The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s decision to skip a security briefing amidst resurgent terrorism does little more than reinforce the perception that the party lacks any regard for national security.
Pakistan is once more in the crosshairs of terrorists, particularly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, which share borders with Afghanistan. The mounting internal and external security challenges require all political forces to—at least temporarily—set aside differences and present a united front. Regrettably, the PTI has continued its longstanding policy of petty political bickering superseding the national interest.
Whether in opposition or government, the PTI has avoided participation in national conversations, often playing spoiler at critical junctures. In 2019, while prime minister, Imran Khan refused to attend a security briefing on Pak-India ties amid heightened tensions following the Pulwama attack and Balakot airstrikes. Similarly, in 2021, the PTI-led government inked a ceasefire agreement with the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan without taking Parliament into confidence. Both times, Khan defended his decision by claiming he did not wish to “sit with crooks.” By contrast, the party refused to attend this week’s briefing because the “crooks” did not grant Khan parole to sit with them. Rather than rebutting allegations of acting against the national interest, the party isolated itself when engaging in dialogue could have strengthened it—particularly with the security establishment.
Ties between the PTI and the establishment have yet to recover from the May 9, 2023 riots. Multiple attempts at rapprochement have collapsed, with the party resorting to an increasingly combative stance to sustain its popular support. The security briefing provided an opportunity to start mending fences, demonstrating the PTI remains a responsible national political force willing to put Pakistan’s security above personal grievances. In refusing to attend, the PTI has only deepened the chasm.
The decision also raises questions about the party’s decision-making. It had initially agreed to attend the briefing but reneged under pressure from social media. The party has become a prisoner of its own online base, reluctant to take any steps that could invite backlash. However, leading a national party often requires difficult but necessary decisions—even if they prove unpopular.
The PTI’s boycott coveys the message that for the party national security is collateral damage in political battles. As a national force, the party must recognize that true leadership means participating in critical national conversations, potentially shaping their direction for the better, rather than sidelining itself and leaving an open field for its political opponents.