AFTER reports of differences with the founder chairman Imran Khan’s wife and sister, Ali Amin Gandapur was removed as Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar, Secretary General Salman Akram Raja and other leaders proudly hailed the move as “Khan’s order.” Gandapur himself resigned, saying he was only following “Khan’s command.” Before this order, no party committee met, nor were the provincial assembly members who had elected Gandapur consulted. One man decided and the rest, like loyal subordinates, complied. This is the tragedy of Pakistan’s politics. Party constitutions and councils exist only as décor. Real power lies with individuals or families. Leaders do not lead, they rule.
Dissent is treated as defiance and the unspoken rule is simple: obey or leave. For any genuine political worker, blind obedience should be a source of shame, not pride. PTI, which once claimed to be the symbol of merit and institutional reform, now reflects the same authoritarian mindset it used to condemn. Internal elections are merely symbolic and appointments depend on flattery rather than competence. Lawmakers see themselves answerable not to voters but to “Khan Sahib.” Even with their chairman imprisoned, orders are still said to come from him, illustrating how personal authority has replaced institutional decision-making.
Imran Khan long mocked dynastic politics, yet his own tenure blurred those lines. His spouse played an active role in both government and party matters, from influence over appointments to Senate ticket distributions, while his sisters also intervened. That familial control has splintered PTI from within. But PTI is hardly alone. Across Pakistan, almost every party whether national or regional, PML-N, PPP, JUI-F, ANP, BNP (Mengal), PkMAP, MQM and BAP, has hollowed out its internal democracy.
In the PML-N, power revolves around the Sharif Family. Nawaz Sharif remains supreme leader, Shehbaz Sharif is Prime Minister and Maryam Nawaz, Punjab’s Chief Minister, is the anointed heir. Hamza Shehbaz retains significant influence. Dissenters are silenced and decisions are made not in parliamentary boards but in Jati Umra’s drawing room, later rubber-stamped by committees. The Pakistan People’s Party, once an ideological and populist movement, has become a family enterprise. In Sindh it rules through inheritance, not ideas. Its internal elections are ritualistic and real decisions never leave Bilawal House. The “people’s party” now functions like a feudal estate sustained by loyalty, not ideology.
In JUI-F, authority is centralized under Maulana Fazlur Rehman, with brothers and sons exercising strong control. The Majlis-e-Amla and Majlis-e-Shura are ceremonial; dissenters are expelled or marginalized. The Awami National Party has remained under one family for decades. Aimal Wali Khan now leads it, but internal contests are predetermined. Once the voice of Pashtun identity, the ANP is reduced to a few constituencies, eroded by its own dynastic culture. The Balochistan National Party (Mengal) followed a similar path: from founder Ataullah Mengal to his son Akhtar Mengal, around whom all decisions revolve. The same applies to the Pashtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party, still dominated by the Achakzai family.
Where dynasties don’t exist, democracy still doesn’t. The MQM revolved entirely around Altaf Hussain. Orders came from London and were enforced in Karachi. One phone call could make everyone sit, stand or endure verbal abuse, no one dared to challenge “Bhai.” After his fall, faces changed but the mindset persisted: obedience now flows toward the establishment instead of London. The Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) is the newest manifestation of engineered politics. Formed months before the 2018 elections, it lacked a public base yet instantly entered government. Its creation, widely seen as a product of political engineering, reflects a system where loyalty is owed not to the people but to power brokers.
Thus, Pakistan’s political parties, national or regional, religious or secular, have morphed into tribal and personal fiefdoms. Their leaders act like monarchs; the rest serve as subjects. Institutions and consultative bodies are decorative, decisions made by signal, not system. If democracy is to take root, reform must begin inside parties. They must adopt transparent membership systems and hold regular, supervised intra-party elections. The Election Commission should enforce its rules strictly and hold leaders accountable to their own workers. Any party that suppresses dissent or defies internal democracy should face legal consequences. Pakistan’s problem is not a shortage of leaders but the collapse of institutions. We have failed to build political organizations capable of surviving their founders. Sharif or Zardari, Imran Khan or Fazlur Rehman, Akhtar Mengal or Aimal Wali, all are monarchs within their parties, not democratic heads. Until democracy thrives inside political organizations, it will remain a hollow slogan at the national level. In Pakistan, power still bows not to the Constitution, but to command and that bitter truth continues to hollow out the state from within.
—The writer is Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Usman Law Professional Corporation, based in Canada.
