Recent developments in Pakistan’s political landscape have seen the controversial removal of a major political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), from the National Assembly (NA) records. This move, executed through administrative maneuvering, appears to be driven by the current government’s desire to consolidate power and regain a two-thirds majority in the Lower House. However, Pakistan’s political history provides ample evidence that such strategies of marginalizing popular political entities rarely succeed in undermining their public support.
The exclusion of PTI from the National Assembly was formalized through an updated list of party positions in the assembly, which categorized 80 of its lawmakers under the Sunni Ittehad Council and reclassified eight others as ‘independents.’ This abrupt and unilateral change disregards prior notifications from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), which had formally recognized several dozen lawmakers as PTI members. Additionally, the move disregards a Supreme Court ruling related to reserved seats for women and minorities, which upheld PTI’s parliamentary presence.
One of the key figures behind this controversial decision is NA Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, who, in a letter, claimed that no lawmakers elected as ‘independent’ could now join PTI due to the expiration of the period allowed for declaring party affiliations. While this legal pretext is used to justify the decision, the larger motive appears to be political, aimed at weakening PTI’s influence in the legislature.
Historically, attempts to erase popular political parties have often backfired, as the loyalty and support of the electorate cannot be easily erased through administrative or legal machinations. This is evident from past instances where political parties facing similar restrictions managed to retain public support and later reclaim power. For example, under the rule of military dictator Ayub Khan, political parties like the Awami League and the National Awami Party were sidelined through the controversial Elected Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO). Despite being pushed out of the political field, these parties maintained popular backing, reflecting their grassroots appeal.
Another example is the case of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which faced efforts by the regime of Gen Ziaul Haq to undermine its political standing by depriving it of its electoral symbol. However, despite these efforts, the PPP went on to win the 1988 elections, cementing its place as a key player in Pakistan’s political history.
Similarly, in the case of PTI, this administrative attempt to remove it from the parliamentary record does little to erase the fact that millions of Pakistanis voted for the party in the last general elections. PTI’s political legitimacy remains intact, despite efforts by the current government to sideline the party. The party’s popularity, cemented through its voter base, cannot be erased by simply manipulating parliamentary records or imposing restrictions.
While the government may succeed in reshaping the parliamentary arithmetic temporarily, it cannot easily claim the mandate that was given to PTI in the last election. The ruling party must consider that these actions are not a substitute for genuine public support. If history is any guide, suppressing political parties through undemocratic means only serves to deepen political divides and foster instability in the long run. The government must reconsider its actions and allow for democratic processes to take their course, ensuring that the will of the people is respected.
