The upcoming Senate elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), scheduled for Monday, are set to proceed unopposed. Given the past few weeks, this development has been hailed by many as a pragmatic compromise but there are others who see troubling contradictions. The deal, struck between the ruling PTI in KP and the opposition parties, allocates six of the 11 Senate seats to the PTI and five to the opposition under a seat-sharing formula. While this may be a tactical victory for both sides, sidestepping the murky waters of horse-trading that have historically plagued Senate elections, there are deeper implications for the PTI’s political narrative and internal cohesion. At the surface level, the deal has a clear rationale. Past Senate elections, particularly in KP and Balochistan, have been marred by allegations of vote-buying and the influence of moneyed elites. In choosing uncontested elections, the PTI may have insulated itself from the risk of losing more seats through backdoor dealing and financial manipulation. In this sense, the decision is politically sound.
However, this settlement has also laid bare the fault lines within the PTI itself. Party workers and supporters have voiced strong dissatisfaction with some of the names chosen – particularly Mirza Khan Afridi, a billionaire businessman who publicly condemned the May 9 violence, and Mashal Yousafzai, the former spokesperson for Bushra Bibi. Meanwhile, long-time loyalists and party workers say they have been sidelined. This has not gone unnoticed within the PTI base, which has often prided itself on ‘principled politics’ and merit-based representation. The controversy also exposes a deeper hypocrisy. The PTI has, since the February 8 general elections, vociferously denounced what it calls a ‘Form 47 government’. Yet, it has now reached a working arrangement with the very same parties it accuses of orchestrating electoral fraud. PTI leaders insist that this is a matter of political logistics, not reconciliation but to the PTI hard-liner the optics are damning. Then there is the perfectly reasonable question: if the party can sit across the table with opponents to safeguard Senate seats, why not extend that willingness to broader political dialogue for the sake of democratic stability?
To its credit, the PTI has often raised valid concerns about electoral transparency and the need for reforms. But it may just have handed ammunition to its critics and created confusion within its own ranks about the party’s real goals and priorities. Politics, at its core, is about negotiation and compromise – not dogma or personal vendettas. If the PTI is serious about reclaiming its space in Pakistan’s democratic order, it must be willing to engage politically not just when it’s convenient, but also when it’s uncomfortable. Agreements like the one in KP should not be isolated tactical manoeuvres but should ideally pave the way for a broader and more inclusive political process. For a party that built its brand on anti-status quo politics, it is now acting very much like a party that has learned to live within, and benefit from, that status quo. Uncontested Senate elections may have been the practical choice. But they have also come at the cost of narrative clarity, internal unity and perhaps even public credibility.