STATE PATERNALISM IN PAKISTAN: PROTECTION, CONTROL, AND THE LIMITS OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY

Abstract

Paternalism, defined as state or authority interventions to protect individuals’ welfare or guide their behaviour, has long been debated in political theory due to its tension with individual autonomy. In hybrid governance systems, where democratic institutions coexist with centralized authority and security imperatives, paternalism becomes particularly complex. Pakistan exemplifies such a context, with governance shaped by historical legacies, military influence, and a constitutionally embedded religious identity. These factors create a recurring tension between protective objectives and constraints on personal freedom. This study introduces the concept of security-driven paternalism, emphasizing interventions justified by welfare, morality, and the imperative to maintain social and political order. The theoretical framework draws on classical liberal, behavioural, and republican approaches, examining the balance between autonomy, protection, and domination. A qualitative study using normative political theory and case studies examines public health, digital media, and moral governance in Pakistan, analysing legal and policy documents to assess patterns of intervention and constraints on autonomy. The study findings reveal that paternalism in Pakistan operates across a spectrum: public health measures prioritize welfare with limited coercion; digital and media regulation combines protective rationales with discretionary enforcement; and moral and social policies exhibit enduring normative control that constrains autonomy. This study contributes to both theory and practice by conceptualizing security-driven paternalism, providing a framework to assess the ethical and political implications of interventions in hybrid states.