Confusion in the ranks

PTI leader Azam Swati has claimed that former prime minister Imran Khan has directed him to engage with the military establishment, and keep the nature of those discussions confidential. According to Swati, despite Imran's public criticism of the military leadership, behind the scenes efforts are still underway to restore communication. Apparently, Swati's attempts to reach out to the army chief through various intermediaries, including the army chief’s teacher and former president Arif Alvi, were unsuccessful. Interestingly, Swati has also revealed that Imran had been open to dialogue with the military leadership from day one, provided the other side was willing to engage. During a meeting at Adiala Jail on Tuesday, Imran Khan confirmed that he had indeed instructed Swati to initiate contact with the military. However, he emphasised that this outreach was not tied to his legal battles but was instead for the larger good of Pakistan. While Imran has ruled out any talks with the government, he has reiterated his willingness to engage with the establishment, maintaining that he has never closed the door to such discussions.

That may all be well and good but the problem starts when words and actions don't meet, the PTI’s social media campaigns sending a rather contradictory message with their relentless targeting of the military’s top brass. The party's foreign chapters have gone so far as to approach influential capitals such as Washington

and London to pressure Islamabad and Pindi for Imran Khan’s release. The party has also actively sought to derail Pakistan’s IMF programme. This inconsistency in the PTI’s strategy has led to confusion about the party’s true objectives. Political analysts suggest that the party's aim is to build pressure on the establishment through these campaigns, hoping that this will eventually bring the establishment to the negotiating table. Yet, this approach seems quite counterproductive, only leading to further confrontation rather than dialogue. Protests and street agitations, such as those on May 9 (2023) and November 24-26 (2024), have harmed the party more than advancing its cause. Some argue that the PTI’s dual messaging -- publicly criticising the military while privately seeking talks -- stems from the party's desire to maintain an anti-establishment narrative in front of its supporters. It also seems that the PTI wishes to preserve a certain image: if a deal with the military is eventually struck, it wants to present it as a reluctant concession made for the greater good of the nation rather than an overture of political expediency. Yet, despite all this song and dance, the establishment seems uninterested in engaging, consistently insisting that political parties should settle their differences through dialogue and not backdoor negotiations with the military. So, if the PTI is truly interested in restoring democracy and stability in Pakistan, should it not focus on engaging with the government and other political parties?

In many ways, the PTI’s pursuit of a 'same-page' relationship -- similar to the one seen in 2018 -- suggests a desire for power, rather than genuine political reform. Much too often have our political parties looked to unelected institutions for a way out of their political dilemmas. This dependence has become an enduring feature of Pakistani politics. The PTI and any other party should focus on dialogue and collaboration with political peers, working through the constitutional mechanisms and institutions. The days of political short-termism must be left behind.