The recent meeting between Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, Information Adviser Barrister Saif, and PTI founder Imran Khan at Adiala Jail has once again sparked speculation about the PTI’s backchannel engagement with the establishment. Reports suggest that Gandapur and Saif have been given the mandate to negotiate on the party’s behalf, though PTI’s Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram has denied such claims. These rumours are not without precedent. Similar discussions arose after a January meeting involving COAS General Asim Munir, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar, and Gandapur—though official sources maintained the talks were limited to security matters.

Since Imran Khan’s ouster via a no-confidence vote in April 2022, the PTI has struggled to maintain political relevance amid accusations of backdoor dealings and a confrontational approach. Despite the party’s claims of independence, there has been a pattern of relying on street agitation rather than democratic dialogue. The violent events of May 9 and the November protests further alienated the party from powerful quarters and eroded public sympathy. Now, as its options narrow and internal divisions plague the opposition alliance, the PTI seems to be reconsidering its strategy.

Yet, the underlying problem is not limited to the PTI alone. Pakistan’s broader democratic dysfunction stems from the tendency of political parties to seek support from unelected institutions rather than resolve issues through democratic engagement. The Charter of Democracy (CoD), signed by the PPP and PML-N in 2006, was a historic step that led to more stable transitions and reduced interference. Despite rivalry, both parties upheld democratic norms between 2008 and 2013, even supporting each other in times of political crises—something the PTI failed to appreciate or emulate.

If the PTI is truly committed to democratic stability, it must move away from seeking shortcuts and reengage with the political process in good faith. The collapse of government-PTI negotiations in early 2025 reflects the high cost of bypassing dialogue. By placing trust in unelected arbiters, political parties reinforce a hybrid system that undermines parliamentary supremacy and democratic continuity.

The road to stability lies not in palace intrigues but in political consensus. Pakistan’s future depends on its leaders’ ability to rise above personal vendettas and ideological rigidity. The PTI, along with other parties, must reorient its strategy towards institutional reform, coalition-building, and meaningful dialogue. Only then can Pakistan hope to escape the cycle of instability and build a democracy that serves its people, not just its power players.