The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and its founding chairman, Imran Khan, are continuing a perplexing and inconsistent stance regarding dialogues with Pakistan’s military establishment, furthering internal rifts that undermine the party’s sincerity to democratic rule.
Since his ouster in April 2022, Khan has vacillated between deriding any contact with the establishment and demanding the same. In February 2023, he admitted that he had met former Army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa after his ouster—though he had previously denied the same at various public gatherings, accusing Bajwa of “betraying” the PTI. By August 2024, while incarcerated, Khan stated he had no contact with the establishment and would only consider discussions if they served the national interest. A month later, in September 2024, Khan had “closed the doors” on any talks with the establishment. This claim lasted till November, when Khan okayed talks with the establishment “on the PTI’s terms.”
The next attempt to engage the establishment came amidst talks between the PTI and the PMLN-led government, with the party demanding the military join the negotiations. A negative reply prompted the PTI to pull out of those talks. In February 2025, PTI KP President said there would be no further discussions with state institutions prior to future protests, with Khan supporting his statements. However, the situation became murky once more this month, with reports emerging that Khan had directed KP Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and PTI leader Azam Swati to “negotiate” with the establishment.
The official party line remains that any talks are solely in the national interest and do not constitute any deal. Yet the ongoing back-and-forth, coinciding with looming court rulings or hearings, suggests that irrespective of public denials the party acknowledges that any meaningful negotiations inherently involve some form of “deal.” This pattern of initiating dialogue, setting stringent conditions, and then withdrawing when expectations are unmet reflects a lack of coherent strategy.
For the PTI to effectively advocate for its leaders and maintain the trust of its supporters, it must adopt a clear and consistent narrative. Ambiguity and contradictory statements only serve to erode the party’s credibility and hinder its ability to negotiate effectively.
A transparent approach, acknowledging the complexities of political negotiations and the necessity of compromise, will better serve PTI’s objectives—and may even see Khan’s release from prison sooner rather than later.