Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has threatened to launch a second round of agitation against the government. He has also predicted fresh elections this year if a judicial commission is formed to probe alleged rigging in the 2013 elections. The government on its part is holding Imran Khan responsible for the present political deadlock. So the imbroglio remains unresolved. After the last set of negotiations by the two sides, the correspondence between them reveals two different arguments have been put forward by the parties. Every time Imran talks about a probe into the 2013 elections, he himself declares the preconceived outcome of the inquiry. The PTI asserts that rigging was definitely done by the government and the commission has no other option except to prove this allegation. It is this predetermined approach of the PTI that is the real bone of contention. It is also a fact that all the accusations levelled by the PTI against the PML-N government and its alleged abettors have yet to be proved. Even the recent probe into electoral rigging of various constituencies did not present favourable results for the PTI. Still the PTI is repeating its mantra and has become more rigid and uncompromising. Initially, Imran demanded an enquiry into election rigging of only four constituencies, but later his focus became an overall probe into the whole election process with just one agenda: proving rigging charges against the PML-N. On the other hand, the government is pleading that a commission can be formed within hours if only Imran shows some rationality, flexibility, and softens his terms and conditions. The government is ready to form such a commission, which will probe whether there was any systematic and planned rigging. So far, election-related errors and anomalies have been found but the overall rigging charge has not been proved. So the dialogue process shuts even before it starts due to a dispute on the basic point that is yet to be proved and which is the basis of the whole exercise in the first place. The situation is aggravating due to the stubborn attitude of the PTI chief, who is all set to dislodge the present regime on the basis of unproved allegations. There are two possible explanations for this political scenario. First, the character of Imran is built on such lines that once he has intuited that elections were rigged, he could not change this perception. According to Imran, whatever he has decided is true and nothing can change his approach. He can sacrifice everything if his point of view is not accepted. Secondly, to retreat at this stage will be political death for Imran’s career. The PTI has put everything at stake for achieving its goals. Under this political strategy, the PTI wants to keep intact its self-respect. Imran has not even been shy of seeking the help of the ‘third umpire’. The government has been fortunate to have survived this onslaught from the PTI despite numerous crises and some of the worst examples of bad governance. Instead of indulging in attacks and counterattacks, both the PML-N and PTI are required to resolve this political deadlock. The PTI should sacrifice its stance in the larger interests of the democratic system and the country. The PTI should wait and build its case by establishing a role model of good governance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. If it sticks to the politics of agitation only, the country will be the ultimate sufferer. Imran’s party should act as a strong opposition to the government in parliament and not on the streets. The PML-N should also reconsider its policies. It should not provide reasons to the masses to be a part of the politics of agitation. It should mend its ways and follow its election manifesto for which it has been mandated. Both parties are required to revisit their policies in the larger national interest. The PTI should shun the politics of agitation and the PML-N should work on tackling the country’s crises. If agreement can be reached on a judicial commission, the result of its investigation cannot be pre-determined. If not, PTI should pursue its grievances before the election tribunals. *