— Islamabad’s decision to displace KP’s elected government risks deepening political alienation, undermining federalism and reviving a troubling history of interventions that have repeatedly backfired
— Terrorism cannot be a pretext for dismantling democracy.
By Irum Saleem
The federal government has followed through on its threat to impose governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, with the president endorsing a move that threatens to deepen the country’s political crisis rather than resolve it.
There is little novelty in this exercise of federal power. Pakistan’s political history is littered with such interventions, many of which have aggravated the very problems they were meant to address. The latest decision, driven largely by the ruling PML-N against the backdrop of its confrontation with the PTI, risks repeating that familiar mistake.
The most consequential precedent is Balochistan in 1973. Then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto dismissed the elected government of Sardar Attaullah Mengal and removed governor Mir Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo. The centre assumed direct control through Nawab Akbar Bugti and deployed the army, intensifying an already simmering insurgency. Several elected Baloch leaders eventually turned towards separatism, deepening the province’s estrangement from the federation.
KP is not Balochistan, and the PTI is not a separatist movement. Yet the underlying danger remains: when elected leadership is removed under the pretext of security, political grievances can harden into lasting resentment against the federation. The lesson of 1973 is not that the two situations are identical, but that coercive centralisation can carry consequences far beyond the immediate political confrontation.
The government’s stated justification for the latest intervention is rising terrorism in parts of KP. If the security situation warranted extraordinary measures, the centre could have pursued targeted constitutional options rather than displacing an entire elected provincial administration. Treating a security challenge as grounds for sweeping political intervention risks confusing the symptoms of a crisis with its causes.
The political context makes the decision even more questionable. The PTI-led administration may have failed to deliver on several fronts, and its confrontational politics have contributed to persistent tensions with the centre. But shortcomings in governance do not justify removing an elected government through executive action. In a democracy, the proper remedy for an ineffective administration is political accountability and, ultimately, the ballot box.
Governor’s rule has repeatedly proved a blunt instrument in Pakistan’s turbulent political landscape. Rather than resolving disputes, such interventions can deepen mistrust, weaken democratic institutions and give aggrieved political forces fresh grounds for mobilisation. The centre cannot reasonably expect to restore stability by denying a province the government chosen by its electorate.
The constitutional question must also be confronted. Article 234 provides for a proclamation concerning a province’s constitutional machinery, subject to parliamentary approval within two months. Lawmakers must examine whether the constitutional conditions for such an extraordinary intervention have genuinely been met. The courts, where properly approached, must also be able to scrutinise its legality.
Parliament should not treat the proclamation as a routine formality or allow partisan loyalties to override constitutional responsibility. The burden rests on the federal government to demonstrate why the displacement of an elected administration was necessary and proportionate, rather than merely politically expedient.
Islamabad must recognise that governing a province is not the same as controlling it. Security operations cannot substitute for political legitimacy, and administrative authority cannot manufacture public trust.
The imposition of governor’s rule in KP is therefore more than a confrontation between the PML-N and the PTI. It is a test of federalism, constitutional restraint and the democratic principle that governments derive their authority from the people. The centre should reconsider this perilous course before it deepens political alienation and turns a manageable confrontation into a wider crisis.
