By Uzma Ehtesham
Pakistan’s political landscape remains at a crossroads, defined by a delicate balance between entrenched confrontation and the fragile promise of dialogue. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Hifazat-e-Aain (Protection of the Constitution Movement) has indicated a willingness to engage in negotiations, albeit with firm preconditions. At the heart of their demands lies the call for accountability in the last general elections, a new chief election commissioner, and guarantees for transparent polls. These are, in the eyes of the opposition, prerequisites for any meaningful discussion on Pakistan’s future. Beyond procedural demands, the alliance has also pressed for immediate relief to political prisoners, including the release of PTI founder Imran Khan’s wife, Bushra Bibi, restoration of access to both Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, the lifting of the ban on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, and a fair share for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the National Finance Commission.
The alliance’s two-day national consultative conference concluded with the announcement of a protest day on 8 February and stern condemnation of the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments, as well as attacks on the judiciary. The conference, convened under the aegis of the Protection of the Constitution Movement, was chaired by Mahmood Khan Achakzai, a seasoned political figure who has been appointed opposition leader in the National Assembly by Imran Khan himself. The former prime minister made it unequivocally clear that Achakzai holds full authority over PTI-related decisions. The prominence of PTI at the conference meant that the majority of the demands reflect its political priorities, underscoring the party’s continuing influence over the opposition agenda. Yet, the mere presence of a negotiation framework does not guarantee progress.
Even as the conference communiqué was issued, a statement by Imran Khan on social media platform X diluted Achakzai’s appeal for talks, signaling that final authority rests firmly with the former prime minister. PTI’s secretary of information reiterated that instructions from Imran Khan regarding the protest movement would remain binding, leaving little room for flexibility. From the government’s perspective, the situation is equally complex. Close sources within Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office insist that any meaningful dialogue with PTI cannot proceed without a formal expression of regret or apology for the events of 9 May and the campaign against the military. The scars of those confrontations remain raw, and the government argues that addressing them is a precondition for rebuilding trust.
Pakistan is navigating a confluence of crises: terrorism, political instability, and an economic situation that strains both public patience and state capacity. In such an environment, a broader national consensus is not merely desirable; it has become indispensable. History has shown that dialogue—even in the most intractable of political crises—can offer a path towards reconciliation, compromise, and stability. Both the government and the opposition bear shared responsibility for the country’s direction. The state must resist the temptation to let pride obstruct engagement with the opposition, recognizing that the challenges confronting Pakistan require inclusive deliberation. Equally, opposition leaders must acknowledge that the country belongs to all its citizens, and steering it through crisis is a collective obligation rather than a partisan contest.
Notably, several opposition parties and their leaders have expressed willingness to enter negotiations independently of Imran Khan. If channels can be created for direct engagement with him, there is a tangible opportunity to bring these leaders into constructive discussions. The willingness of political actors to transcend personal and party-based calculations will determine whether Pakistan’s political culture moves towards collaboration or deepens its current trajectory of division. The stakes could not be higher. Confrontation may provide immediate visibility, rallying supporters in the short term, but it deepens instability and erodes public confidence. Prolonged political standoffs divert attention and resources from the pressing challenges of governance, economic management, and national security.
Pakistan’s citizens—already grappling with inflation, energy shortages, and pervasive insecurity—stand to bear the heaviest costs if political impasse persists. By contrast, dialogue offers the only viable path out of the current crises. Through reasoned engagement, parties can negotiate compromises, establish frameworks for electoral accountability, and reinforce institutions vital to long-term stability. This is not merely a matter of political expediency. It is a question of national interest. The credibility of democratic institutions, the efficacy of governance, and the prospects for economic recovery all hinge on the ability of leaders to prioritize Pakistan’s collective welfare over partisan rivalries. Reason, prudence, and compromise must outweigh stubbornness and ego.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
