Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Thursday again rejected reports about a change of the government in Pakistan. Speaking to a group of Islamabad-based foreign media representatives, Gilani was quoted as saying, "We have come (to power) through elections. We have the mandate. There is a coalition government and whatever is to happen, it would be through the parliament. Technocracy is not acceptable." These remarks and similar ones from the civilian leadership in Islamabad come amid growing discussion in both the Pakistani and global press about the possibility of the country's powerful military establishment mounting a coup to seize power, given that the civilian government seems incapable of dealing with recent floods that have exacerbated the country's already shaky political, security and economic conditions. Our readers will recall that a little more than a month ago, shortly after the magnitude of the devastation from the floods had become apparent, STRATFOR had raised the possibility that, should the country's weak and quite unpopular government prove to be unable to manage the crisis, the military may step in and take a more active role in the governance of the country. A month later, the situation does seem headed in that direction (especially if one is to believe the rumor intelligence that is floating around), despite the fact that Washington's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said Wednesday in the Pakistani capital that Washington "supports a civilian, democratically elected government" in Islamabad. The statements from both civilian authorities in Islamabad and Washington notwithstanding, the question is: What is the view from Rawalpindi, Islamabad's twin garrison city and the headquarters of the country's armed forces? It is extremely unlikely that the military – the country's only coherent institution and guarantor of the integrity of the state – is eagerly looking at the current situation as an opportunity to seize power. Far from it, and there are a number of reasons for this. The domestic situation is so fragile that the army would not want to disturb the status quo for fear of making matters worse, given that a military takeover would trigger a popular backlash and international condemnation, especially at a time when the country needs all the global support it can get to return from what the country's finance minister a few days ago described as "the brink of economic collapse." Clearly, the one institution that has historically kept the country together cannot be expected to just sit by and risk having the situation pass the point of no return. The military doesn't want to directly take power and assume responsibility of a very messy situation and be blamed for all the things that can potentially go awry from here onward. It already enjoys immense influence over both domestic and foreign policy, which it can shape discreetly from behind the scenes. Finally, gone are the days when the army could single-handedly step in and stabilize a situation of political infighting and economic uncertainty. Pakistan's chronic social, economic and political problems have not only exacerbated during the past several years, but the security situation in the country also has rapidly deteriorated, with violence associated with the Islamist insurgency, political violence and organized criminal activity all on the rise. At the same time, and paradoxically, a number of new social forces (a dynamic private electronic media, an assertive judiciary and a vibrant civil society) have emerged making it very difficult for the army to simply step in and clean house. Therefore it is unlikely that the military will intervene as a matter of choice; instead, if it chooses to act, it will be out of perceived necessity. Clearly, the one institution that has historically kept the country together cannot be expected to just sit by and risk having the situation pass the point of no return. This is particularly the case if and when the current civilian government reaches a point where it is not just unable to manage the floods, but is simply not able to govern in the face of growing unrest — a situation that has not materialized yet but is also not impossible. Additionally, if it decides to act, the army can't be expected to let things deteriorate for too long and would have to act quickly if it is convinced that the consequences of inaction are far greater. What options are available to the army — especially in light of the difficulties of intervention discussed above — should such a scenario emerge? We are told by multiple sources close to the scene that the "how" of a military intervention is the key issue. The military is not in a position to simply mount a coup in the same manner it has in the past, and at the same time it cannot allow the situation to continue. Here is where there is talk of a middle path where the army, acting from behind the scenes and in collaboration with the judiciary, could force the current government out of office. An interim government made up of technocrats could take over for a period of time with the mandate of flood recovery and political/economic stabilization, as well as be required to hold fresh elections at an appropriate future date. In other words, it would be a constitutional regime-change of sorts, managed by the army from behind the scenes, which could be acceptable to most domestic and international stakeholders. Indeed there are many forces within the country that are in favor of the army stepping in as a necessary evil to save the country, and there are many outside who, while not in favor of a military-led change, also don't have much faith in the ability of the current civilian dispensation. By no means is such a scenario inevitable, but should push come to shove then such an arrangement is being seen as the way forward. There are also no guarantees that such a move would help steer Pakistan away from its ills, but those who would be behind it would be betting that it might at least help slow the pace at which the country is hurtling out of control. A non-political caretaker government, should it replace the current government, would only serve as a reset button, as it would ultimately have to hold elections. Elections would usher back in the political forces, thereby rebooting the system. From the U.S. point of view, the Pakistani army serving as a support mechanism to a shaky constitutional process in the country is the best it could ask for as it seeks to deal with the situation in neighboring Afghanistan.