In light of Mr Chatta’s startling confession of orchestrating rigging across the Rawalpindi division that turned 13 winning candidates into losers, the PML(N) Chairman should have tasked a team of stalwarts to strategize a response. Some may have advocated vehemently countering his statement while others may have advised against it. Those in favour must have cited PML(N)’s alleged benefit from the rigging and proposed deploying time-tested strategies of character assassinations labelling Mr Chatta as a lunatic, attributing his claims to a mental breakdown induced by impending retirement pressures. His role during polling and result compilation should be dismissed. Highlighting his affiliation with PTI to portray his statement as a desperate bid for future political relevance. Demanding scrutiny of his character and family, amplifying any moral or ethical lapses. Intensifying the scrutiny of his religious beliefs and finances, exposing any irregularities, investigating his foreign connections and properties, challenging the absence of concrete evidence supporting his claims, appealing for verifiable proof, leveraging public scepticism by framing the confessions as a politically motivated ploy to discredit PML(N) and manipulate opinion. Portraying PML(N) as a victim of political persecution, emphasizing its commitment to fair elections and democratic principles to undermine Mr Chatta’s credibility, create doubts about his confession, and reinforce PML(N)’s innocence in alleged election rigging. Concluding that by discrediting Mr. Chatta and casting doubt on his motives and credibility, PML(N) can effectively undermine his confession and protect the party’s integrity. Opting for an impartial investigation, the party would uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law. In contrast to this knee-jerk response, some sane members may have proposed to not counter the confession arguing that the party should emphasize that the conduct of elections falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission and the interim government, not the party. Therefore, engaging in a defence against Mr Chatta’s confession could inadvertently associate the party with the alleged rigging. Any attempt to discredit Mr Chatta may backfire, as his role in the election process was substantial, as evidenced by his involvement in pre-election procedures and his control over logistical operations, as highlighted in a recent interview. Character assassination or personal attacks on Mr Chatta could prove counterproductive, especially considering the attendance of interim government officials at his daughter’s wedding, suggesting a level of camaraderie that may undermine our allegations against him. The party must consider the reactions of other political parties. If PML(N) stand alone in countering Mr Chatta’s statements, it may suggest to the public that we are attempting to protect our interests rather than seek truth and justice. We should advocate for a fair and transparent inquiry to uncover the truth, distancing ourselves from any allegations of wrongdoing. This approach would not only demonstrate the party’s commitment to upholding democratic principles but also position it favourably if Mr Chatta provides irrefutable evidence of rigging, allowing us to shift the blame onto the establishment and safeguard our party’s reputation. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the chairman of PML(N) who is visionary, principled and upright, would have made his decision in favour of justice fair play and ethical leadership arguing that countering Mr Chatta’s statements may appear politically expedient in the short term, it risks compromising the party’s integrity and commitment to upholding democratic values. Therefore, he would lean towards advocating for a fair and transparent inquiry to uncover the truth behind Mr. Chatta’s confession. This decision aligns with the party’s core values of accountability and fairness, demonstrating the public party’s unwavering dedication to ensuring free and fair elections. Opting for an impartial investigation, the party would uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law, regardless of the potential short-term political implications this decision would reinforce the party’s moral standing, serve the best interests of the nation and promote transparency and integrity in the electoral process. Expressing his commitment to fostering a political environment where truth and justice prevail, even if it means facing temporary challenges or setbacks. Acknowledging that most of the parties are protesting against rigging and even PPP has adopted a cautious approach, which would leave PML(N) as the only party countering the confession and therefore would be termed as the beneficiary. Therefore, his decision would prioritize the long-term integrity and credibility of the party, paving the way for a stronger and more accountable democracy in Pakistan. The PML(N) leader, who was a beneficiary of the alleged rigging and stands to lose significant political capital and power if an independent inquiry reveals the truth, might lean towards countering Mr Chatta’s statement. He might say that the party’s decision to counter this statement would be driven by a strategic imperative to protect the party’s political interests, preserve its power, mitigate reputational damage, and uphold party unity in the face of mounting challenges. He would argue that the party’s primary concern would be to safeguard the party’s political interests and maintain a majority in Punjab and the centre. Losing 13 seats as a result of genuine inquiry would pave the way to lose many more seats elsewhere in the country which were won by PML(N) due to rigging. This, he would argue, will significantly weaken the party’s position in both Punjab and the centre, paving the way for PTI to form governments in these key regions. The party would be able to prevent any independent inquiry, which would protect the party’s grip on power, and any political upheaval and forestall the tarnishing of the party’s reputation and credibility. It would preserve public trust, maintain the party’s image as a legitimate political force, avoid the repercussions of being implicated in electoral fraud to weather off any potential political storm and maintain the party’s position of influence. The stark irony lies in the PML(N) leadership’s vehement decision to counter the confession, paradoxically ensnaring themselves as the prime beneficiaries of the alleged electoral wrongdoing they so ardently dispute. In a frenzied attempt to counter the confession, the entire echelon of PML(N) inadvertently spotlights itself as the sole profiteer, tarnishing its integrity. This zealous, impulsive rebuttal not only erodes the party’s once-stalwart image of justice, fairness, and transparency but also paints it as a defender of the very rigging it purports to condemn. Caught in a desperate power struggle, PML(N) appears to forsake political, economic, and financial stability, overshadowing the electorate’s will with its ambitions. Contrary to its proclaimed values, PML(N) sidestepped the demand for truth through an independent investigation led by a globally recognized figure and inclusive of nominees from all contesting parties, a step that could restore faith, ensure impartiality, and guide the nation back to a path of stability and integrity. The writer is a former press secretary to the president; former press minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France and former MD (SRBC).