Back to the future

THE collapse of talks between the government and opposition and sharpening of their confrontation have again put the country on edge. PTI leaders announced they would go ahead with their protest march on Islamabad.

Federal ministers vowed to stop this and renewed threats to impose governor’s rule and emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. PTI leaders, in turn, warned the government against taking such a step.

It seems that a draft agreement was drawn up but the two sides could not close the gap on key issues. Both sides attributed the breakdown in negotiations to the other. These conflicting accounts make it hard to determine what were the precise sticking points that produced the deadlock. No further round of talks is planned. Instead, Islamabad has again become ‘containeristan’ with barricades erected across the city to prevent protesters from entering the capital.

It is unclear whether the threat to impose governor’s rule was a pressure tactic and brinkmanship by the government or a serious option. Either way, it signals the government’s willingness to wield it as a sword of Damocles over the opposition. That, arguably, is the most concerning aspect of this latest confrontation. One after another, federal ministers warned that if conditions demanded, governor’s rule and emergency could be declared, without, however, specifying those conditions.

For his part, KP Governor Faisal Karim Kundi, a PPP leader, described governor’s rule as a “measure of necessity”, saying the president could take this action on the prime minister’s advice if the situation in the province so warranted.

Some federal ministers tried to build a rationale for the move by accusing the KP government of governance failures and mishandling the rising wave of terrorism in the province. One senior minister accused the PTI government of “facilitating terrorists”. This was unfortunate as it showed the government was prepared to weaponise the terrorism issue to demonise its opponents. Statements by ministers after the talks broke down echoed these accusations against PTI.

Our history shows that ousting provincial governments has always ended badly for the country.

It was not the first time the present political dispensation in Islamabad threatened to impose governor’s rule. Such threats have surfaced in the past too, especially when PTI announced a march from KP to Islamabad. But this time, the threats were more sustained and sounded more serious. Significantly, they were repeated in the talks.

These threats recall the country’s unedifying political experience in the past. Ousting provincial governments has a long pedigree in Pakistan’s turbulent political history. Every province of the country has been placed under governor’s rule at one time or another. Not long after the country’s independence, provincial governments began to be summarily dismissed by the central government in an early display of political intolerance and creeping authoritarianism. The first government to be toppled was in Punjab in 1949. That inglorious tradition persisted through the decades. In the 1970s, opposition-run provincial governments in KP and Balochistan were dismissed by prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

This had dire consequences for national unity. It weakened the federation and made a mockery of democracy. It deepened alienation among smaller provinces, fuelled regional sentiment, and led to the insurgency in Balochistan in the 1970s. While its roots could be traced back to the 1950s, it intensified during the 2000s and had lasting ramifications. The country is still struggling to deal with the deleteriousconsequences of repeatedly depriving the province of legitimately elected representative governments.

History, however, is a poor teacher in Pakistan. Its lessons continue to be ignored. If the government is still contemplating imposing governor’s rule or emergency, it should understand that it will neither bring political calm to the province nor eliminate its political opponents. On the contrary, it will escalate the confrontation between the government and PTI-led opposition. The KP government enjoys two-thirds support in the provincial assembly. Ousting a government having a popular mandate would be fraught with many risks. It will be a blow to the federation, and to democracy. It will inevitably provoke a reaction, which even the use of force may not be able to control.

Such an action will multiply the challenges for the federal authorities. They will have to confront and manage several fronts: PTI, the public, Pakhtun nationalists (leaders of the banned Pakhtun Tahaffuz Movement are already in jail) and militants/terrorists. Afghanistan can also be added to this as the hot and volatile border continues to pose serious security challenges for the country. The absence of a representative government will hardly make it easier to counter terrorism and militancy. On the contrary, that task will become tougher by the lack of public support as well as the political chaos that might ensue from such a move. The problems of installing and sustaining a non-representative set-up will also serve as a distraction from efforts to fight terrorism.

If history is any guide ousting opposition-run provincial governments has always ended badly for those taking such action — but above all, for the country. It created political instability and deepened public disaffection in the concerned province. Other than secure temporary control of a province, it did not enable the federal government to achieve its aim of subduing its opponents and eroding their public support.

There is speculation that once the protest march is over the hybrid government might move ahead with its plan of provincial re-engineering to redraw provincial boundaries and create new administrative units. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi recently repeated the call for a ‘system reset’. This may involve legal manoeuvres to sidestep the constitutional requirement to secure the affected province’s prior consent to such changes. How consent of its political ally, the PPP, will be obtained is an open question as the party is vehemently opposed to Sindh’s division. Proceeding with provincial restructuring on which there is no national consensus will lack legitimacy and only divide the country. It will be even more disastrous if it is done on the back of removing the KP government.

If history is not to repeat itself as tragedy, a modus vivendi has to be reached between the government and opposition. At the same time, the government should realise the serious repercussions of toppling a provincial government with a popular mandate. Going down this path will put the country’s future at stake.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, October 5th, 2026