With the political temperature easing somewhat, and both treasury and opposition benches signalling a renewed openness to dialogue, there appears to be a modest but meaningful opportunity for political normalisation. In this context, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s reported consideration of a return to formal parliamentary politics is a welcome development. Re-engagement would not be a bad move, particularly at a time when even limited openings for consensus-building are rare and valuable. If participation in parliamentary committees can help restore a degree of institutional functionality, the PTI should be encouraged to take that step.
There are indications that such a return would be met positively. An informed source in the National Assembly Secretariat has conveyed that Speaker Ayaz Sadiq is supportive of the idea and has actively encouraged the PTI to rejoin parliamentary committees, assuring the party that its participation would be welcomed. This willingness from the Speaker’s office represents a constructive gesture and suggests that at least some space exists for bridging the current political divide. It also underscores the fact that parliamentary forums remain among the few arenas where meaningful political engagement is still possible.
However, as has so often been the case, the PTI’s ability to act remains constrained by its complete dependence on the wishes of its incarcerated founder, former prime minister Imran Khan. With Mr Khan reportedly incommunicado for weeks, it is unlikely that the party will arrive at a decision anytime soon. This paralysis highlights a deeper structural problem within the PTI: the absence of an autonomous decision-making mechanism capable of functioning when its leader is cut off from direct communication.
That every major political decision continues to hinge on Mr Khan’s approval remains a significant stumbling block. While the party cannot be faulted for insisting that family members, lawyers and political colleagues be allowed to meet its jailed leader—a demand rooted in both legal rights and basic political fairness—it is equally true that the PTI should by now have developed the capacity to adapt. Instead, the party appears to lapse into inertia whenever Mr Khan’s access to the outside world is restricted, leaving it unable to respond to changing political realities.
Reports suggest that much of the current PTI leadership recognises the necessity of returning to parliamentary committees and understands that engagement from within the system could serve the party’s political objectives more effectively than continued abstention. Participation would offer the PTI a platform to influence legislation, scrutinise government actions and remain visible in national politics—advantages it forfeits by remaining on the sidelines. Yet even leaders who favour this course find themselves unable to move forward without first securing Mr Khan’s endorsement, which in turn depends on the government permitting a meeting.
In this regard, the government could consider restoring Mr Khan’s access as a confidence-building measure, particularly if it wishes to encourage political normalisation. At the same time, the responsibility does not lie with the state alone. The PTI must demonstrate greater flexibility and institutional maturity if it hopes to remain relevant in the political process. Re-engaging with parliamentary committees would not signal surrender or compromise on principles; rather, it would reflect a pragmatic recognition that politics, ultimately, must be conducted within the institutions designed for it.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
