political life to such an extent that party politics itself becomes merely a vehicle through which traditional authority is exercised. In practical terms, a villager’s vote is not freely chosen. It is pledged, inherited, and enforced. The notion of the autonomous voter, central to democratic theory, dissolves into a communal directive.

The second reinforcing factor is the electorate’s pervasive political ignorance and structural isolation, which further entrenches elite dominance. Multiple studies consistently reveal that large segments of Pakistan’s rural population remain unaware of the basic functioning of the political system, the role of elected representatives, or the ways in which public policy affects their lives. Many voters openly acknowledge that they do not understand the value or purpose of their vote. Electoral participation, in such contexts, is driven not by political judgment but by social pressure, familial instruction, and community expectation.

This condition is not accidental. It is the cumulative product of decades of state neglect. Underfunded schools, low literacy rates, minimal civic education, and restricted access to independent media have left many rural citizens disconnected from national political discourse. The lingering legacy of colonial governance, particularly the strategy of ruling through intermediaries and reinforcing local hierarchies, continues to shape contemporary political behavior. Where the state failed to cultivate informed citizens, traditional power structures filled the vacuum.

Empirical research from Punjab illustrates this vividly. Significant portions of rural populations are unable to identify local development schemes, articulate the responsibilities of their representatives, or even name their constituency members. In this informational void, traditional leaders assume the role of political interpreters. Recent field studies in the Koh e Suleman region confirm that tribal chiefs actively guide communities in forming political opinions, shaping ethnic identity, and determining electoral choices. Authority is personalized, not institutional.

Even when political parties attempt to introduce manifestos or policy agendas, these efforts often fail to resonate. Many voters neither understand nor trust such documents. As multiple studies observe, in countries like Pakistan, voters frequently lack clarity about what a political manifesto even represents. In the absence of policy literacy, electoral competition devolves into spectacle. Parties substitute substance with symbolism, deploying catchy slogans, emotionally charged narratives, and carefully curated rallies. Campaigns rely on imagery and charisma rather than coherent programs of governance.

The third critical factor lies within the elected institutions themselves. Pakistan’s parliamentary system, in its current configuration, is structurally weak and internally hollowed out. Power is heavily centralized in party leaderships and the executive branch, leaving individual legislators with little meaningful space to exercise independent judgment. Legislative agendas are set by party heads. Bills are drafted behind closed doors and rushed through assemblies with minimal debate. Parliament becomes a site of formal ratification rather than substantive deliberation.

Analysts have accurately noted that under such conditions, the role of individual Members of Parliament is rendered almost redundant. Attendance becomes optional, participation perfunctory, and scrutiny rare. If party chiefs control committee appointments, bill content, and voting instructions, there is little incentive for legislators to study issues, consult constituents, or develop policy expertise. Unsurprisingly, parliamentary attendance rates remain chronically low, hovering around sixty to seventy percent, with members frequently absent during critical sessions. Committees, which should serve as engines of legislative oversight, often meet irregularly, if at all. When they do convene, robust scrutiny of budgets, executive action, or draft legislation is the exception rather than the rule.

This institutional decay is further compounded by voter expectations themselves. Pakistani citizens, particularly in rural and peri urban areas, place minimal pressure on legislators to perform their legislative functions. Instead, constituents overwhelmingly expect their MNAs and MPAs to operate as service brokers. Interviews consistently show that voters hold their representatives responsible for securing employment opportunities, arranging electricity connections, fixing sewerage systems, and facilitating access to schools and hospitals. These are executive and administrative functions, not legislative ones, yet they dominate popular expectations.

As a result, there is virtually no organized demand for policy formulation, legislative debate, or institutional oversight. The essential democratic functions of representation, lawmaking, and accountability carry little electoral value. Legislators are not punished for absenteeism, ignorance of law, or failure to legislate. If a federal minister, chief minister, or even a military regime is perceived to have delivered development funds to a region, local representatives often reap electoral credit by association, regardless of their personal contribution or parliamentary record.

The system thus feeds upon itself. Patronage wins elections, so patronage becomes the focus of governance. Voters prioritize immediate survival needs and social obligations, so parties abandon ideological clarity in favor of populist theatrics. Policy platforms, where they exist, often resemble aspirational wish lists untethered from fiscal or institutional realities. As PIDE has observed, party manifestos frequently contain ambitious promises without any serious strategy for resource mobilization or implementation.

Election campaigns consequently assume the character of mass spectacles. Massive rallies, emotionally charged speeches, and symbolic slogans dominate the political landscape. Rather than structured debates over economic policy, constitutional reform, or governance models, elections are fought through nostalgia and populism. Slogans such as Roti, Kapra, Makan or Nizam e Mustafa mobilize voters not because they offer concrete solutions, but because they resonate emotionally with deeply felt insecurities. The electorate demands relief, not reform, and political parties respond accordingly.

The consequences of this dynamic are profound and corrosive. When legislators neglect their constitutional roles, democratic governance weakens at its core. Laws remain underdeveloped, public services underfunded, and executive power insufficiently checked. Over time, citizens internalize the belief that formal qualifications or international exposure do not necessarily produce better representatives. The Musharraf era experiment with mandatory educational qualifications for parliamentarians only reinforced this cynicism. The imposition of a bachelor’s degree requirement dramatically restricted candidacy while failing to deliver meaningful improvements in governance, ultimately leading to its judicial invalidation.

Yet frustration with democratic failure continues to generate radical prescriptions. Proposals advocating civic competency tests for candidates or educational thresholds for voters periodically resurface. At the heart of these proposals lies a troubling question. Why should the vote of an illiterate laborer carry the same weight as that of a trained scholar?

This question, while provocative, exposes the enduring tension between expertise and equality that has haunted democratic theory for centuries. John Stuart Mill confronted this dilemma directly. Although he recognized the dangers of uninformed voting, he categorically rejected the moral legitimacy of disenfranchising those who possess the same stake in political outcomes as others. For Mill, denying political voice on the basis of education constituted a personal injustice. His proposal of plural voting was an attempt to balance epistemic concern with moral equality, not to abolish universal participation.

Pakistan’s constitutional framework reflects a similar commitment. Article 25 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 17 protects political participation. Any attempt to restrict suffrage on educational grounds would not only violate constitutional principles but risk reviving exclusionary practices historically associated with domination rather than enlightenment. History offers ample warning. Literacy tests in the United States functioned not as tools of civic improvement but as mechanisms of racial exclusion until dismantled by civil rights legislation.

Universal suffrage remains the foundational axiom of democratic legitimacy. Political equality affirms that every citizen, regardless of education or status, possesses a moral claim to influence decisions that shape their lives. Denying this claim would deepen alienation and further erode faith in democratic institutions.

The real challenge, therefore, is not to subtract rights but to cultivate capacity. Political education must become a national priority. Civic literacy programs, educational reform, independent media, and civil society engagement are essential to transforming passive voters into informed citizens. Research consistently shows that informed electorates demand accountability and policy coherence. Over time, only such an electorate can compel political actors to shift from patronage to governance.

Institutional accountability must accompany this transformation. Parties must be compelled to articulate clear policy platforms. Regulatory bodies must enforce transparency and penalize misinformation. Parliamentary performance must be publicly measured and disseminated. When attendance records and legislative activity become visible, voters gain the tools necessary to judge their representatives meaningfully.

Candidate selection mechanisms also require reform. Dynastic politics thrives where party nominations are monopolized by elite negotiations. Internal party democracy, ethical screening, and merit based advancement can weaken feudal dominance without undermining democratic equality. Even proposals for competency assessments, if framed narrowly around constitutional knowledge and applied universally, may signal a renewed seriousness about governance, provided they do not operate as covert exclusionary devices.

Structural electoral reform deserves serious debate. First past the post systems inherited from colonial rule disproportionately favor local strongmen. Mixed or proportional representation models could incentivize programmatic politics and national platforms. Strengthening local governments would decentralize patronage and empower citizens closer to the point of service delivery. Electoral tribunals must be made efficient and credible to restore faith in procedural fairness.

None of this will be easy. Political will remains scarce, and reformers are routinely dismissed as elitist or unrealistic. Yet stagnation is not neutrality; it is decay. Democracy cannot survive indefinitely on ritual alone.

To borrow from Kelsen’s concern with foundational norms, Pakistan’s democratic grundnorm remains formally intact but substantively weakened. Votes are equal on paper, yet unequal in effect. Until this gap is bridged, elections will continue to reward power rather than representation. Only when citizens are equipped to exercise informed choice, and representatives compelled to honor constitutional duty, will Pakistan’s democracy move from ritualized participation to genuine self-government.

At its core, the crisis of elections in Pakistan is not merely administrative, sociological, or even institutional. It is a crisis of legitimacy. Democratic legitimacy, in its classical formulation, rests on a simple yet demanding premise: that political power is justified only insofar as it is grounded in the informed consent of the governed. Elections are not valuable because they occur, but because they meaningfully translate popular will into political authority. When this translation fails, democracy persists only as a ritual, not as a moral or political achievement.

Postcolonial states like Pakistan inherit a particularly fragile democratic inheritance. Their constitutional architectures are often transplanted rather than organically evolved, layered over societies marked by deep inequalities, entrenched hierarchies, and limited civic infrastructure. In such contexts, the procedural elements of democracy elections, parliaments, constitutions can be rapidly institutionalized, while the normative culture that sustains them lags far behind. The result is a democracy that functions mechanically but not ethically.

Pakistan exemplifies this dilemma. Its electoral system satisfies the formal criteria of democratic legitimacy. Votes are cast, majorities are counted, governments are formed. Yet the substance of consent remains deeply compromised. When voters cast ballots under coercion, misinformation, or inherited loyalty, consent becomes nominal rather than reflective. When representatives are elected not to legislate but to dispense favors, political authority drifts away from constitutional purpose and toward personalized power. Legitimacy, in such a system, is manufactured rather than earned.

Here, the insights of political philosophy converge sharply. Rousseau warned that when citizens are unable to distinguish between private interest and the common good, the general will disintegrates. Mill feared that uninformed participation would transform democracy into a tyranny of ignorance. Kelsen insisted that legal validity ultimately depends on social acceptance of foundational norms. Pakistan’s democratic crisis embodies all three anxieties simultaneously. The general will is fragmented, participation is detached from understanding, and the grundnorm of popular sovereignty is accepted in form but not internalized in practice.

Yet it would be a profound error to interpret this diagnosis as an indictment of democracy itself. The temptation to romanticize authoritarian efficiency or technocratic governance often arises in moments of democratic fatigue. In Pakistan, this temptation has surfaced repeatedly, from military interventions justified in the name of stability to calls for restricting suffrage in the name of competence. These impulses misunderstand the nature of the problem. Democratic failure here is not the result of excessive inclusion, but of insufficient empowerment. The people are included procedurally but excluded substantively.

Consent without comprehension is not consent in any meaningful sense. But neither is governance without consent legitimacy. The challenge, therefore, is to reconcile democratic equality with democratic competence without sacrificing either. This requires a reimagining of democracy not as a singular event occurring on election day, but as a continuous process of civic formation. Citizenship must be cultivated, not merely counted.

This reimagining carries particular urgency in postcolonial contexts. Where colonial governance relied on intermediaries and indirect rule, democratic constitutionalism must actively dismantle those structures rather than inherit them. Where education was historically restricted to preserve hierarchy, democratic legitimacy now demands its universal expansion. Where law once served power, it must now discipline it. In Pakistan, this means confronting the uncomfortable reality that elections alone cannot compensate for weak institutions, poor education, and entrenched social power.

The future of democratic constitutionalism in Pakistan thus hinges on a shift in normative focus. Legitimacy must be measured not only by turnout figures or peaceful transfers of power, but by the quality of representation produced. Consent must be understood not as passive acquiescence, but as informed participation. Representation must return to its constitutional meaning: the articulation of collective interests through lawmaking, oversight, and accountability.

Such a transformation will not be immediate, nor will it be linear. It requires sustained investment in political education, institutional transparency, and party reform. It requires courts that protect participation without enabling exclusion, media that interrogates power rather than amplifies spectacle, and civil society that bridges the gap between state and citizen. Above all, it requires a collective willingness to abandon the comforting illusion that democracy can survive on procedure alone.

In the final analysis, Pakistan does not suffer from an excess of democracy, but from an unfinished one. Its elections reap loyalty, identity, and obedience, but they have yet to yield representation in its fullest sense. Until the act of voting is accompanied by understanding, and the holding of office by constitutional responsibility, democratic legitimacy will remain precarious.

The task ahead is therefore not to ask whether Pakistan is democratic, but whether its democracy is capable of becoming legitimate. That question will not be answered at the ballot box alone. It will be answered in classrooms, courtrooms, parliaments, and public discourse. Only when citizenship is treated as a practice rather than a formality will elections cease to be exercises in survival and begin to function as instruments of self government.

That is the unfinished promise of democracy in Pakistan. And it remains, for now, unresolved.

Bibliography:

I. Pakistan Electoral Politics and Voting Behaviour

Afzal, M. (2009). Does the education of politicians matter? Evidence from a bachelor’s degree requirement for legislators in Pakistan. Center for Global Development Working Paper.
https://www.cgdev.org/publication/does-education-politicians-matter

Arif, S. (2023). Voting behavior of Pakistan’s rural population in the 2018 elections: A study of feudal influence. Journal of Visionary Philosophers.
https://www.visionarypublication.com/JVP/article/download/14/6

Cheema, A., Javid, H., Naseer, F., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Dynastic politics in Punjab, 1985–2008. Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democracy-in-pakistan-elections-tell-us-why-politicians-behave-badly/

Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN). Election observation reports and parliamentary monitoring.
https://fafen.org

Hashim, S., & Hashmi, R. S. (2022). The struggle for representation: A study of the electoral system in Pakistan. Bulletin of Business and Economics.
https://bbejournal.com/index.php/BBE/article/view/429

Inside Pakistan’s deeply flawed election. (2024). Journal of Democracy.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/inside-pakistans-deeply-flawed-election/

Kugelman, M. (Ed.). (2018). Institutional capacity and governance in Pakistan: A case study of parliament. Wilson Center.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/institutional-capacity-and-governance-pakistan

Naveed, M. A., & Ain, R. ul. (2017). Political ignorance and voting participation of rural dwellers in Pakistan. Journal of Politics and International Studies, 3(2), 19–33.
http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/polisci/PDF-FILES/2_v3_2_17.pdf

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). (2024). Political party manifestos: Reform paradox in Pakistan.
https://pide.org.pk

Shah, A. (2014). Pakistan’s armored democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25(3).
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/pakistans-armored-democracy/

II. Ethnicity, Feudalism, and Rural Power Structures

Hasan, A., & Khaliq, A. (2021). Crafty oligarchs, savvy voters: Democracy under inequality in rural Pakistan. PIDE.
https://pide.org.pk/research/crafty-oligarchs-savvy-voters-democracy-under-inequality-in-rural-pakistan/

Nadeem, S., & Faiz, F. A. (2025). Ethnicity, tribal leadership, and voting behavior in Koh-e-Suleman, Pakistan. The Pakistan Multidisciplinary Academic Review, 32(S7), 1–10.
https://tpmap.org/submission/index.php/tpm/article/download/2378/1816/5164

Political determinants of voting behaviour in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (2018). LASSIJ.
https://ideapublishers.org/index.php/lassij/article/view/34

The role of feudal politics in District Charsadda. (2025). Research Consortium Archive.
https://www.rcresearcharchive.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/442

III. Electoral Systems, Reform, and Institutional Design

Dawn Editorial Board. (2024). First-past-the-post and representation problems in Pakistan. Dawn.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1947409

International Crisis Group. (2018). The Pakistan voter: Electoral politics and voting behaviour.
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/icg/0021561/

Election Commission of Pakistan. Electoral laws and reforms documentation.
https://www.ecp.gov.pk

IV. Political Theory, Democracy, and Legitimacy

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists. Princeton University Press.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691169446/democracy-for-realists

Abizadeh, A. (2008). Democratic theory and border coercion. Political Theory, 36(1).
https://philpapers.org/rec/ABIDTA

Arendt, H. (1992). Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. University of Chicago Press.

Arneson, R. (2003). Defending the purely instrumental account of democratic legitimacy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(1).
https://philpapers.org/rec/ARNDTP

Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. MIT Press.

Lazar, S. (2022). Legitimacy, authority, and democratic duties. arXiv.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.08628

Mill, J. S. (1861). Considerations on representative government. Oxford University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.

Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Harvard University Press.

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Democracy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/

Political legitimacy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/

Turner, J. (2024). What justifies electoral voice? J. S. Mill on voting. Mind, 133(532), 1078–1099.
https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/133/532/1078/7454869

V. Classical and Elite Theory Sources

Mosca, G. (1939). The ruling class. McGraw-Hill.
Pareto, V. (1968). The rise and fall of elites. Bedminster Press.
Plato. The Republic.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The social contract.

VI. Media, Rhetoric, and Electoral Culture

Informing or campaigning? Electoral posters in Pakistan. (2025). Third World Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09584935.2025.2575167

The interplay of rhetoric and voting behavior in Pakistan. (2020). Global Regional Review.
https://doi.org/10.31703/grr.2020(V-II).23

Social media polarization and political alliances in Pakistan. (2023). arXiv.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08075

VII. Constitutional and Historical Context

Supreme Court of Pakistan. State v. Dosso (PLD 1958 SC 533).