In a country like Pakistan, where the power structure has grown increasingly complex and unpredictable, making political predictions is no simple task. However, in the current climate of intense political division, suggesting that Imran Khan, Asif Zardari, and Nawaz Sharif might sit together at one table seems highly unlikely. Yet, as we all know, politics is a game of possibilities. It is not just a struggle for public rights but also a way to climb the ladder to power and influence, and sometimes even a route to prison. It is about winning the people's hearts. When this game of possibilities becomes clouded by stubbornness, ego, and bias, avoiding its damaging effects becomes impossible. This explains why hatred has deeply embedded itself in our national political atmosphere. In this deeply negative political climate, however, history presents us with a different narrative when we look back.
I remember that after the 1990 elections, which saw the worst use of state machinery, the Islamic Democratic alliance was formed the government, with several names in the race for the prime minister’s post, including Mohammad Khan Junejo, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, and Mian Nawaz Sharif. Ultimately, Mian Nawaz Sharif succeeded in being nominated as Prime Minister. During his first term, he was presented by the establishment as a fresh candidate to challenge Benazir Bhutto. Before this, he had already been elected twice as the Chief Minister of Punjab. After securing a vote of confidence in the new National Assembly, Mian Nawaz Sharif spoke about tough accountability for the opposition, giving the impression that the state would take harsh action against the PPP's two years of governance. Many PPP leaders and officials were arrested at the time.
However, in the very first assembly session, Benazir Bhutto congratulated Nawaz Sharif and expressed her willingness to engage in talks. She stated that Pakistan needed a two-party democratic system to address the dangers and crises threatening the country’s democratic and constitutional structure, and she was ready to sit down for negotiations. But, of course, those who had helped Nawaz Sharif come to power, along with his advisors, advised him against reconciliation and encouraged confrontation instead.
Imran Khan declared both his political rivals and the establishment as his enemies, introducing a new form of popular politics where opponents were labeled as enemies
When Nawaz Sharif was ousted from power twice in the 1990s, and after General Pervez Musharraf arrested him and imposed martial law, he realised Benazir Bhutto’s offer had been the right path. However, it took him nearly fifteen years to reach the Charter of Democracy. During this time, the country paid a heavy price in terms of terrorism and economic instability. The country also suffered an image crisis, largely due to the influence of the Hameed Gul jihadi lobby. If Musharraf hadn’t received financial support for fighting the war on terror, the country would have struggled even more to recover.
The Charter of Democracy was signed on May 14, 2006. During the following two decades, through various tactics. However, political parties sent a significant message to the establishment by unanimously passing the Eighteenth Amendment. Later, through the courts, a model emerged where prime ministers were sent home. The establishment, disappointed with the political maturity of the country's two major political parties, attempted to foster a new political party, which led to the rise of the PTI and Imran Khan as a major player in national politics in the 2013 elections. This plunged the country into a political confrontation even worse than in the 1990s. However, the most significant crisis began when Imran Khan’s conflict with the establishment escalated, and the opposition, seizing the opportunity, ousted him through a vote of no-confidence on April 10, 2022. In retaliation, Imran Khan declared both his political rivals and the establishment as his enemies, introducing a new form of popular politics where opponents were labeled as enemies. The fight spread from the streets and TV screens to social media, with many Pakistanis living in the U.S. and Europe joining the battle alongside Imran Khan. For the first time, the establishment faced severe hate on social media. This situation was a nightmare for those who created the Fifth Generation Warfare.
The call by PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique to rid the country of remote-controlled democracy by bringing together all political parties and stakeholders is nothing short of a slogan
A journalist who supports Imran Khan described the situation by saying, "Imran Khan is not under the control of this state, he is not controlled by this hybrid system, and he doesn’t even understand it. The media, judiciary, bureaucracy, police, FIA, NAB, anti-corruption agencies, government, and establishment, all of them are at a loss about how to manage him. Even while sitting in jail, he has shaken the entire system. He challenges all of them. He speaks openly, without fear or hesitation. After being imprisoned for over a year and a half, he should have been begging for mercy, but instead he says, ‘You can keep me in jail for 150 years, I will never beg for mercy, I will never make a deal. I will only seek justice in the courts. I am innocent, and I will prove my innocence in court.’ They can't do anything to him. This man is unlike anyone else; he is beyond the state's ability to control."
I don’t fully agree with this individual. Occasionally, confirmed reports have emerged about indirect contacts between Imran Khan and the establishment during his time in jail. Now, after the arrest of General Faiz Hameed and his court-martial, Imran Khan seems to feel even more vulnerable. After the failed two attempts of storm Islamabad, the formation of a negotiation committee by Imran Khan to initiate talks is not a trivial matter. Under the Speaker’s supervision, government and PTI negotiation teams have been sitting down.
In this context, the call by PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique to rid the country of remote-controlled democracy by bringing together all political parties and stakeholders is nothing short of a slogan. Similarly, Rana Sanaullah’s statement that if Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, and Asif Zardari sit together, they can resolve seventy years of issues in seventy days, presents an unconventional perspective.
Afterward, when PTI’s Sher Afzal Marwat was asked on a TV show if he agreed with Rana Sanaullah’s suggestion for a meeting between Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, and Zardari, he responded, “This should happen now. We have no other option but to sit together. We’ve tried unsuccessfully to stage sit-ins in Islamabad twice, we’ve won elections but weren’t allowed to form a government. Now, the only option left is for the three big leaders to sit together and define the rules of the game.”
If the three leaders today decide to remain entrenched in their stubbornness and ego rather than meeting, many more years and decades may be wasted
In this context, two major questions arise:
1) Will these three major leaders, as per the wishes of their senior party members and in the broader national interest, sit under one roof to end remote-controlled democracy? This is complicated by their individual histories.
2) Will the largest power stakeholders in the country allow these three leaders to meet, or not?
Let’s try to find separate answers to these questions.
First, let’s consider Asif Zardari. When efforts were underway to form the current government and Shahbaz Sharif was being nominated as Prime Minister, Zardari had said he was open to talks with PTI. Since then, he has expressed a willingness for dialogue multiple times. As for Mian Nawaz Sharif, he also has a history of engaging in dialogue. When he was about to become Prime Minister for the third time in 2013, despite the electoral bitterness, he visited Imran Khan at Bani Gala to inquire about his health after he had fallen from the stage and been injured. But will Imran Khan, having lost much over the past three years—having been defeated in elections, jailed, and suffered hardship—be able to rise above his ego, hatred, and prejudice and engage in talks? I don’t see this happening, because the desire to always win has historically been an enemy of dialogue or reconciliation. Ego and stubbornness prevent sitting down with an opponent, and discussions are often avoided for fear of losing in front of the opponent.
In a political structure like Pakistan’s, where remote-controlled democracy prevails, it has never been possible to establish a government by suppressing all political parties and the establishment. However, history has given politicians opportunities to reduce the influence of powerful establishment and anti-political state elements through institutional reforms. But these opportunities have been squandered, except for during the formation of the Constitution and the Eighteenth Amendment.
Once again, history presents a new possibility for politicians. If the three leaders today decide to remain entrenched in their stubbornness and ego rather than meeting, many more years and decades may be wasted. And when, after wasting so much time, they finally try to come together for a new Charter of Democracy or Charter of Economy, the forces that cause damage will have entered the scene, and many new wounds will have been inflicted on the unity of the country.