The recent, and perhaps necessary, meeting between the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in Lahore, aimed at mending their visibly-strained alliance, comes as yet another sign of the endemic fragility of coalition politics in Pakistan. For now, both parties have publicly (read carefully) reaffirmed their commitment to collaboration, but the persistent undercurrents continue to loom large. The PPP’s grievances are not new. For months, the party has voiced concerns over being sidelined in key decision-making processes, especially in Punjab, where Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz’s administration has been accused of excluding PPP representatives from significant administrative roles. This mounting frustration became strikingly palpable when Governor Sardar Saleem Haider Khan, a PPP appointee, warned that the entire edifice could collapse within six months if issues remained unaddressed. Although the Sharif government might not acknowledge it, these recurring internal disputes scream out loud the absence of a clearly defined and mutually respected framework for coalition governance. Never in our constitutional history has any political alliance considered carving out any formal mechanisms to ensure equitable power distribution and policy coordination. The PPP being left out in the cold from critical discussions, such as those surrounding the controversial Indus River canal project, exemplifies the pitfalls of these ad hoc arrangements. Moreover, the PML-N’s approach in Punjab has increasingly raised legitimate questions about its avowed commitment to inclusive politics. The increasing centralization of authority strains political relationships and undermines the very democratic principles that facilitate shared governance. An effective coalition requires a bedrock of transparency, mutual respect, and a willingness to share power-principles that, regrettably, seem to be lacking in the current arrangement. The implications of a fractured alliance extend beyond party politics. With PTI already hell-bent on sacrificing the forest for its narrow self-interest, any further addition to political instability would hurt the people more at a time when the economy is already going through dire straits. No matter what the indicators may say, public trust in the institutions and their willingness to address their grievances has touched rock bottom. Surely, those who have always advocated politics as the art of possibility would know better than to undo their alliance. Whether through substantive reforms to smoothen out critical decision-making processes or through continuous dialogue, those responsible for the affairs of a 250-million-strong nation would have to think of a way to break free from this damaging, self-perpetuating cycle. We cannot keep going around in circles. *