Despite building its political narrative on constitutional democracy, the PTI’s fluctuating stance on the military’s role in Pakistan points to inconsistencies that undermine its claims of principled politics.
This disconnect is most apparent in Imran Khan himself, whose U-turns on the role of the military in civilian affairs have perplexed observers.
While prime minister, Khan publicly endorsed a harmonious relationship with the military, praising the institution for being “on the same page” with his government. The bonhomie ended with his ouster in April 2022. Accusing the military of facilitating a “regime change conspiracy,” he implied collusion between alleged foreign interference and the military establishment. This dramatic pivot raised eyebrows, contradicting his earlier accolades for the institution.
The former prime minister’s incarceration in August 2023 saw the inconsistencies multiply. Before his arrest, he alleged the military, under Gen. Asim Munir, orchestrated a campaign to dismantle the PTI and silence him politically. Post-incarceration, his diatribes fluctuated between antagonism and calls for dialogue. After multiple failed attempts to initiate negotiations with the military, Khan repeatedly declared there would be “no talks with the military,” maintaining such overtures are contrary to democratic principles. This “principled stance” quickly evaporated. This week, he praised a meeting between PTI Chairman Gohar Ali Khan and Gen. Munir, describing it as a “positive” development. The endorsement underscores the opportunism that has marred Khan’s recent political strategy, reflecting a willingness to shape narratives based on political expediency rather than steadfast principles.
There is no denying the significant role played by the military in Pakistan’s political spheres. It has ruled the country for roughly half its existence, often utilizing brutal measures to stamp out dissent. Most parties—notably both the PPP and PMLN—have accepted this and suffered a loss of public support. The PTI, however, projects itself as a better alternative.
Khan’s supporters argue his ever-shifting views are an asset, pointing to rival PMLN’s equally confused politics as providing a blueprint for political survival in an increasingly polarized environment. The rub is that the resorting to its opposition’s tactics merely positions the PTI as more of the same.
If the PTI wishes to remain a credible force in Pakistani politics, and position itself as an alternate to its “compromised” opponents, it must adopt a consistent and principled approach to civil-military relations. The shifting narratives and blatant contradictions only serve to weaken public trust and exacerbate political polarization.
Pakistan deserves leaders who prioritize the nation’s stability over rhetoric that secures them a seat in power—but does little to address the core issues plaguing the country.