Even though some days have passed and strict measures have been implemented, the controversy over the dissolution of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government and the imposition of governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP)does not seem to have settled; in fact, it is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
One major issue that this development has brought forth is the role political parties have played in facilitating martial law in Pakistan. In other words, why and how have political parties sided with the country’s powerful military establishment when the latter has been bent on undermining the role of the former?
Although all major parties have allied with the military establishment to survive and gain power, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has consistently walked a tightrope. On the one hand, the party and many of its leaders have strongly opposed the domineering role of the military establishment in the country’s domestic and foreign policies—paying a heavy price, from the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the disqualification of Yousaf Raza Gilani in 2012. On the other hand, the party has frequently surprised observers by siding with that very same military establishment during crucial political turnarounds.
In the latest altercation over developments in KP, the chief of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), Maulana Fazlur Rehman, stated that the imposition of governor’s rule in the province was orchestrated to sideline the opposition, the PTI, from provincial governance. Maulana Fazlur Rehman also pointed out that if a deteriorating security situation was the primary reason for removing the PTI-led government in KP, it raises the question of why the government of Sarfaraz Bugti in Balochistan is not being removed, given that the security situation there is arguably worse.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman highlighted another underreported dynamic regarding the political shifts in KP. While media reports indicate that both a state of emergency and governor’s rule have been imposed, few have clarified the precise legal distinction between the two. The JUI-F chief explained that while governor’s rule applies directly to KP, an emergency has been specifically enforced in the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which were merged with KP in 2018. He noted that an emergency was also extended to several other districts under the pretext that they, like the former FATA, face grave security threats. However, the Maulana asserted that these emergency measures are driven not by security crises, but rather by the federal government’s desire to exploit and extract the region’s natural resources.
Fazlur Rehman qualified his stance—a move that seemingly angered the Interior Minister and the Governor of KP—by arguing that if security were the true justification, then “you were taking a harsh beating in Kurram Agency and Orakzai Agency; why are they left out of the emergency?” Both Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi and KP Governor Faisal Karim Kundi lashed out at the JUI-F chief. Naqvi claimed that “the head of a party is extremely upset over being denied a role in the new setup in KP and failing to secure the governorship,” while Kundi remarked, “I tell him that the KP government was formed without you, and it will continue to run without you as well.”
This ongoing political feud has exposed the motivations of these leaders, shedding light on the broader, behind-the-scenes factors that likely drove the military establishment and its allied coalition government—comprising the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the PPP—to oust the PTI and impose both emergency rule and governor’s rule.
This argument doesn’t appear far-fetched when viewed against the backdrop of the country’s struggling economy and recent statements from political leaders. Crucially, the Interior Minister recently emphasised that the nation cannot afford political disruptions while it actively attempts to stabilise its financial system.
It is more important, however, to take note of the tacit acknowledgements made by these leaders regarding how they have shored up the military’s influence in the country’s politics. The Interior Minister—whose words carry immense weight given his reputation as the military’s man—savaged the JUI-F chief, stating that “these are the same politicians who remained in politics for decades with the support of the establishment, and this politician even relied on the establishment to arrange air tickets for the members of his party.”
Even the Maulana himself highlighted the role of the PPP in facilitating the emergency and governor’s rule in KP. He argued that while the PPP claims to be the vanguard of democracy in Pakistan, it has unfortunately often played a key role in dissolving governments, dating back to the 1970s.
While the PML-N has spearheaded the recent campaign against the PTI and its administration in KP, the PPP has played a decidedly double-edged role in the country’s politics. On the one hand—as pointed out by the Maulana—the party claims to be pro-democracy and advocates for a diminished political footprint for the military establishment. On the other hand, it has repeatedly participated in dismantling provincial administrations. In fact, President Asif Ali Zardari has achieved a political “hat-trick” by signing the proclamation to suspend the PTI-led provincial government in KP.
Zardari as the President previously authorised federal takeovers in other parts of the country. He was serving his first term as president when governor’s rule was imposed in Punjab in February 2009, following the brief disqualification of the PML-N provincial leadership. Later, in January 2013, he signed the executive summary to enforce governor’s rule in Balochistan after Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf advised the move in response to severe security crises and targeted bombings in Quetta.
In the case of KP as well, the PPP attempted to present itself as a mediator that opposed dissolving the elected government, preferring negotiations to resolve pending issues. However, once the decision was finalised and emergency and governor’s rule were imposed in the province, party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto defended the executive action on the floor of the National Assembly. He accused the PTI leadership of effectively carrying out a “political suicide attack” on its own KP government by deliberately refusing to cooperate with the federal government’s anti-terrorism efforts.
Notwithstanding the challenges facing the PTI-led government in KP, it remains a stark reality that the military establishment has once again utilised civilian political parties to advance its agenda and subsequently leveraged those same parties to justify its actions. This is tragic. The political parties that frequently lament their lack of authority to shape the country’s domestic and foreign policies actively participate in further weakening their own standing by aligning with the military establishment’s agenda-driven decisions. By doing so, they not only diminish their potential institutional power but also erode their legitimacy among the general public.
Consequently, it is no surprise that despite the widely criticized performance of the Imran Khan-led federal government from 2018 to 2022 and the shortcomings of the PTI-led provincial administration in KP, the PTI appears to have retained a robust support base. This enduring popularity exists largely because the party, at least for now, has maintained a firm stance against the military establishment’s political overreach. Other political parties would do well to reflect on this reality.
Arun Anand, Indian Affairs Editor to Blitz is an author and columnist who has penned more than a dozen books. He contributes columns on geopolitics to leading Indian and international publications and research journals. Follow him on ‘X’
@ArunAnandLive