Asif Mahmood 

Maulana Fazlur Rehman claims that no government can be formed without JUI-F and that even if a government is formed without his party, it cannot function. The question is how far this claim reflects reality. Does Maulana’s party command such a large vote bank across all four provinces that no government can be formed without it? Is he such a popular political leader, with so many seats in the National Assembly, that no government can survive without his support?

The reality is that JUI-F is not a party with a nationwide electoral presence. Its influence is largely confined to two provinces, and even there, it is limited to a handful of districts. Outside these areas, the party has little electoral strength. It is not merely that it cannot win seats elsewhere; it is barely capable of securing a significant number of votes. It has never won a National Assembly seat in Punjab, and the situation in Sindh is almost the same. In Balochistan, its representation is limited to a seat or two, while in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, its electoral strength is concentrated in a few districts.

At most, one could describe JUI-F as a party with a presence in a few districts of two provinces. How, then, can a party with such a limited vote bank claim that no government can be formed without it, or that any government formed without its participation cannot function?

There is another aspect to consider. Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s party does not have a broad-based popular vote bank. The ordinary voter is hardly the focus of its politics. In practice, JUI-F largely represents a particular school of religious thought. Yet even within that school of thought, it is not the only political representative. There are several other political shades and currents within the same religious tradition.

So here is a party that does not have a presence across all four provinces, is not a national party in the electoral sense, and is confined to a few districts in two provinces. Even in those districts, its appeal is largely limited to one school of religious thought, of which it is not the sole representative. How can such a party claim that no government can be formed without it and that any government formed without it cannot function?

If JUI-F had a substantial vote bank and Maulana had not merely two, three or four, but a dozen or more members in the National Assembly, his claim might be understandable. But that is not the case. What, then, is the source of the power on which Maulana bases his assertion that no government can be formed without his party and that any government formed without it cannot survive?

There may be no clear answer, but one thing appears increasingly evident: whenever Maulana is not part of the government, he comes forward with an aggressive political narrative that creates difficulties for those in power.

This narrative can take different forms. During the Kargil controversy, Maulana described Nawaz Sharif as having committed a gunah-e-kabira, or a major sin. When Benazir Bhutto’s government became the subject of political confrontation, her government was declared illegal. More recently, the issue of critical minerals has been raised. At other times, the narrative of American subservience has come to the fore.

The impression is that Maulana is effectively saying that if his party is not included in the government, he will build such a forceful narrative against it that the government will be unable to withstand the pressure. In other words, either make us part of the government or be prepared to face the narrative we will bring against you.

Such a narrative can, of course, put governments in considerable difficulty. It does not necessarily have to be correct to create political problems. This has happened in the past, and it is happening now as well.

Whether this should be called political wisdom and acumen or political blackmail is difficult to say. But there seems to be no other way to interpret Maulana’s statement. We do not see any other source of strength in JUI-F that would explain its claim that no government can be formed without it, or that a government formed without it cannot function.

The only explanation that seems apparent is that if Maulana’s party is not made part of the government, it can build such a narrative against the government that those in power may find themselves in serious trouble.