Coalition politics

PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s recent criticism regarding the federal government has laid bare the uneasy relationship between the current PML-N-led coalition and the PPP. The PPP chairman’s pointed remarks about the PML-N’s alleged failure to honour agreements, including the promise of equal provincial representation in judicial appointments, certainly seem to point to some level of dissatisfaction within the coalition. Bilawal’s grievances, particularly regarding Sindh’s perceived marginalisation, raise valid concerns about the federal government’s governance style and its commitment to equitable politics. The PPP’s grievances are not new; issues like the distribution of climate change funds, the NFC Award, and provincial resources have long been sticking points. However, his detailed articulation of these issues signals deeper frustrations. Observers rightly note that the PPP and PML-N were never ideological allies but were brought together by necessity. Their differences on key issues, such as privatisation and legislative priorities, were always bound to surface. Yet, the current tensions highlight the PML-N’s dismissive approach to coalition politics, an approach that risks alienating a critical partner.

It is ironic that the PPP, often labeled as part of the current ‘hybrid’ model, appears more committed to genuine political processes than its senior coalition partner. Bilawal’s claim that his party is only provided with legislation after it has already been tabled is emblematic of the lack of respect and collaboration within the government. Observers and political analysts seem to see this as the PPP at least having tried to engage in political debate and consensus-building, particularly on judicial reforms, while the PML-N seemingly content with a more perfunctory approach to governance. Khawaja Asif’s acknowledgement of the PPP’s ‘genuine grievances’ is a step in the right direction, but words must be matched with action. The PML-N cannot afford to disregard its coalition partner’s concerns. Stability achieved through hybrid governance does not absolve the ruling party of its responsibility to engage in real politics and honour agreements. And failure to address the PPP’s demands risks creating a deeper rift that could jeopardise not just the coalition but also the broader democratic process.

The PPP’s demand for equal provincial representation in judicial appointments is particularly significant. There is a notion that the political parties should not let go of advocacy for institutional reforms, even within the constraints of a hybrid system. By contrast, the PML-N’s reluctance to fulfill its commitments reflects a worrying willingness to cede political space – a dangerous precedent in a system already dominated by non-political actors. Coalition governments are inherently challenging, requiring compromise, dialogue, and mutual respect. The PML-N must remember that alliances of necessity, while lacking the warmth of ideological camaraderie, are built on trust. If that trust is eroded, the government risks not only losing a partner but also further alienating the public in a deeply polarised political landscape. It is time for the PML-N to recalibrate its approach. Respecting its coalition partner’s contributions and addressing its legitimate concerns is not just a political necessity but also a moral imperative. A failure to do so risks creating political instability – a risk the country cannot afford in these uncertain times.