oon after the chaotic overthrow of Imran Khan’s government on April 10, 2022, through a vote of no confidence – a first for Pakistan – Shahbaz Sharif was elected prime minister by the parliament. He remained off screen for several days. No official reason for the eerie silence was available. However, many believe that it was because of his and his party’s reluctance to take charge, again – to be someone else’s pawn. The agreement reached with the establishment remains opaque to this day. What were the guarantees and assurances? Whatever they may be, it did not look good for the credibility of politics and politicians.

It is hard to argue that the politicians are not to blame for Pakistan’s vicious political cycle. One after the other they have been in power, only to be taken down unceremoniously for attempting to assert civilian authority. Since all is considered fair in politics and war, those in the opposition not only cheer from the sidelines but are also willing to support the next [mis]adventure.

Many leading members of the ruling party and close confidants of the Sharifs, such as Javid Latif, objected to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz joining the regime that replaced Imran Khan. However, most such statements are made after a politician has been sidelined. Most forget their principled positions when in power.

This leads to the unfortunate democratic backsliding. Nancy Bermeo writes in the Journal of Democracy that the state-led debilitation or elimination of political institutions sustaining a democracy has changed dramatically since the Cold War. “Promissory coups, executive aggrandisement and strategic electoral manipulation and harassment are increasing.”

To many, the excuse of Pakistan being a nascent democracy doesn’t hold water. Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan has experienced numerous political upheavals, including military coups, martial laws and significant interference by non-elected institutions. But out of these experiences or experiments, the ones who have come out on the top have been anti-democratic forces. Politicians, sadly, have learnt little. The Charter of Democracy was an attempt at uniting against ceding power to the unelected to spite one another. However, its signatories were soon out-manoeuvred by a third political force.

So, what is the way forward? The crux of the matter is that Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s founder Imran Khan has built his political narrative around the ‘other’ mainstream political parties being corrupt to the core; hence, he can’t cooperate with them. The unfolding drama pertaining to holding talks [or not] is part of the confusion that stems from the PTI’s stance. But how does the PTI plan on getting what it wants without talking to the PML-N or the Pakistan Peoples Party?

If the PTI agrees to a sensible dialogue with these parties, it risks losing in the eyes of its cult-like supporters who have bought every bit of Imran Khan’s political narrative. The party has tried protests, and didn’t get far with it. Now, it is banking on a civil disobedience movement. If not properly thought through and executed, this, too, would fizzle out like the November 24 D-Chowk sit-in.

With Imran Khan in jail, the party is gradually losing public support. Meanwhile, the party has been directly threatening and maligning the establishment. Imran Khan’s statements indicate that he likes being labeled Pubic Enemy Number 1.

Be that as it may, it is unlikely that Imran Khan will be able to defeat both his main rivals for power at the same time.

Politics demands cleverly choosing when, where and who to settle scores with, even among staunch rivals. The PTI will have to make a decision: who is their lesser enemy? A choice the party does not have the privilege of making is its timing. Time is not on their side.

The writer, a journalist for 33 years, has been an editor at the BBC in Pakistan for over two decades. Currently, he is the managing editor at Independent Urdu