Although the phrase ‘the country is at a critical crossroads’ has been overused to the point of losing its impact, it is now more appropriate than ever, given the current circumstances.
No doubt, the political and economic conditions of the country are undeniably dire. To deny this reality is either a display of profound insensitivity or an acknowledgement of one’s role in bringing the situation to this critical juncture. Public unrest and disillusionment have reached unprecedented levels, and in the absence of hope, these sentiments inevitably fuel destructive impulses.
Nations can endure wars and catastrophic natural disasters as long as hope and trust remain intact. However, when these pillars are eroded, public disillusionment and disengagement emerge as greater threats to political and state systems than any external enemy. This disillusionment is palpably evident in the daily lives of many Pakistanis, reflected in the struggles they face despite the country’s abundant resources—a situation exacerbated by a flawed state system and poor governance.
It Is now glaringly obvious that the country cannot continue under the political system of ‘one does the deed, another pays the price,’ a system that has persisted for 76 years. The game that has been played in the past can no longer be sustained, even with the crutches provided by international powers and military alliances. In today’s global context, the establishment cannot simply align with one power bloc or maintain balance by leveraging support from both the East and the West. The only viable path forward lies in national reconciliation and the re-establishment of the supremacy of the people and the Constitution. A strong military and dictatorship, devoid of public support, are as fragile as a sandcastle in the face of international power dynamics. In contrast, states governed by true democracy and the rule of law not only survive but thrive, even when surrounded by enemies and hostile states.
If any political party or politician seeks to engage with the establishment individually, it will only be a pursuit of a share of power, leading to the same outcomes witnessed by Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, and Imran Khan today
However, those who wish to have their cake and eat it too are attempting to turn the ‘national dialogue’, (proposed and advocated by the veteran politician Mahmood Khan Achakzai), into an endless debate, raising questions about whether to negotiate with political parties, with the establishment, or with one over the other, and on what basis.
The current situation calls for a sincere national dialogue aimed at restoring power to its rightful owners: the 250 million people of this country. Conversely, negotiations solely between political parties or between a single political party and the establishment will be meaningless, as no political party currently possesses the authority to make significant political decisions. Moreover, this conflict is not merely between one political party and another; various political parties have, at different times, merely served as junior partners in the establishment’s power struggles and opposed the rivals just to get close to the establishment motivated by the lure of power rather than ideological differences.
In the current scenario, if any political party or politician seeks to engage with the establishment individually, it will only be a pursuit of a share of power, leading to the same outcomes witnessed by Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, and Imran Khan today, and what will inevitably happen to Shahbaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, or Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in the future. Such behind-the-scenes negotiations have already resulted in the imprisonment of a major political leader, while the leaders of two so-called ruling political parties are effectively confined within the Prime Minister’s House and the Presidency.
The only viable path forward is for politicians to unite as a single stakeholder and confront the establishment based on its unaccountable 76-year rule, which has led to the division of the country, with half becoming Bangladesh and the remainder mired in a poly-crisis, incapable of bearing the burden of further establishment rule.
Achakzai’s approach does not involve secret meetings at Gate No. 4 or in the basements of safe houses. Instead, he advocates for a national dialogue that includes all stakeholders to liberate politics from the establishment's undue influence and restore the people's right to govern
This is the critical distinction between the idea of negotiations of Khawaja Asif and others with the establishment and those of Mehmood Khan Achakzai. Achakzai’s approach does not involve secret meetings at Gate No. 4 or in the basements of safe houses. Instead, he advocates for a national dialogue that includes all stakeholders to liberate politics from the establishment's undue influence and restore the people's right to govern. In his unique style, Achakzai emphasises that saving the country requires shaping this process into a national reconciliation, where all parties sincerely repent for their past transgressions and commit to not repeating them in the future.
Achakzai is not pursuing this role as a political opportunity but as a national responsibility, even at great personal and political cost. Few political leaders of Achakzai’s stature remain on the current political horizon, capable of leading such a serious political process. If the establishment has not resolved to pursue a “if not us, then no one” approach, they should seize this opportunity to save the country and secure the future of its 250 million citizens.
In this regard, Sardar Akhtar Mengal’s resignation from the National Assembly should serve as a wake-up call.
Imran Khan must also realise that bargaining with the establishment for a share of power in the current context will likely result in a future even worse than his present. For political figures, assuming power with limited authority in the present situation would amount to political suicide. In the future, Imran Khan, lacking control over all leverage of power to replace the present security state paradigm with the welfare, might find himself adopting different strategies like Maryam Nawaz making futile attempts to gain public support by donning police uniforms, and visiting schools and hospitals. In such a scenario, his popularity would be short-lived.
Nothing can destroy his popularity more quickly than assuming power under the hybrid regime arrangements.