Experimenting with democracy

One of the seasons in Pakistan is the season of ‘national government’ – a time when everyone suddenly and without any prompt starts talking about a ‘national government’ that will change the course of Pakistani politics and democracy and fix everything. Just as suddenly, the season shifts as well. We are currently experiencing National Government Season – emblematic of a troubled political system. From speculative statements by politicians to lofty suggestions by analysts, the idea always seems to generate considerable buzz. This time too it has the usuals propping it up as a solution. Most dismiss it as wishful thinking by those left out of the corridors of power, as well as a calculated attempt to ‘test the waters’ – which, to be fair to Pakistan’s politics, have never passed the national government test. Here’s a simple fact: a national government is neither a solution to Pakistan’s current problems nor a viable way forward. Proponents of the national government theory argue that it is necessary to resolve the political tensions that have gripped the country since the no-confidence vote against former prime minister Imran Khan two years ago. They believe that Pakistan’s precarious political climate demands a government that includes representatives from all major political parties, including the PTI, and that such a setup would de-escalate tensions and pave the way for fresh elections.

Critics rightly point out the fundamental flaws in this approach. There is no evidence to suggest that a national government would succeed where others have failed. On the contrary, such an arrangement risks further entrenching the hybrid governance model that has undermined Pakistan’s democratic institutions. The country’s history is littered with experiments in governance – military coups, technocrat setups, or other non-democratic solutions. None have yielded long-term stability or prosperity. The ‘Bangladesh model’ frequently touted by proponents of technocratic regimes has always been a non-starter. The suggestion of a national government in Pakistan often comes with caveats that raise eyebrows in any case and, far from being a unifying force, a government of this nature could deepen political divisions and further erode public trust in democratic institutions.

What Pakistan truly needs is not another grand experiment in governance but a genuine commitment to political dialogue. Encouragingly, reports suggest that senior PTI leader Asad Qaiser and National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq have taken steps to reduce political tensions. This thaw could serve as a foundation for meaningful negotiations, offering a much-needed path forward. At the heart of these discussions must be a commitment to addressing the structural issues plaguing Pakistan’s democracy. This includes ensuring free and fair elections, empowering an independent and non-controversial election commission, safeguarding the judiciary’s independence, and ending the practice of political victimisation through legal cases. Perhaps most importantly, political actors must build a consensus on economic reforms to prevent the country’s growth from being held hostage by political expediency. The hybrid model of governance has already cost Pakistan dearly, leading to unprecedented political polarisation and the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Adding another layer to this experiment in the form of a national government would only exacerbate these problems. It is time to reject undemocratic solutions and focus instead on strengthening what remains of Pakistan’s democratic framework.