Asif Mahmood
The day the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sohail Afridi, was addressing rows of empty chairs in Azad Kashmir, the Punjab government was busy launching three new development projects. The contrast could not be starker. It raises a fundamental question: does the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government ever feel accountable for its performance?
A political party, especially one in power, is expected to remain constantly conscious of its governance record. Yet, the case of PTI presents a curious and troubling exception. It appears remarkably detached from the very idea of performance. In Punjab, the government seems to be moving, initiating projects, rolling out development schemes, and focusing on public welfare. Whether it is sanitation drives, infrastructure initiatives, or public service delivery, there is at least a visible attempt to govern.
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, however, the picture appears alarmingly different. The Chief Minister seems less concerned with governing his province and more invested in political theatrics across the country. One day he is in Lahore, another day in Islamabad leading charged demonstrations, then outside Adiala Jail, and at times addressing gatherings in Azad Kashmir. What remains consistently absent is a coherent governance agenda for his own province
There appears to be no clear roadmap, no structured planning, and no compelling vision of governance. At times, the conduct of the provincial leadership gives the impression of inexperience and a lack of seriousness, as if those entrusted with responsibility are still unsure of how to exercise it. This sense of administrative drift is not just disappointing, it is deeply concerning.
If anything, a responsible provincial government should be striving to compete on performance. It should be benchmarking itself against other provinces, particularly Punjab, where governance, at least in form, appears to be active and ongoing. Instead, what we witness in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is a reliance on rhetoric, emotional sloganeering, and the mobilisation of political sentiment rather than tangible results.
PTI is, after all, a political party with an established organisational structure. If it wishes to engage in political mobilisation, it should do so through its party machinery. Public rallies and political campaigns are legitimate, but they should not become the primary occupation of a sitting Chief Minister. Nor should the burden of political mobilisation fall disproportionately on someone holding a constitutional office.
This also raises serious ethical concerns. Public office is a trust, not a tool for political advantage.
Governance demands a shift in mindset. Once in office, a leader no longer represents a party alone, but the entire population of the province. The responsibility is to deliver, to govern, and to improve lives, not merely to continue opposition-style politics from within the corridors of power.
What makes this situation even more paradoxical is that PTI, despite being in government, continues to operate as if it were still in opposition. The slogans remain the same, the tone unchanged, and the emphasis still on agitation rather than administration. It is as though the transition from protest to governance has never truly taken place.
If there are still voices of reason within PTI, they must begin to ask difficult but necessary questions. What is the government’s performance? What has been delivered to the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? And most importantly, how long can rhetoric substitute for governance?