dvisor to Prime Minister Rana Sanaullah recently revealed that Nawaz Sharif wanted unconditional talks with all political and institutional stakeholders, including the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf. This was immediately welcomed by various politicians and observers as a positive development. However, their optimism was short-lived. On Thursday, Sanaullah told reporters that what he said had been misconstrued. He also said Nawaz Sharif had not proposed talks with the PTI.

Sanaullah’s clarification followed a forceful press conference by Maj Gen Ahmad Sharif Chaudhry, the Inter Services Public Relations director general, who reiterated that those responsible for the May 9 attacks on military installations would not be spared.

While Nawaz Sharif did propose a grand dialogue among political parties and other powerful institutions, the objective remained unclear. It can to an attempt to discard the current ‘hybrid’ arrangement and move towards a more democratic system. Else, it can be yet another attempt to shore up political support and constitutional legitimacy for the same hybrid.

For its part, the PTI has consistently shown a willingness, even eagerness to engage in talks with military leaders while refusing to negotiate with the ruling coalition, particularly the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Pakistan Peoples Party. The coalition suffered a body blow when its ally Sardar Akhtar Mengal, chief of the Balochistan National Party, announced his resignation from the National Assembly. Mengal said he no longer saw a point in staying in the house as the highest forum in the country had failed to address the gravity of the situation in Balochistan.

Despite efforts by several members, both from the government and the opposition, to persuade the Baloch leader to reconsider his decision, he appeared resolute. It may have been in the fitness of things for Nawaz Sharif to personally reach out to Mengal. However, no such gesture had been made by Thursday.

A national dialogue will not be comprehensive or successful without the participation of Baloch representatives. Mengal’s resignation from the parliament could prove a serious setback to efforts aimed at reducing political polarisation in the country. The significance of his resignation was highlighted by PML-N stalwart Khawaja Saad Rafique, who called it “a loss to the federation of Pakistan.”

Nawaz Sharif’s call for a grand dialogue remains important. At a time when Pakistan faces numerous challenges, his approach provides a ray of hope. However, it remains unclear how this goal will be achieved or who will take the lead in this effort.

Journalists, teachers, and rights activists in Balochistan have argued that Mengal’s resignation stems from political necessity. He has served consecutive terms in the National Assembly and has been part of three governments since 2018, yet he has been unable to address Balochistan’s issues due to a lack of commitment by successive governments. Mengal’s complaints about Balochistan’s sense of deprivation is justified, particularly given that his speeches in the National Assembly are often excluded from television broadcasts. His resignation appears to be meant to show to his supporters that his priorities remain unchanged. He has sensed that parliamentarians from Balochistan are losing their influence in the region.

Nawaz Sharif’s statement remains important nonetheless. At a time when Pakistan faces numerous challenges, this call for dialogue has provided a ray of hope. However, it remains unclear how this goal will be achieved or who will take the lead in this effort.

If representatives of powerful institutions were to sit down with elected governments or political parties for reconciliation or decision-making, it could further entrench authoritarian methods of governance. The space for elected representatives would shrink further. In such a scenario, political forces might lack the preparedness to reject proposals coming from the military or Judiciary. The Supreme Court has the authority under the constitution to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. This could complicate the process.

If a representative of the Supreme Court made a proposal and a broad consensus was reached against it, for instance, how could the court be compelled to accept it? This could potentially create a conflict for the judges who are bound by their constitutional oaths to remain independent.

The principle of separation of powers under the constitution provides for the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary to act independently and operate within their constitutional limits. The military, falling under the Ministry of Defence, must also act within the constitutional boundaries.

On the other hand, if political parties continue to consider the military as an institution to be consulted or, like Imran Khan, seek power through dialogue with military leadership, the needs and desires of the common people will not be met.

Political parties will only be able to reach common ground if they agree, in principle, to separate the military from politics and refrain from using misleading slogans for the sake of gaining power. Currently, most political leaders seem unwilling to commit themselves to this principle. This is why national issues remain unresolved.

Political leaders will do well to heed the ISPR chief’s recent statement that the army has no political agenda and strongly supports the rule of law and the constitution.

The writer is a senior journalist, teacher of journalism, writer and analyst. He tweets at @BukhariMubasher