Farhan Ahmad
The political crisis unfolding in Pakistan, with PTI once again marching on Islamabad under the leadership of KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, is a stark reminder of a deeper malaise that has plagued the nation for years. It is not merely a protest but reflection that the fault lines that have historically strained the balance between provincial autonomy and federal authority. What we are witnessing now is the culmination of a trend that, if unchecked, could lead to irreparable damage to the state’s ability to govern effectively.
To fully understand the gravity of the current situation, we must revisit its antecedents. In 2014, during the infamous dharna led by Imran Khan, then KP Chief Minister Pervez Khattak led PTI workers from his province to the capital. That was the first instance where a provincial government actively confronted the center. This wasn’t just a protest but a challenge to the federal government’s writ and it set a dangerous precedent. Today, under Gandapur’s leadership, we see a similar defiance, but the stakes are even higher.
Ali Amin Gandapur’s language and tone in recent weeks are telling. His open threats of confrontation signals a deepening of the divide between the provincial and federal authorities. Gandapur’s rhetoric is not just aimed at the federal government but challenges the very state institutions that uphold the rule of law. Gandapur’s statements to hold the Punjab police accountable, should they act against PTI workers, are equally inflammatory. This sort of rhetoric pushes the boundaries of acceptable political discourse, turning governance into a battleground where provincial leaders are openly defying the center with threats of violence and coercion.
The federal government’s response, too, must be scrutinized. Why has it resorted to blocking roads and closing Islamabad to such protests? The answer lies partly in the strategic timing chosen by PTI. These protests are not happening in a vacuum. This march, just like the 2014 sit-in, coincides with critical diplomatic engagements. In 2014, the dharna coincided with a visit by Chinese dignitaries, affecting crucial development agreements under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Today, foreign dignitaries are due in Islamabad for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meetings and other high-level engagements. PTI’s decision to march at such times puts the federal government in an untenable position. The federal government must safeguard Pakistan’s international image while dealing with domestic unrest. Thus, the federal authorities are left with little choice but to block entry into Islamabad to prevent any disruption to these critical international meetings.
However, one must also question why PTI resorts to such tactics repeatedly. The party seems to have found a successful model in challenging the federal government through street power and mass mobilization. By invoking popular protests, PTI places itself as the voice of the “people” against a government it claims lacks legitimacy. But this tactic carries significant risks. The persistent defiance of federal authority by a provincial government like KP sets a troubling precedent for Pakistan’s federation. If one province can openly challenge the center, what is to stop others from following suit? This erosion of central authority could lead to a breakdown in the very governance structure that holds the nation together.
This brings us to a broader historical lesson. Pakistan’s history is replete with examples where provincial versus federal tensions have led to disastrous outcomes. The most stark reminder is the secession of East Pakistan in 1971, when a failure to address political grievances led to the disintegration of the country. While today’s situation is not comparable in scale, the underlying principle remains the same. When provinces feel disenfranchised or marginalized and when they defy federal authority, the integrity of the state is at risk.
Moreover, by continuously resorting to such protests, PTI risks normalizing the idea that street power and confrontation are legitimate forms of political expression. This is dangerous for any democracy. It creates a political culture where negotiation, dialogue and parliamentary processes are undermined and where groups believe they can extract concessions by threatening the state with chaos. The long-term impact of this on Pakistan’s democratic institutions cannot be understated.
What, then, is the solution? The federal government must recognize that the use of containers and roadblocks is not a sustainable response. These tactics only serve to deepen the resentment and embolden groups like PTI to present themselves as the victims of state repression. On the other hand, PTI must come to terms with the fact that challenging the state’s writ, particularly through the use of provincial resources, is neither sustainable nor productive. The party must return to parliamentary processes to air its grievances.
A comprehensive framework for managing such protests is the need of time. One that balances the right to protest with the need to maintain law and order. Perhaps, a return to the principles of cooperative federalism, where provinces and the center engage in constructive dialogue, is the only way forward. But for that to happen, both sides must de-escalate their rhetoric and commit to the democratic process.
The current situation, if allowed to continue unchecked, risks plunging Pakistan into deeper instability. At a time when the country faces multiple external and internal challenges, ranging from economic crises to security threats, this kind of infighting between the provinces and the center is not just sad but a recipe for disaster.
farhanahmadsdq@hotmail.com