RECENT events are another reminder of how elusive political stability remains in the country. The confrontation between PTI and the government escalated after an effort at dialogue between them ended in mutual recriminations.
PTI pressed ahead with its protest march that the federal government tried to stop by threatening to oust the KP government through imposition of governor’s rule. The usual wave of arrests of party activists preceded the opposition’s march. Now the Shehbaz Sharif government has imposed an emergency and governor’s rule in KP in a move that is likely inflame sentiment in the province and exacerbate the situation.
This is a rerun of a familiar script, except it is set against a backdrop of deepening authoritarianism. It also marks a dangerous phase in confrontational politics with the federal authorities and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government at loggerheads. Inflammatory rhetoric by federal ministers was matched by fiery speeches from KP’s Chief Minister Sohail Afridi.
Other than the brief interlude of dialogue, the government responded to the opposition protest by its usual mix of coercion, threats, and incendiary statements. It took the consequential decision to impose an emergency in KP and bring the province under federal control. The cabinet has approved this while parliament has been convened to sanction the move.
The most egregious use of coercion was the reported abductions and incommunicado detention of over eight PTI MPs, including three members of the National Assembly. Using coercive means to manage the opposition has only reinforced the government’s slide into authoritarianism, which has resulted in the country’s democratic decline. This has been evidenced in the past couple of years in actions taken against the opposition and other critics: banning public gatherings, breaking up protest demonstrations, arresting opposition supporters, raiding homes of political leaders, filing cases against them, policing the media, imposing internet restrictions and criminalising free speech. Another telling indicator of democratic regression is the undermining of judicial independence by controversial amendments and defiance of court orders. The erosion of institutions meant to check executive power has contributed to growing autocratisation. The shell of democracy remains, but it is increasingly hollowed out.
The aim of these actions is to tighten the government’s grip on the political system and the country. But it does not make the government strong. It signals weakness, not confidence. Some argue there is nothing new in this phase of repression, that it continues a familiar tradition and borrows from a well-worn playbook. Previous civilian governments, too, were guilty of undemocratic conduct, intolerance of opposition, jailing rivals on trumped-up charges, marginalising parliament, curbing press freedom, and undermining judicial independence. All of this is true. But the scale and scope of the repressive measures today go beyond anything seen under a civilian government before.
Using coercive measures and undermining institutions do not produce stability.
Public space is being encroached upon in an unprecedented manner. Because there is more to control in the digital era, especially social media, the present government has gone much further than its civilian predecessors in imposing digital space curbs and censorship and micromanaging the electronic media.
The rationale offered by spokesmen of the hybrid government, when pressed to justify such measures, is that they are necessary for political stability. But does the veneer of calm imposed by force bring stability? On the contrary, it is a recipe for instability. Coercion does not produce stability. It deepens polarisation, erodes the social contract, divides the country further, and fuels uncertainty. The opposition represents a large section of society, has a significant parliamentary presence, and runs the government in KP. To suppress and demonise it does not promote stability. It guarantees the continuation of political confrontation.
The economic cost of relentless political tensions and government-opposition conflict is plain to see. Frequent shutdowns and blockade of cities hit businesses hard. It vitiates the business climate. This at a time when recovery has yet to take hold, economic growth remains anaemic and stabilisation is still fragile. Jittery investors hold back, deterred by the spectre of turmoil and unrest. Celebrating every tranche received from the IMF doesn’t obscure the reality that the economy is yet to embark on the path to sustainable growth. Meanwhile, all recent surveys — Gallup, Ipsos — show declining public confidence in economic conditions and pessimism about the country’s economic future. Clearly, the country’s economic problems cannot be tackled in a politically volatile environment.
Political stability requires a reset on several fronts. It needs the creation of a peaceful and predictable political environment resting on a truce and mutual accommodation between the government and opposition. A divided and polarised country cannot be stable. Genuine dialogue is needed that is aimed at a lasting modus vivendi, not driven by short-term expediency to stop the next protest march. It also means the government relenting in its inhumane treatment of PTI leader Imran Khan in defiance of court orders. The recent talks were doomed when the government wasn’t even willing to allow opposition leaders to meet Khan for consultations on the negotiations. It also remains unwilling to grant him his entitlement under the law. Such an attitude cannot form the basis for serious negotiations, let alone a political settlement.
Political stability is also achieved by governing the country inclusively by consensus and not by excluding other political actors who command substantial electoral and public support. A ‘winner-takes-all’ approach has long characterised Pakistan’s politics. This has rested on the mistaken assumption that the party that wins an election (almost always on a minority vote and, in the case of the present government, in a disputed poll) is the ‘sole representative’ of the people. This stance leads to inherently unstable and exclusionary governance. Unilateral rule not only erodes democracy; it also undermines effective governance. The country’s federal nature makes inclusive governance essential. The centre must work with and not against opposition-run provinces.
Political stability is also built by ensuring an environment where the rule of law prevails. It involves strengthening institutions and not weakening them in pursuit of ephemeral ‘control’. Strong institutions ensure predictability — the bedrock of stability. They provide the checks and balances that are essential to prevent the abuse of power and protect fundamental rights and civil liberties.
To those who believe stability can be achieved by ousting an elected provincial government, concentrating power and discarding democratic freedoms, Pakistan’s history stands testimony to how disastrous that path has been for the country and its people.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, October 12th, 2026