AS was widely predicted, the process of talks between the government and the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) is falling apart due to impatience, preconditions and lack of mutual trust. Founding Chairman of the PTI Imran Khan called off the dialogue on the plea that the government failed to form judicial commissions within the deadline of seven day and that there was no point in continuing to talk. Reacting, the government side has described the PTI’s decision as unfortunate with Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaulla Tarar claiming that the government was considering a “middle ground” by proposing a committee instead of a judicial commission to take things forward.
Saner voices have been emphasizing that the two sides must demonstrate patience as the issues involved cannot be sorted out overnight in the given political environment. The PTI has a point that the talks cannot continue indefinitely but undue haste is also not the answer as it takes some time to sort out the ticklish issues. The decision of the PTI is perplexing as it did not wait for a formal reply from the government side to its written charter of demands. The negotiating team of the government has formed a sub-committee consisting of representatives of the allied parties to formulate a response and as per Irfan Siddiqui, spokesperson of the government team, they had almost formed an opinion on PTI’s demands’. Under these circumstances, the PTI should have waited for the response of the government but its decision to boycott the dialogue process ahead of a formal reply from the other side amounts to providing face-saving to the government and owning the burden of failure of talks. Judicial Commission or Committee – the issue can be further discussed and resolved through negotiations with the spirit of give and take. In fact, the government apprehends the PTI will not stop at acceptance of its demand for the formation of judicial commissions on incidents of May 09, 2023 and November 26, 2024 as it wants judges of its choice in these commissions, a proposition, which apparently cannot be acceptable to the government. Irfan Siddiqui also had a point in arguing that the government had exhibited restraint at many points during the talks and ignored many actions by the PTI, including posts by Imran on his official X handle. It has been observed that despite their engagement, the two sides failed to put a full-stop to verbal duels and indulged in political rhetoric threatening the process of dialogue. Siddiqui also underlined that the government did not raise objections to Imran’s ongoing civil disobedience call since it wanted to make progress in talks in the “spirit of democracy and give and take”. Deadlines and ultimatums vitiate the atmosphere for negotiations and need to be avoided to allow the dialogue to proceed ahead smoothly. A difference of a few days makes no difference when there is possibility of something positive outcome of an ongoing process. Otherwise too, what options the PTI has after boycotting the dialogue as it has already tried a number of tactics to pressurize the government, which failed to produce the desired results. There is no doubt, the PTI is a popular party but the latest protest of November 26 clearly proved it was not in a position to force the government to accept its demands through pressure tactics. Its ‘do or die’ final call fizzled out demoralizing its own workers and supporters and an appeal by IK for civil disobedience movement has also not yielded any positive response so far from Overseas Pakistanis, who were asked not to remit money home and instead remittances in December 2024 increased as compared to previous month and corresponding month the previous year. Prudence demands it should return to the negotiating table and play its role as an effective political opposition both inside and outside the parliament.
