After the K-P emergency: rethinking confrontation

With the imposition of emergency and governor's rule in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, PTI has lost the one provincial government through which it could still translate its public support into administrative decisions. For its supporters, this is another painful setback. For the party's leadership, it should also be an occasion to reflect on where its political strategy is taking it.

Before the intervention, there was at least an opportunity for dialogue. An important disagreement concerned counterterrorism policy. PTI wanted the K-P government to have a meaningful role in shaping the approach to militancy in the province. The federal authorities wanted assurances about cooperation in combating terrorism. Access to Imran Khan was another unresolved issue. The discussions ended without an agreement.

It is understandable that a party should hold firmly to a position it considers important. But political leadership also involves deciding how to advance that position when agreement proves difficult. Could some progress have been secured while keeping the remaining questions open? Was there room for an arrangement that preserved the provincial government's ability to function and allowed discussion on security policy to continue?

We cannot know that a different approach would have prevented the intervention. We can, however, ask whether permanent confrontation has helped PTI preserve its political strength or gradually deprived it of the means to use that strength.

This question deserves a thoughtful answer because the attachment of millions of Pakistanis to Imran Khan is real. His popularity has survived imprisonment, restrictions and repeated setbacks. Yet the party's responsibility extends beyond demonstrating that its leader remains popular. People also place their trust in a political party because they hope it will make their lives easier.

For a family struggling to pay for medicine, the value of a provincial government lies partly in whether the public hospital works. For parents, it lies in the school their children attend. For a young person, it may lie in the possibility of finding employment. These expectations give political power its purpose. Losing the ability to meet them is a substantial loss, even when public sympathy for the party remains intact.

PTI's experience since 2022 needs to be considered in this light. After losing federal office, it had the option of becoming an organised parliamentary opposition. Its withdrawal from the National Assembly, followed by the dissolution of the Punjab and K-P assemblies in January 2023, reflected the belief that pressure would bring early national elections. That expectation was not fulfilled.

Those decisions may have been taken in the sincere conviction that they would restore the party's mandate. Looking back, however, it is difficult to overlook how much institutional space was surrendered. PTI retained a substantial following while losing opportunities to govern, scrutinise decisions and remain involved in the everyday business of the state.

There is a human difficulty here too. Once supporters have endured hardship for a cause, leaders can find it harder to recommend a compromise. They worry that an incomplete settlement will disappoint those who have sacrificed so much. But this is precisely when leadership matters. Someone has to explain why a limited gain may be worth securing, why a pause can be useful and why continuing within an imperfect system may offer more possibilities than withdrawing from it.

Pakistan's economic condition makes that judgment especially urgent. The World Bank estimates that Pakistan accounts for about 48% of those living below the $3-a-day extreme-poverty line in its Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan grouping. Nearly every second extremely poor person in this region lives in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal has described economic stabilisation as "stunted and borrowed". His warning concerns the country's capacity to grow and provide opportunities in the years ahead.

Given these circumstances, one would hope that political energies would increasingly turn towards finding a workable way forward. The years spent in confrontation are also years in which children leave school, young people remain unemployed and households fall further into debt.

Other societies have faced the difficult task of moving beyond entrenched hostility. In South Africa, the ANC entered negotiations with the apartheid government despite a history of profound injustice. Agreements concerning prisoners, returning exiles and political participation helped make further progress possible. The Pretoria Minute also recorded the suspension of ANC armed action. Cooperation developed through practical commitments while deep disagreements remained.

The circumstances were very different, but the lesson is relevant: opponents must eventually allow each other room to negotiate. Some willingness to put aside hatred is necessary before a shared political future can be built.

PTI's repeated reliance on confrontation also raises a question about political training within the party. Are its workers being prepared to remain disciplined under provocation, and are they encouraged to see negotiation as a legitimate part of political struggle? Without that preparation, anger can become difficult to contain, and compromise difficult to explain. Martin Luther King Jr understood this challenge. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, written in April 1963, to eight white Alabama clergymen who had criticised the civil rights demonstrations, King explained how participants were trained for nonviolent action and asked to consider whether they could endure abuse without retaliating. For Pakistani parties, the lesson is that leadership must cultivate restraint and prepare supporters for the negotiations through which political progress becomes possible.

None of this requires PTI to abandon its principles or follow the accommodations through which other parties have compromised civilian independence. It requires a strategy that keeps its supporters represented and its capacity for public service alive.

The loss of the K-P government makes this discussion painful, but necessary. PTI has shown that it can sustain loyalty through adversity. It now needs to show how that loyalty can be turned into lasting political influence and practical relief. Its supporters deserve a future they can help build, alongside a cause they are asked to defend.