In the realm of academic theory, the concept of the public mandate holds a significant position, especially within representative democracies. It embodies the perceived legitimacy to govern, derived from popular support expressed through electoral processes. Yet, in Pakistan’s tumultuous political landscape, the notion of a public mandate has often been elusive, tangled within a history marked by prolonged periods of martial law and a political legacy steeped in martyrdom.
As the 2024 general elections approached, expectations across the nation were tempered with cynicism. The air was thick with anticipation, yet many felt the outcome was predetermined, stifling the true voice of the people. However, come election day, a surprising narrative unfolded, challenging the prevailing skepticism. The Pakistan Tehreek- e-Insaf (PTI), despite contesting as independents due to a lack of a proper electoral symbol, surged to victory, not only in its traditional stronghold of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but also dealt significant blows to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) even within its bastions in Punjab.
PTI leaders wasted no time in seizing upon these results as incontrovertible evidence of the Pakistani public’s resounding endorsement of PTI and its erstwhile chairman, Imran Khan. They vehemently argued that despite allegations of rigging, the overwhelming support for Khan and his party was undeniable, positioning PTI as the rightful inheritor of the people’s mandate. PTI leaders went further, lamenting the supposed loss of a two-thirds majority in parliament due to electoral malpractice, painting themselves as victims of an unjust system.
Amidst the chaos of an unpredictable and disappointing electoral outcome, PTI crafted its own narrative, one that portrayed the party as the aggrieved party whose mandate was being stolen. Yet, it is dishearteningly ironic that PTI can peddle such a narrative with apparent success. When the largest political entity within the legislative arena adamantly refuses to engage in dialogue with other factions and instead opts to vilify them, it reveals a staggering level of political immaturity and obstinacy.
Contrary to PTI’s claims, it is not the opposition parties such as Sharif’s PML-N or the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) that are undermining the public’s mandate by seeking to form a coalition government. Instead, it is PTI itself that stands accused of betraying the trust of its electorate. If we are to accept PTI’s narrative, then the masses did not brave the odds and flock to the polls in unprecedented numbers to witness their chosen party flounder in the realms of governance. Rather, they cast their votes in the hope of seeing PTI take charge and steer the nation towards progress – a responsibility that PTI’s senior leadership has shown little inclination to embrace.
More concerning than PTI’s obstinate stance, however, is the perception of Imran Khan’s mantra of “no talks with thieves” among the party’s voter base. It is viewed as a badge of honor, reinforcing PTI’s no-nonsense approach and elevating Khan to the status of a hero who refuses to kowtow to the country’s entrenched elite, conveniently ignoring his own place within that very establishment. Yet, politics, by its very nature, necessitates compromise, and when the largest political force within the country shuns this fundamental principle, it raises legitimate concerns about the trajectory of Pakistani democracy.
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf must come to terms with reality: they may consider themselves above the fray, deeming other political forces unworthy of engagement. However, if PTI wishes to sustain its political relevance and effectively govern, it must shed what effectively is arrogance and embrace dialogue with all major players, no matter how distasteful it may seem. The notion, echoed by PTI stalwart Sher Afzal Marwat, that opposition means obstructing the functioning of the state might serve as a good rallying cry for party loyalists but undermines the very fabric of governance and national progress.
Ehmud Sarwar