Daily Times

Why does the PTI seem to prioritize the support of foreign players, despite previously accusing them of meddling in domestic affairs? Why is the PTI’s senior leadership so immersed in it?

What does this immaturity reveal about their approach to national sovereignty?

Does this not create a paradox where the quest for “Haqeeqi Azaadi” undermines the very stability and welfare of the people they claim to represent?

The trend of externalizing internal political battles is neither new nor exclusive to PTI. However, the former ruling party’s reliance on foreign lobbying has highlighted a troubling contradiction in their stance. A party that once championed slogans like “Haqeeqi Azaadi” and “Absolutely Not”-emphasizing Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence-now seeks external intervention to resolve its internal political struggles. These apparent U-turns show a stark contrast between the party’s rhetoric and its actions, leaving many to question its commitment to national sovereignty.

Equally concerning is the party’s track record regarding the country’s economic interests. After losing a vote of confidence, PTI’s leaders began actively advocating for Pakistan to default on her international debt obligations. They even went so far as to lobby against the renewal of the IMF program. These actions were more about playing political games than about safeguarding Pakistan’s economic future and they risked deepening the country’s fiscal crisis. PTI’s protest at the IMF headquarters in Washington was nothing short of political theatre with little regard for its long-term impact on Pakistan’s credibility on the world stage. The governance disruptions caused by this party have far more significant implications. According to Dr. Caldwell’s report, the political unrest severely disrupted legislative and administrative functions in Islamabad which resulted in delays in key policymaking initiatives. Notably, agreements with the IMF were delayed which worsened Pakistan’s economic uncertainty. These delays coupled with the escalating protests further hampered the country’s ability to navigate her fiscal challenges, deepening the economic crisis. Another example of this political recklessness was the opposition’s protests during high-profile diplomatic events. Opposition called for protests at critical times such as during the visit of the Belarusian President. This move not only disrupted key diplomatic engagements but also drew international attention to Pakistan’s internal divisions at a time when the country needed to project a unified front. For a party with a substantial stake in the nation’s politics, their decision to engage in these destabilizing tactics reflected poorly on Pakistan’s image as a responsible and mature nation.

After losing a vote of confidence, PTI’s leaders began actively advocating for Pakistan to default on her international debt obligations.

Dr. Caldwell’s research also identifies the role of disinformation during these protests which highlighted how social media played a central role in amplifying false narratives. Misinformation, including doctored visuals and exaggerated casualty reports, exacerbated societal divides and intensified global perceptions of instability. This disinformation campaign not only damaged Pakistan’s internal social cohesion but also undermined her international reputation, particularly in diplomatic engagements with countries like China and Belarus. Caldwell’s findings underscore the damage that misinformation and political violence can do to a country’s global standing, as well as its internal stability. Pakistan’s political crisis is not solely the result of opposition protests, though. It is also exacerbated by the way the media has participated in amplifying these divisive actions. Mainstream media outlets, by reporting on trivial issues like foreign tweets or protests organized abroad, often contribute to the worsening of national discourse. Sensationalist coverage of such issues fuels public polarization and diverts attention away from critical matters.

In any civilized democracy, political parties are expected to act responsibly by balancing their pursuit of power with their duty to protect the nation’s interests. Yet, in Pakistan, the actions of politicians have shown that some leaders are willing to go to any length to further their political agenda-even if it means undermining national unity and foreign relations. For the sake of Pakistan’s future, it is crucial that political leaders prioritize the interests of the state over personal or party-centric agendas. Only then can the country navigate her challenges without sacrificing her sovereignty or credibility on the world stage. Only then can the paradox of “Haqeeqi Azaadi” be resolved!

(Concluded)

The writer is a graduate of QAU, PhD scholar and a freelance writer and can be reached at fa7263125@gmail.com