WHEN political principles apply only to ourselves, they cease to be principles. They become convenience and double standards. Does political awareness awaken only when state power is used against us? Is military interference objectionable only when it harms the party we support? Is our own leader’s arrest political victimisation, while an opponent’s arrest becomes accountability? If the answer changes with the party involved, this is not political awareness. It is blind political loyalty. This contradiction has shaped Pakistan’s politics. Parties often defend one set of principles in government and another in opposition. Institutions are praised when supportive and condemned when they turn against them.
No major party is free of this contradiction. But the question is especially relevant to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf because its identity rests on “awareness” and “change”. Ask many PTI supporters what they consider Imran Khan’s greatest contribution and one answer is repeated: “Imran Khan gave people political awareness.” This means electing representatives without interference from unelected institutions. Both principles are valid. But were they valid only after 2022? If military interference is wrong today, it was wrong yesterday. If the public mandate is sacred today, it was sacred in 2018 as well. PTI itself once proudly described its relationship with the military leadership as being “on the same page”.
Imran Khan later acknowledged that his weak parliamentary majority increased his dependence on the military leadership and that military influence helped his government pass the budget and legislation. If Parliament must be independent today, why was such dependence acceptable yesterday? The 2019 no-confidence motion against the Senate chairman raised the same question. Sixty-four senators initially supported the resolution, though only 53 votes were needed. Yet only 50 voted in favour. The late Hasil Bizenjo alleged interference by General Faiz Hameed. If such interference is undemocratic today, it should have been troubling then too.
The rule of law poses the same test. PTI now argues that political opponents should not be suppressed through arrests and prolonged detention. Yet during its own government, opposition leaders were arrested and allegations of politically motivated accountability were widespread. Media freedom raises the same question. PTI now speaks for journalists’ rights, yet during Imran Khan’s government, media organisations raised grave concerns over pressure on the press and the harassment of critical voices. Political awareness does not mean treating a leader as infallible or discovering human rights only when one’s own supporters are arrested. Nor does it mean allowing disagreement to become hatred and violence. A politically conscious citizen should ask not who committed an act, but whether it was right or wrong. If military interference is wrong, it is wrong against every party. If electoral interference is wrong, it was wrong in 2018 and in 2024. But if we genuinely want to learn from our mistakes and move forward, PTI’s past conduct cannot be used to justify injustice against it today.
To say, “They did the same to us, so let it happen to them now,” is not justice. It is revenge. Serious objections were raised about the 2024 electoral process. Those concerns cannot be dismissed by pointing to PTI’s past mistakes. If a mandate was taken away, it should be restored. If an innocent political worker is detained solely because of political association, that person should be released. The same standard applies to PML-N, PPP and every other political force. If they believe that what happened to them in 2018 makes injustice against PTI acceptable today, they are repeating the politics they once condemned.
This is Pakistan’s recurring tragedy: one party moves closer to the centres of power while another falls out of favour. Then the roles reverse. The faces change. The system does not. PTI still has a political path available to it: Parliament, dialogue, engagement with rivals and performance in government. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, citizens have the right to ask whether security, education, healthcare, jobs and governance have improved. PTI must also recognise that it is not the only political reality in Pakistan. Other parties represent millions too. Political disagreement does not mean refusing to recognise an opponent’s right to exist politically.
Dialogue is not defeat. Tolerance is not weakness. Admitting a mistake is not humiliation. The government and state institutions must also understand that no popular political party can be permanently eliminated through arrests, prosecutions or administrative pressure. Political problems require political solutions. Pakistan needs consensus around non-negotiable principles: respect for the people’s vote, non-interference by unelected institutions, free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, a free media, impartial accountability and peaceful protest. These principles should not exist for Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari or any general. They should exist for Pakistan. True political awareness is not recognising injustice only when it is directed against us. It is having the courage to call it injustice even when it is directed against our fiercest political opponent.
—The writer is Barrister, based in Canada.
