A case for dialogue … Junaid Zahid
A key lesson in diplomacy and politics is the importance of resolving issues through dialogue. Sitting down together to find common ground for the greater good is an essential approach. If long-standing rivals can work out agreements, why can’t political parties in Pakistan do the same?
In Pakistan, political polarisation is extreme. Regardless of the party – whether PML-N, PPP, or PTI – they see each other not just as opponents but as threats. This has led to such deep divisions that they are unable to come together to address the country’s political instability. Instead of focusing on crucial issues like economic stability, bureaucratic reforms, electoral reforms, and national development, each party is more concerned with humiliating and discrediting its rivals.
What’s more troubling is how this polarization has seeped into the public, with party followers becoming increasingly aggressive in their loyalty. This deepening division between leaders, parties, and the public only fuels further animosity between political rivals.
The role of parliament and the judiciary in Pakistan is not viewed as noble or productive. The absence of a third party to mediate dialogue is another major factor contributing to the deadlock. International organisations or friendly mediators often step in to resolve international conflicts, as seen in negotiations between the US and the Taliban, where both sides were able to save face. In Pakistan, the lack of a credible mediator is glaring. Parliament often serves as a battleground for politicians, while the judiciary is seen through a partisan lens due to accusations of bias. Without a trustworthy institution to mediate, it seems unlikely that politicians will sit together to find a solution.
The barriers to political dialogue in Pakistan stem largely from the behaviour of the political elite. When political compromise is seen as a weakness, and a zero-sum game dominates politics, it becomes difficult to bring politicians to the table. In Pakistan, an authoritarian approach pervades every aspect of politics, making it hard to reach out to opponents without appearing desperate or weak to one’s supporters.
The positioning of former prime minister Imran Khan as a messiah against corruption is a prime example. He branded his political rivals as financially corrupt and morally bankrupt. In such a scenario, with such rigid stances, breakthroughs in dialogue are nearly impossible. Similarly, the political elites of PML-N and PPP have adopted confrontational positions, leaving little room for negotiation or collaboration.
Internationally, leaders like the late Nelson Mandela have set aside decades of enmity and hardship for the sake of national unity and progress. In contrast, Pakistan’s political leaders often appear more concerned with protecting their own interests and legacy rather than working toward long-term stability and development for the country.
A major obstacle to dialogue among Pakistan’s political parties is lack of trust. Political leaders frequently accuse each other of corruption, treason, or worse, making it difficult to engage in talks in good faith. When accusations are so deeply ingrained, it becomes nearly impossible to build the trust needed to initiate dialogue.
This trust deficit is exacerbated by the fear of accountability. Leaders often hesitate to engage in dialogue due to the potential political fallout – any compromise could be seen as capitulation, and in the charged atmosphere, it could lead to legal or political repercussions. The threat of being held accountable for past actions, whether through corruption investigations or public backlash, makes politicians more reluctant to pursue meaningful negotiations.
In contrast, international negotiations, even between historical enemies, often involve some form of immunity or amnesty for past actions, which helps mitigate this fear. For instance, during the US-Taliban talks, both sides came to the table after years of conflict, with concessions made to ensure the continuation of peace discussions. Without a similar mechanism or understanding in Pakistan’s political system, meaningful dialogue remains elusive.
On the international stage, the stakes are often more urgent and existential. For the US, resolving the conflict with the Taliban was crucial for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, reducing financial and human costs, and maintaining its geopolitical position. For Iran and Saudi Arabia, normalising relations had significant regional and global implications, including the reduction of sectarian violence and fostering economic cooperation.
In Pakistan, however, political crises often do not carry the same sense of urgency, at least from the perspective of the political elite. Economic crises, while severe, are sometimes seen as manageable with external support (for example, from the IMF or friendly countries). Therefore, political leaders may not feel the same pressure to engage in dialogue to resolve issues. This complacency can lead to prolonged political deadlock, as leaders hope to ride out the crisis rather than actively work to fix it.
If adversaries like the US and the Taliban, or Iran and Saudi Arabia, can overcome ideological, religious, and historical enmities to sit together, Pakistan’s political leaders should certainly be able to do the same. These international examples teach us that at the heart of any conflict resolution effort is the recognition of mutual benefit. Both sides understand that dialogue is not merely an option but a necessity for survival and progress.
Pakistan’s political leadership can take valuable lessons from these international negotiations. For example, necessity of dialogue: political parties must realise that sitting together is not a sign of weakness but a strategic step toward national progress. Institutional mechanisms: strong, neutral institutions can mediate and guide negotiations, helping to reduce personal conflicts. Compromise for the greater good: leaders must set aside personal and party interests for the nation’s greater good, especially in times of economic and political crisis.
While international conflicts may seem larger in scope, the principles guiding conflict resolution on the global stage – compromise, dialogue, and pragmatism – are equally applicable in domestic politics. If adversaries with far more at stake can find a path forward, there is no reason Pakistan’s political elite cannot sit together and resolve their differences for the nation’s future. The country is at a crossroads, and political leaders must rise above their divisions to lead Pakistan towards stability, prosperity, and unity.
Courtesy 