In Pakistan’s volatile political theatre, few stories have turned as sharply as that of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf. Once riding a crest of popular momentum, the party now finds itself navigating a deep crisis of identity and purpose. The incarceration of its leadership has not merely created a void at the top; it has laid bare the party’s structural frailty and triggered a fierce internal struggle that could shape Pakistan’s political trajectory for years to come.
Today, PTI stands at a fork in the road: should it persist with its politics of resistance, or pivot toward dialogue and survival? The answer is anything but straightforward, for it exposes deep fractures inside the party and raises broader questions about the sustainability of Pakistan’s democratic framework.
Today, PTI stands at a fork in the road: should it persist with its politics of resistance, or pivot toward dialogue and survival?
At the heart of PTI’s current turmoil is the absence of its central command. The prolonged incarceration of its leader and key aides has severed the lines of communication that once dictated every major decision. Senior leaders now admit there’s a critical gap in guidance. The consequence has been chaos, visible across the party’s ranks and digital channels. The same social media machinery that once sustained PTI’s momentum has become a forum for accusations and loyalty tests. Nowhere has this disconnect been clearer than in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Despite instructions that the provincial budget should not proceed without consultation, the KP government pushed ahead, passing its budget without explicit approval. Even Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, long regarded as fiercely loyal, ultimately moved forward. This marked a profound political signal: practical governance is beginning to eclipse ideological loyalty. Such defiance, however muted, suggests an emerging realism among PTI’s rank and file that a party cannot run on charisma alone, especially when that charisma is locked behind bars.
It’s a stark admission of a deeper truth: PTI was never built to operate without its central figure. Perhaps, the party never fully realised that its leader’s charisma could not perpetually compensate for its underdeveloped structure and absence of long-term survival strategies. When decisions must be made in real time and the figurehead cannot provide instructions, the organisational vacuum becomes impossible to ignore. Yet amidst this chaos, a new faction within PTI has attempted to shift the party’s strategy. Five incarcerated leaders-Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Senator Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Dr Yasmin Rashid, Omar Sarfraz Cheema, and Mian Mahmoodur Rasheed-recently penned a call for “meaningful dialogue” with the government, followed by engagement with “the powers that be.” This is no minor shift. It represents a clear departure from the hardline posture that has defined PTI’s politics since its ouster from government.
Until now, the official party line has been that dialogue should only happen with those holding “real power.” Civilian politicians, the party insisted, lacked the authority to broker meaningful agreements. But the jailed leaders’ statement reveals a recalibration: they propose talks first with political actors and then, if necessary, with other centres of power. It’s a layered approach that acknowledges Pakistan’s complicated realities without directly challenging any institution: a politically cautious, yet pragmatic strategy.
Their stated aim is twofold: to “help steer the country out of its severe crises” and to secure “required political space and relief” for PTI. This language speaks volumes. The resistance strategy, it seems, is no longer sustainable for those enduring the state’s crackdown firsthand. For them, continued isolation could mean political extinction.
This overture, however, has deepened the rift within PTI. Hardliners remain convinced that any step toward dialogue amounts to surrender. Others argue that political expediency is now the only viable route to survival. Even suggesting negotiations has become politically radioactive, subject to accusations of betrayal from inside and outside the party.
The situation has become so fraught that some in the inner circle hint at a “minus Imran” scenario; an idea once unthinkable in PTI circles. The notion, previously whispered only in political drawing rooms, has now entered the mainstream debate. Whether such a scenario is feasible or even legal under Pakistan’s political system remains to be seen. Yet the mere fact that it’s being openly discussed underscores the existential nature of PTI’s crisis.
Meanwhile, the party’s own leaders caution that any attempt by the government to belittle their dialogue offer would “sabotage the entire process.” It’s an important warning. In Pakistan, political overtures often become weapons in an information war. Even a genuine peace proposal can be twisted to paint rivals as weak or compromised. These leaders appear fully aware of this risk, and their statement anticipates potential spoilers from both inside PTI and within the broader political establishment.
Beyond PTI’s internal convulsions lies the bigger question: what does this mean for Pakistan’s political stability? An inclusive dialogue could defuse years of rising political tension and begin to restore a measure of normalcy. But failure, or deliberate sabotage, could plunge the country deeper into uncertainty. The reality remains that, in Pakistan, even the best-laid political negotiations ultimately hinge on the broader institutional environment.
PTI’s future, then, is not simply a matter of internal discipline or loyalty. It has become a litmus test for whether Pakistan’s political system can absorb dissent and opposition through dialogue, or whether it will default once again to the cycles of confrontation and exclusion that have defined so much of the country’s history.
PTI must decide whether to remain an isolated movement tethered to a single figure or evolve into a political party capable of navigating the harsh terrain of Pakistani politics without perpetual conflict. Its choices will not only determine its survival but could set the tone for the country’s democratic path in a time of acute economic strain and social anxiety.
Pakistan’s political landscape has seldom been forgiving to parties that fail to adapt. PTI’s existential reckoning may well prove whether it joins that long list or manages, against the odds, to reinvent itself for the battles ahead.
The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. She tweets @DureAkram