KHYBER-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has endured years of terrorism, bloodshed and immense sacrifices by civilians, police personnel and security forces. At a time when the province required decisive leadership, institutional coordination and an unwavering commitment to public safety, political confrontation increasingly overshadowed the urgent task of restoring peace. The federal government’s decision to impose emergency measures and Governor’s Rule must therefore be examined against the wider question of whether the existing provincial administration was capable of addressing the escalating security crisis. When dialogue repeatedly fails and citizens remain exposed to violence, the state cannot indefinitely postpone difficult decisions.
The federal government maintains that it exhausted political avenues before resorting to extraordinary measures. Negotiations, consultations and repeated contacts were intended to establish a common strategy against terrorism. Yet the reported failure to reach an effective agreement exposed a fundamental problem: political disagreement had become an obstacle to coordinated security policy. Democratic governments may disagree over political prisoners, protests and constitutional questions, but counterterrorism requires cooperation that transcends party lines. No political agenda should take precedence over the protection of human life. The scale of the security challenge in KP was alarming. According to figures cited by the federal government, the province accounted for 68 per cent of Pakistan’s violent deaths in 2025. Furthermore, 122 police personnel were reportedly martyred during the six months preceding the emergency decision. These figures represent more than statistics; they reflect families devastated by violence, communities living in fear and a police force confronting heavily armed militant organizations. Such circumstances demand sustained political attention, adequate resources and a clear chain of command.
The condition of the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) further illustrates the challenges facing law enforcement. Reports cited by the federal government indicated that approximately 19 per cent of CTD positions remained vacant and that the police faced serious shortages of modern weapons. A force expected to confront increasingly sophisticated terrorist networks cannot operate effectively without trained personnel, reliable intelligence, appropriate equipment and financial support. The provincial government must answer legitimate questions about whether its priorities matched the scale of the threat. The National Action Plan, developed to coordinate Pakistan’s response to terrorism, requires consistent implementation rather than selective political commitment. Counterterrorism is not achieved through occasional meetings or statements of resolve. It demands cooperation among federal agencies, provincial administrations, police departments, intelligence services and local communities. Any breakdown in that cooperation weakens the entire security framework. If political confrontation prevents essential security consultations from taking place, the consequences are ultimately borne by ordinary citizens.
Critics of the KP government also argue that political mobilization repeatedly diverted attention from the province’s deteriorating security situation. While protests and long marches are legitimate features of democratic politics when conducted within the law, they cannot become a substitute for governing. A chief minister’s primary responsibility is to administer the province, maintain public order and protect its residents. The constitutional question is equally important. Articles 232 and 234 provide mechanisms for addressing exceptional security threats and situations in which provincial constitutional machinery cannot function in accordance with the Constitution. However, invoking these provisions requires compliance with their specific legal conditions and procedural safeguards. Emergency powers are not a general licence to bypass elected representation or settle political scores.
If Governor’s Rule is to restore stability, its success must be judged by tangible improvements rather than changes in political control. The administration must strengthen the CTD, fill vacancies, equip police stations, improve intelligence coordination and protect vulnerable districts. Schools and universities must remain accessible, businesses must operate without intimidation, and displaced or threatened families must receive meaningful assistance. Local communities should also participate in decisions that affect their security and development.
Pakistan cannot achieve lasting economic growth while terrorism threatens its western regions. Investors need security and functioning institutions, while the people of KP deserve equal protection. Their sacrifices demand more than political accusations and temporary arrangements. The choice is between institutional fragmentation and a coordinated system that protects citizens. If negotiations fail and provincial governance falters, the state must consider lawful remedies, ensuring extraordinary intervention remains accountable and focused on restoring democratic governance. The people of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa elected their representatives to govern, deliver services and safeguard lives, not turn the province into an arena of permanent political confrontation. Political leadership must honour that trust through effective administration, institutional cooperation and sustained action against terrorism. Peace cannot be achieved through slogans, marches or blame alone; the ultimate measure of any government is the security, dignity and future it provides to its people.
—The writer is Islamabad based regular contributor.
