There is a strange contradiction at the heart of Pakistan’s latest political confrontation. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf continues to describe the release and political rehabilitation of Imran Khan as its overriding objective. Its workers march under his name, its leaders invoke his imprisonment in almost every political argument, and its public narrative remains centred on the claim that the former prime minister has been denied political space. Yet recent disagreements over militancy and negotiations have raised an uncomfortable question. When an opportunity for political engagement appeared possible, what actually took priority?
That question deserves a serious answer because politics cannot function indefinitely on slogans alone. If the federal government was genuinely prepared to explore political accommodation with PTI, including measures that could have benefited Imran Khan, then the party leadership had an obvious strategic interest in keeping that channel open. Political negotiations are rarely comfortable. They involve compromise, sequencing and difficult choices. A party whose central demand is relief for its imprisoned leader would normally be expected to protect such an opening carefully. Instead, the debate became entangled with the far more sensitive issue of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
The position associated with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi has consequently attracted attention. Questions have emerged about whether the provincial leadership’s approach toward the TTP was consistent with the priorities being articulated by PTI’s federal leadership. If one side was seeking engagement with the government while another was advancing a position that made such engagement politically difficult, the contradiction cannot simply be ignored. This is not a minor internal disagreement. It goes directly to the question of who determines PTI’s political strategy.
For years, PTI has projected Imran Khan as the unquestioned centre of its political universe. His name defines the party’s electoral identity. His imprisonment has become the principal source of its political mobilisation. Senior leaders repeatedly tell supporters that almost every major political decision is connected to securing justice and relief for him. If that is genuinely the case, then any decision that potentially weakens a pathway toward political accommodation requires explanation. The problem becomes even more serious when terrorism enters the equation.
Pakistan has paid an extraordinary price for militancy. Thousands of civilians, soldiers, police personnel and public officials have lost their lives over the past two decades. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has carried a particularly heavy burden. Communities in the province understand better than most Pakistanis what happens when armed groups are allowed to rebuild networks, intimidate populations and challenge state authority.
There can therefore be no ambiguity about the fundamental principle involved. No political party, provincial government or individual leader should appear to place the interests of an armed militant organisation above Pakistan’s national security.
That does not mean every disagreement over counterterrorism policy amounts to sympathy for militants. Governments can legitimately debate negotiations, military operations, border management, intelligence policy and rehabilitation programmes. Pakistan itself has experimented with different approaches at different times. But ambiguity becomes dangerous when political messaging is unclear.
PTI’s leadership consequently has a responsibility to explain its position in unmistakable terms. Does the party support negotiations with the TTP? Does it reject them? Does the provincial leadership have an independent policy? Is there a difference between PTI’s position in Islamabad and its position in Peshawar? And, perhaps most importantly, who has the final authority to decide?
These questions become particularly relevant because PTI frequently argues that meaningful political decisions cannot be taken without consulting Imran Khan. When access to him is restricted, party leaders complain that the political process itself has been obstructed. That argument creates an obvious inconsistency whenever major policy positions appear to emerge without a clearly demonstrated connection to Khan’s instructions. If the party cannot reach its leader, how are decisive positions on matters as grave as militancy being formulated? There is a political problem here that rhetoric cannot easily conceal.
A movement cannot simultaneously insist that its imprisoned leader controls its political direction while allowing competing centres of authority to define policy outside prison. Either Imran Khan remains the ultimate decision maker or the party has developed alternative power centres. Both propositions cannot comfortably stand together. This is why PTI’s internal debate is about much more than personalities. It concerns institutional discipline, political priorities and national security.
Supporters of any political party have the right to demand clarity from their leadership. Loyalty should never require the suspension of judgment. When political decisions appear inconsistent with declared objectives, questions are not an act of betrayal. They are part of democratic accountability.
For PTI, the immediate issue is straightforward. If securing political space and relief for Imran Khan remains the party’s principal objective, its leadership must explain why its broader strategy appears, at times, to complicate that objective. And where the TTP is concerned, the standard should be even clearer.
Pakistan’s political disagreements may be intense, but militant violence cannot become another instrument of partisan competition. Governments can change. Leaders can enter and leave prison. Political alliances can be reconstructed overnight. The consequences of terrorism last much longer.
PTI therefore needs to settle an increasingly important question, not through slogans but through a coherent policy. Who determines its direction, what does it stand for on militancy, and where exactly does national security rank among its priorities? Until those questions are answered convincingly, the contradiction will remain difficult to dismiss.
