akistan’s political crisis is no longer defined by ideological disagreement but by a preference for sustained chaos that has replaced dialogue with disruption. Despite repeated calls for talks and offers of engagement by the government, a credible political process has failed to materialise. This can be blamed largely on an opposition strategy that treats confrontation as principle and agitation as leverage. The resulting deadlock has deepened polarisation, paralysed governance and increased mistrust at every level of the political system.

Pakistan is going through a fragile economic recovery, regional uncertainty and internal security challenges so that political stability is a national imperative. The ruling coalition has consistently maintained that all political dialogue must take place within the framework of parliament and the rule of law. It has also drawn a clear red line: negotiations cannot be conducted under the threat of street pressure or institutional delegitimisation. The dominant opposition has interpreted this position as inflexibility hiding behind the rhetoric of statecraft.

Contrary to the narrative promoted by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, political engagement has not been absent. What has been missing is a credible commitment to dialogue as a process rather than a tactic. While the government has signalled openness to talks through parliamentary and political channels, the PTI has repeatedly chosen mobilisation over negotiation. Talks, when mentioned, are framed as instruments of pressure rather than mechanisms for resolution.

This approach has ensured that trust remains elusive. Fruitful negotiation requires consistency, empowered interlocutors and willingness to compromise. Instead, the PTI strategy has been one of escalating rhetoric, public ultimatums and protest politics designed to extract concessions rather than build consensus. Such an environment can predispose dialogue to be performative, not productive.

Criticism of PTI’s confrontational posture has not been confined to the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)-led government. Senior leaders of the Pakistan Peoples Party, have repeatedly cautioned against the dangers of prolonged political deadlock.

Former federal minister Qamar Zaman Kaira has stressed that democratic systems function through disagreement managed by dialogue, not through paralysis induced by permanent confrontation. Political conflict, he says, is natural; political sabotage is not. Nadeem Afzal Chan has cautioned that personality-focused agitation tends to transform political disputes into existential crises that weaken institutions. Their position underscores the fact that even within the opposition, there is a view that PTI’s strategy of confrontation is not just hurting the government, but also harming the political system.

At the heart of the deadlock lies PTI’s refusal to normalise parliamentary politics. The party’s political identity has become inseparable from continuous agitation centred on its leader Imran Khan’s narrative of personal grievance. Compromise is thus portrayed as betrayal; institutional engagement as surrender; and attempts at consensus building as admission of defeat.

Even from within the PTI doubts have been voiced about the sustainability of this approach. Fawad Chaudhry, the former federal minister, has spoken of the need to lower the political temperature and move toward reciprocal restraint. However, such voices remain peripheral in the party and are often drowned out by a leadership structure that rewards escalation and zero-sum thinking.

Contrary to the narrative promoted by some PTI leaders, political engagement has not been absent. What has been missing is a credible commitment to dialogue as a process rather than a tactic.

The consequence is a political culture where moderation is marginalised and maximalism dominates. This has not only isolated the PTI but is also perpetuating a cycle in which confrontation becomes an end in itself.

The government, for its part has insisted that dialogue cannot coexist with disorder. No government—democratic or otherwise— it says can negotiate effectively when faced with sustained attempts to undermine institutions through street power and delegitimising narratives.

Journalist Hamid Mir captured the depth of the current impasse with striking clarity when he said, “President Zardari is not prepared at this point for reconciliation with Imran Khan. Khan himself is also not prepared for reconciliation with the president and the prime minister.” Political differences are acceptable in a democracy; turning them into enmity is a national misfortune.

“The government and opposition should learn from the situation in Venezuela,” says Chan. The comparison is instructive. Countries where politics becomes permanently polarised experience institutional exhaustion, economic stagnation and democratic decay. Leaders of the incumbent government of Pakistan, conscious of the risks, have chosen containment over capitulation.

PTI’s politics of confrontation has exerted sustained pressure on state institutions. Its refusal to concede electoral legitimacy to the government has normalised a discourse of delegitimisation.

Journalist Suhail Warraich has observed that Pakistan’s political crises are frequently driven less by ideology than by leadership-centred conflict so that personal narratives overwhelm institutional processes. Such politics, he has noted, leaves little room for compromise and turns every disagreement into a zero-sum battle.

Journalist Najam Sethi has warned that sustained political polarisation now poses a greater threat to national stability than external pressures.

The cost of a sustained deadlock is no longer a far-fetched concern. Parliamentary productivity has declined, legislative continuity has suffered and policymaking has been repeatedly disrupted. Economic management, already under pressure, is struggling to maintain momentum amid political uncertainty.

Even more damaging is the erosion of public confidence. Citizens suffering on account of rampant unemployment and service delivery failures have little tolerance for endless political theatre. Every cycle of agitation deepens cynicism and distances the public from democratic participation.

When political conflict becomes perpetual, governance becomes episodic.

Dialogue is not a mere slogan; it is a discipline. It requires restraint, clarity and respect for institutional boundaries. The government has signalled its willingness to engage within certain parameters. The PTI, however, continues to prioritise mobilisation over mediation and confrontation over compromise.

Until this strategic calculus changes, dialogue will remain elusive—not because it is unavailable, but because it is undesired.

Pakistan cannot afford a political culture where chaos is marketed as resistance and disruption is mistaken for leadership. Dialogue demands restraint, not street ultimatums; democracy cannot be sustained on perpetual agitation.

The government has apparently chosen stability over spectacle. The PTI has clearly chosen confrontation over the available consensus. Until politics moves beyond the chaos and, the cost of polarisation will continue to be paid not just by political actors, but also by the state and by the people.

The writer is an award-winning investigative journalist and the editor-in-chief of The Scoop, a digital plaform. He can be reached on X @HassanNaqvi5