By Uzma Ehtasham
Political disagreement is not a problem for democracy. It is one of its essential features. Parties are expected to challenge one another, question decisions, expose failures and offer competing visions of government. But there is a line between political rivalry and personal hostility, and Pakistan’s political class has crossed that line too often. The recent remarks by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz president Nawaz Sharif, urging politicians not to turn differences into enmity, therefore deserve more than passing attention.
Speaking to the PML-N parliamentary party in Azad Kashmir, Nawaz Sharif said political opposition should not be transformed into personal hostility. He also expressed surprise at the complaints made by the Pakistan Peoples party. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, for his part, argued that the prime minister of Azad Kashmir had not belonged to the PPP and that the PML-N had won a majority in the elections. Punjab chief minister Maryam Nawaz said the PML-N had not accused anyone of rigging in Gilgit-Baltistan.
These competing claims are part of the normal political contest. Elections produce winners and losers, and parties have every right to question decisions or challenge their opponents. The more important question is what happens after the contest. If every disagreement becomes an accusation of betrayal, every electoral dispute turns into a confrontation and every political argument becomes personal, democracy itself begins to suffer.
Pakistan has experienced the consequences before. The political battles of the 1990s between the PML-N and PPP repeatedly contributed to the premature collapse of elected governments. Political parties treated each other less as legitimate competitors and more as threats that had to be removed. The result was a cycle of instability that weakened democratic institutions and created opportunities for forces outside the electoral process to intervene.
The lesson was eventually recognized by the two parties themselves. The political experience of the Pervez Musharraf era brought the PML-N and PPP closer, as both faced political pressure and measures they considered retaliatory. The Charter of Democracy became an important expression of that changed understanding. Its basic premise was straightforward: political parties could disagree sharply while still accepting each other’s legitimacy and electoral mandate.
The years after the 2008 elections showed that this principle could work in practice. The PPP formed the federal government, while PML-N ministers joined the administration. In Punjab, during Shehbaz Sharif’s time as chief minister, PPP ministers also served in the provincial government. The parties remained rivals, but they understood that political competition did not make cooperation impossible when circumstances demanded it.
That political maturity has proved difficult to sustain. Relations between the two parties have repeatedly moved between cooperation and confrontation. Old grievances return, new allegations are made and electoral disputes quickly become personal. The political arguments surrounding elections in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir are another reminder of how easily competition can become hostility.
Criticism, however fierce, should never be confused with political enmity. A government must be scrutinized. Opposition parties have a duty to question policies, demand accountability and highlight failures. But criticism loses its democratic value when it is detached from evidence and policy and becomes an attempt to humiliate or discredit individuals. A politics based largely on personal attacks leaves little room for serious debate about governance.
The problem has become more acute because political rhetoric no longer remains confined to parliament. Television channels, rallies and social media can magnify every angry statement within minutes. A provocative remark by a senior politician is repeated thousands of times by supporters, often in harsher language. What begins as a political dispute among leaders can quickly become a social conflict among citizens.
This is particularly dangerous in a country where political identities have become deeply entrenched. Supporters can begin to see members of another party not simply as people with different political preferences but as enemies. Once that happens, compromise is treated as weakness and tolerance as betrayal. Democracy cannot survive on such terms. It requires competition, but it also requires an acceptance that opponents have a legitimate right to participate in political life.
The political situation surrounding Azad Kashmir makes restraint even more important. Kashmir remains a sensitive national and international issue, and political divisions within Pakistan and the region are closely watched. Domestic parties should therefore be careful not to turn political disputes into arguments that weaken public confidence or provide ammunition to those seeking to exploit internal divisions. Electoral competition should never come at the expense of wider national interests.
There is also a more practical reason for politicians to lower the temperature. Citizens are ultimately less interested in which party can produce the sharpest accusation than in whether governments can improve their lives. Shehbaz Sharif’s observation that people become dissatisfied when a government fails to deliver contains an important truth. Jobs, public services, education, healthcare, infrastructure and economic stability matter far more to ordinary people than the latest exchange of political insults.
Pakistan needs political stability, but stability should not be mistaken for political silence. A healthy democracy can accommodate fierce disagreement without descending into permanent confrontation. Opposition must remain strong, governments must remain answerable and voters must be free to change their political preferences. What is required is not an end to political rivalry but a more mature form of it.
The country’s political parties should consider establishing and enforcing clear standards of conduct for their leaders and workers. Such standards should not restrict legitimate criticism or shield anyone from accountability. They should instead discourage threats, personal abuse, character assassination and rhetoric deliberately designed to provoke supporters.
The PML-N and PPP have lived through almost every phase of Pakistan’s recent democratic experience. They have seen the damage caused by confrontation and have also demonstrated that cooperation is possible. Their history should provide enough evidence that neither permanent hostility nor permanent friendship is necessary. What democracy demands is something simpler and harder: the ability to compete without denying the legitimacy of those with whom one disagrees.
(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)
Pakistan #PakistanPolitics #PoliticalNews #PoliticalAnalysis #Democracy #DemocraticValues #PoliticalDisagreement #PoliticalTolerance #PoliticalStability #PoliticalParties #PMLN #PPP #NawazSharif #ShehbazSharif #MaryamNawaz #PakistanDemocracy #PakistanNews #NationalPolitics #PoliticalDebate #PoliticalReform #PoliticalLeadership #CharterOfDemocracy #AzadKashmir #AJK #GilgitBaltistan #PakistanElections #ElectionPolitics #PoliticalRivalry #DemocraticInstitutions #Governance #Accountability #PoliticalCulture #RuleOfLaw #NationalInterest #PublicInterest #SouthAsianPolitics #CurrentAffairs #Opinion #PoliticalOpinion #UzmaEhtasham #MetroMorning
