PTI’s strategic void

The decision by the PTI to boycott the Special Parliamentary Committee meeting on the nomination of the next chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) reflects a broader pattern of political disengagement and confusion. By distancing itself from a pivotal moment in the judiciary’s future, the party is yet again retreating into its favoured tactic of confrontation and agitation, rather than engaging in parliamentary processes that could have given it a voice in shaping the judiciary. The 26th Amendment, which introduced a new process for appointing the CJP, has been met with controversy, with the PTI opting to label the amendment as an attempt at undermining judicial independence. Yet this position stands in sharp contrast to the fact that some PTI leaders were initially part of the committee. Political observers have been quick to criticise the PTI’s boycott, which could very well be a strategic blunder, particularly at a time when the odds are already stacked in favour of the government’s choice. Perhaps the PTI, instead of consistently crying foul, should have leveraged this opportunity to exert influence over the nomination process, despite its reservations. By not showing up, the party keeps alienating itself from the legislative process – choosing chaos over constructive engagement.

More troubling is the inconsistency. The constant flip-flopping only adds to the confusion surrounding the party’s strategy. For a party that claims to prioritise rule of law, its reluctance to participate in the processes that make up democratic institutions is both puzzling and self-defeating. Observers have long marveled – rightly so – at the PTI’s ability to spin narratives, a skill that has distinguished the party and bolstered its populist politics. But narrative alone cannot sustain a political movement, especially one that claims to champion institutional reforms. The PTI needs to understand that street agitation and rhetoric have their limits. Eventually, chaos must give way to order, and strategy must replace slogans. Without Imran Khan at the helm, the PTI’s leadership appears rudderless like a headless chicken unsure of its next move. Some argue that this confusion is a direct result of Imran’s leadership style, where decisions are centralised to such an extent that no one dares act independently. During Imran’s incommunicado status, the resulting vacuum within the PTI only deepened the party’s confusion about the amendments and its role in the process.

The reality is that the party is in desperate need of a political strategy. Relying on its narrative and populist appeal will not suffice in the long run. If it continues to shy away from owning political decisions and engaging with the parliamentary process, it will only undermine its own relevance. For a party that once promised to bring about institutional reform and political accountability, such missteps are not only unfortunate but damaging to the very cause it claims to champion. The PTI must now decide whether it wants to remain a party of street protests or evolve into a mature political force capable of navigating the complexities of governance and lawmaking. The boycott of the CJP nomination process was a missed opportunity, and if the PTI continues down this path, it risks alienating not just its supporters, but the very democratic principles it claims to uphold.