ISLAMABAD:
As Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) steps up preparations for a street movement and the establishment maintains a tough stance against the opposition party, Pakistan’s political landscape remains fraught with uncertainty and growing distrust.
In this context, a senior minister in the PML-N government has once again floated the idea of a high-level dialogue involving the country’s main power centers, an idea that has surfaced before but never moved beyond rhetoric.
The Prime Minister’s Advisor on Political Affairs, Rana Sanaullah, recently presented what he described as a meeting of the country’s five key stakeholders.
According to Sanaullah, two of them are Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif, while the third is President Asif Ali Zardari.
The fourth, he said, is the incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan, adding that “everyone knows who the fifth is”, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to military rulers.
In fact, Sanaullah’s remarks amounted to a call for dialogue between Pakistan’s political leaders and the establishment. However, analysts note that it is much easier to identify stakeholders than to persuade them to sit at the table.
Previous attempts to arrange such high-level engagements have failed, sparking skepticism over whether the latest proposal represents anything more than a political soundbite.
Former PTI chief Fawad Chaudhry rejected the feasibility of the proposal under current conditions.
“This is not possible in the current political climate,” he said, asserting that the real obstacle lies in the reluctance of the government and the establishment to engage in genuine dialogue.
His remarks underscore the depth of distrust that continues to paralyze political engagement.
Journalist and political analyst Mazhar Abbas echoed this assessment, saying Sanaullah’s proposal lacked practical substance.
“Rana Sanaullah’s proposal lacks practical follow-up,” Abbas said, stressing that the responsibility for initiating dialogue lies with the government.
He argued that confidence-building measures, including briefing opposition leaders in Parliament and allowing PTI leaders access to Imran Khan, were prerequisites for any meaningful engagement. In the absence of such measures, he suggested, the proposal seems more symbolic than concrete.
Veteran political analyst Hassan Askari also expressed doubts, saying a dialogue was unlikely under current circumstances due to wide political differences and deep-seated mistrust. Without real confidence-building measures, he warned, political impasse will persist.
Adding another level of complexity, Rana Sanaullah said trust-building would only be possible if social media accounts allegedly carrying out hate campaigns against the army and its leaders were shut down.
Responding to this, Mazhar Abbas said such concerns could be raised once the talks get underway. The immediate priority, he argued, should be to engage in dialogue rather than setting preconditions that would further delay engagement.
Hassan Askari, for his part, stressed that the strengthening of trust must be reciprocal.
“Just like Rana Sanaullah makes a demand, PTI also has certain demands. Both sides need to compromise rather than expecting the other to act without offering anything in return,” he said. “Trust building happens on a reciprocal basis.”
As debate continues over the deadlock in dialogue, attention has also turned to whether Nawaz Sharif could play a more active role – an idea floated by Mehmood Khan Achakzai and other PML-N figures.
Mazhar Abbas noted that Achakzai enjoys direct access to Nawaz Sharif and the former prime minister could take the initiative. Given their cordial relations, Sharif’s involvement could help open channels between the government and the opposition.
Hassan Askari, however, urged caution, saying it was premature to speculate on Nawaz Sharif’s role. According to him, those with real power must first align themselves. Without an agreement between the prime minister and the army chief, he said, dialogue would remain elusive.
Similar questions have been raised about President Zardari’s potential role in breaking the impasse. Abbas observed that Zardari could not act independently and that his involvement would depend on a broader agreement between the government and the opposition.
Askari concurred, saying the president held no autonomous authority in this regard. The real influence, he argued, lies with the prime minister, the establishment and Imran Khan – and until these three see eye to eye, meaningful dialogue will remain out of reach.
Seen in this light, the prospects for flexibility on the part of the establishment seem limited. Mazhar Abbas noted that the establishment continues to maintain a hard line on PTI, Afghanistan and terrorism-related issues, leaving little room for immediate accommodation.
Hassan Askari agreed, concluding that dialogue would only become possible when stakeholders prioritize engagement over confrontation, take reciprocal action and move beyond deep-rooted grievances. In the meantime, Pakistan, he says, remains stuck in a political vacuum.
