(Arshad Aziz Malik)
In recent months, the political landscape of Pakistan has witnessed a significant and, at times, bewildering shift. At the center of this shift is Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), a party that once presented itself as the vanguard of public change under the charismatic leadership of Imran Khan. Today, however, the party seems to have undergone a transformation that has raised profound questions about its internal democracy, the role of its leadership, and its impact on governance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). As a senior journalist closely observing these developments, it is increasingly clear that PTI has, in many ways, “minused” Imran Khan from its political trajectory, leaving both the party and the people it claims to serve at a crossroads.
To understand this phenomenon, one must first examine the internal dynamics of PTI. During the tenure of Ali Amin Gandapur, the party’s approach was characterized by a structured adherence to the directions set by its leader, Imran Khan. Protests, political rallies, and long marches were carefully planned and communicated, reflecting the centralized vision of the party. Ali Amin would personally meet Imran Khan, take instructions, and execute strategies accordingly. These were tangible demonstrations of loyalty and alignment with the party’s core leadership. Yet, in a dramatic reversal, the current leadership under Sohail Afridi has adopted a markedly different posture. The once-centralized decision-making has fragmented, leaving influential figures like Mehmood Khan, Achakzai, and Allama Raja Nasir at the helm of party affairs, seemingly independent of the founder’s directives.
This shift has profound implications. When asked about the party’s plans for a long march or protest, even the Chief Minister of PTI, Sohail Afridi, deflects responsibility, stating that such matters now lie with Achakzai and Akrama Raja. The result is a party in which Imran Khan, the very figure around whom PTI was built, has been sidelined. Decisions that once flowed from the top are now filtered through a select few, whose loyalty to the party’s founding vision is questionable. Political committees have been reshaped, with membership drastically reduced from 44 to 23, effectively marginalizing those who were active under the previous leadership. The internal message is unmistakable: Imran Khan’s influence has been diluted, his directives minimized, and his leadership reduced to a symbolic role.
The consequences of this internal restructuring are evident in the party’s public performance. Protests and rallies, once the lifeblood of PTI’s mobilization, now appear to be largely ceremonial. Recent demonstrations, such as the Peshawar rally, drew only around 4,000 participants a fraction of the fervor that once characterized PTI’s gatherings. Such numbers hardly create pressure on the government or establishment, leading observers to question the efficacy of these activities. Political analysts and party insiders alike are expressing concern over the party’s direction. The sincere workers of PTI, those who once believed in the transformative vision of Imran Khan, now find themselves caught between loyalty to the founder and the decisions of the current leadership, who appear to prioritize political convenience over ideological consistency.
This internal crisis is compounded by the party’s relationship with the state. The events of May 9, 2023, serve as a stark reminder of the consequences when public mobilization clashes with state authority. The aftermath has created a climate of fear, making it increasingly difficult to rally mass support. Those advocating for negotiation and strategic alignment have been sidelined, while the party’s rhetoric oscillates between anti-establishment posturing and cautious compliance. The result is a leadership that is not fully committed to its stated objectives, leaving the public unsure of PTI’s direction and diminishing its credibility as a political force.
While the political dynamics within PTI are critical, the governance of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa offers a sobering view of the consequences of leadership failures. Governance in KP has long been touted as a model for other provinces, yet a closer examination reveals systemic inefficiencies that have deeply affected public services, particularly in health and education. Hospitals in KP, including major institutions in Peshawar, are in a state of crisis. Patients frequently find themselves without beds, lying on floors, or waiting for hours without receiving proper care. Intensive care units are critically under-resourced, with only 12 ICU beds available in each hospital and a mere six designated for surgical needs. The situation is exacerbated by the high influx of patients from rural areas and Afghan migrants, further straining the already overwhelmed facilities.
The introduction of the Medical Teaching Institution (MTI) system, intended as a reform, has failed to deliver the promised improvements. Instead, hospitals have been flooded, staff are overburdened, and resources are mismanaged. Reports indicate that despite receiving substantial funding from the federal government, development grants, and health insurance contributions, hospitals remain under-equipped and mismanaged. The public, understandably frustrated, bears the brunt of these failures. When the Chief Minister personally visited hospitals and witnessed the dire conditions, he issued orders to remove incompetent administrators, yet systemic issues persist. These failures underscore a troubling pattern: financial resources exist, yet governance mechanisms fail to translate these into tangible improvements for citizens.
Education in KP mirrors the crises evident in healthcare. Universities, including the University of Peshawar, face chronic underfunding, resulting in delayed salaries, unpaid pensions, and a lack of basic facilities for both students and faculty. The rapid expansion of higher education institutions from a few central universities to 36 institutions has not been accompanied by adequate planning, faculty recruitment, or curriculum modernization. Students are often left with outdated syllabi that do not align with global trends in technology, cybersecurity, or artificial intelligence. The result is a generation inadequately prepared for modern challenges, increasing unemployment and diminishing prospects for social mobility. The vision of creating institutions that transform lives has not materialized, reflecting a failure in both planning and execution.
This dual crisis political instability within PTI and governance failures in KP highlights a critical lesson: leadership matters. Political parties and governments alike must balance the imperative of mobilizing support with the responsibility of delivering services. PTI, which rose to prominence promising change and accountability, now risks eroding the trust of its own supporters. Meanwhile, KP’s citizens continue to suffer from inefficiencies that could be addressed with strategic planning, better resource allocation, and genuine political will.
Rebuilding credibility requires both introspection and action. For PTI, this means reassessing the internal hierarchy to restore the guiding influence of its founder and ensure that decisions align with the party’s core principles. Political committees must be inclusive, transparent, and accountable. For governance in KP, it requires immediate intervention to upgrade hospitals, streamline MTI implementation, and modernize universities with curricula relevant to contemporary challenges. Public services must not be subordinated to political theater; citizens deserve healthcare and education as a basic right, not as a privilege.
The situation also calls for a broader reflection on political culture in Pakistan. Parties often oscillate between populist rhetoric and bureaucratic compliance, leaving ordinary citizens uncertain about where real change lies. PTI’s experience is illustrative: without coherent leadership and a commitment to governance, political mobilization alone cannot achieve transformative outcomes. Mass rallies, slogans, and public posturing must be complemented by tangible improvements in public services and institutional accountability. Otherwise, the political energy of the party dissipates, leaving only dissatisfaction and cynicism among its base.
In conclusion, the current state of PTI and KP governance presents both a cautionary tale and an opportunity. Political parties must recognize that sidelining foundational leadership erodes internal cohesion and public trust. Imran Khan’s reduced influence within PTI signals a need for reflection and course correction to restore credibility and purpose. At the same time, the governance crises in health and education demand urgent, systematic interventions that prioritize efficiency, accountability, and modernization. The citizens of KP deserve hospitals that save lives, universities that empower, and political leadership that upholds promises rather than perpetuates uncertainty.
If these challenges are addressed with vision and determination, there remains hope for PTI to reclaim its ideological coherence and for KP to realize its potential as a model province. Failing to act, however, risks prolonging both political fragmentation and public suffering. It is a moment that calls for clarity of purpose, courageous decision-making, and a renewed commitment to the principles that initially inspired support for both the party and the province. The time for introspection has passed; what remains is action.
